MAKE CHAPTER 288 YOUR AVIATION HOME! E-AB, TYPE CERTIFIED, VINTAGE, WARBIRD, ETC.
Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
MAKE CHAPTER 288 YOUR AVIATION HOME! E-AB, TYPE CERTIFIED, VINTAGE, WARBIRD, ETC.
Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Dreams for a GA license plate in Florida started more than a year ago after local pilots Joseph Hurtuk and Dr. Ian Goldbaum connected over their shared interest in aviation. Knowing how significantly the GA industry contributes to the Florida economy, the two wanted to find a way to recognize the impact of this industry and give back to continue to grow the pilot population in the state.
They landed on a Support General Aviation specialty license plate and brought in pilot Richard Golightly to design it. “It tells a story of supporting not just aviation, but general aviation,” said Hurtuk of the design by Golightly that depicts a scene of airplanes taking off and landing around a control tower with a blue-sky backdrop.
The specialty plate will help fund aviation education scholarships for Floridians managed through the Aerospace Center for Excellence in Lakeland.
Integral to legislative efforts to pass the plate through the House and Senate were AOPA Southern Regional Manager Stacey Heaton, state Rep. Doug Bankson (R-District 39) and his office, and state Sen. Gayle Harrell (R-District 83) and her office. Thanks to their collaboration with Hurtuk, Goldbaum, and Golightly, the plate has passed through the Florida legislature and is headed to the governor’s desk for signature—which is eagerly anticipated by the end of the month.
“Special thanks go to Representative Bankson and Senator Harrell,” said Heaton. “The representative’s own passion for aviation and the senator’s recognition of our members' passion for aviation made this effort possible.”
Once signed, coordination with the state to get these plates to the public begins. Pre-sales for the plate are slated to begin October 1, and 3,000 sales are required before a single unit can be produced
.
Written by AOPA:
Communications Specialist: Communications Specialist Lillian Geil is a student pilot and a graduate of Columbia University who joined AOPA in 2021.
NOTE: TIMES LISTED ARE CENTRAL TIME ZONE
Simplifying Weather Radar with GWX 8000
Apr. 24 2024 10AM CDT REGISTER HERE
Getting Started with Garmin Pilot
Apr. 25 2024 4PM CDT REGISTER HERE
Build Your Plane, Build Your Panel: Garmin Experimental Avionics
Apr. 30 2024 4PM CDT REGISTER HERE
I teach the EAA SportAir Electricity Workshop all around the country during the fall, winter and spring, having just taught at Lakeland (home of Sun N Fun) in February, and Fremont CA in March, We will be in Norfolk VA in April. Specifically, if you are interested in attending a Workshop, Norfolk over the weekend of April 20-21 we will be offering four courses, Sheet Metal, Fabric Covering, Electrical, and Composites for RV Builders. The facility is a beautiful Tech High School.
Anyway, when I teach the class I give out my e-mail address (rkoehler4@verizon.net) and often get follow-up questions. I would like to share one of those with you this month:
“Hi Dick, I was a student in your Electrical Systems course in Lakeland, Feb 10-11. I am flying a Rans S-6 with an ADVANCED AIRCRAFT ELECTRONICS, INC.(http://www.advancedaircraft.com) dipole antenna mounted at a diagonal within the tube and fabric fuselage. It works well even though everything I read seems to point to vertical installation being the best and a curved "C" shape being a runner up.
I am building a Rans S-7 and looking at the AAE comm and transponder antennas. The comm antennas (43” long) would be mounted in a C-shape due to the size of the fuselage, and spaced by 24+ inches. The transponder antenna would is only 5.5” long and would be mounted 6” or so from the first comm antenna. Do you have any experience with AAE antennas in a tube and fabric aircraft? I appreciate any advice you may offer. I am not opposed to external antennas, but like the idea of a clean aircraft.
Thank you,”
My response follows: “The AAE antenna is a premade dipole antenna designed to be embedded in a composite aircraft. While I have not personally ever worked with an AAE antenna, I have heard nothing bad about them. They have been around for at least 20 years, so I assume they work.
However, putting a dipole antenna in a composite plane requires careful placement. Since VHF comm radio waves are vertically polarized, the antenna should be vertically oriented for best results. Orienting the antenna on a diagonal tilt or bending the ends in a 'C' shape should hurt performance. Also it is usually critically important that the last 1/2 to 2/3 of each pole be away from any metal items such as control cables, hinges, and aircraft structure. Therefore, I am surprised that the antenna in your S-6 works, but I cannot argue with success. If the spacing of the steel tube fuselage formers is greater than the 1/4 wavelength (about 24 inches) of the VHF comm then perhaps the antenna can work, as it seems to be working on your S-6.
Ideally, on most steel tube fuselages, we just externally mount a standard 1/4 wave external antenna on a piece of metal plate or platform attached to the tube fuselage. For these antennas, the metal aircraft structure is ½ of the dipole, and the external antenna is the other half. These antennas work well, and other than the very minor drag, present no particular issues.
Per AC43.13-2B, the drag on the VHF comm antenna on my Mooney at a Vne of 189mph is only 1.3 pounds! On your S-7 at 118mph (normal cruise), the drag calculates as 0.5 pounds! I doubt you can detect it in an on/off flight test.
Ditto this discussion for the transponder antenna, except it should be mounted vertically on the bottom of the fuselage. Do not mount it inside the steel tube fuselage. It will irradiate you! Also, it should be mounted ideally at least 1/4 wave length from the comm antenna, or at least 23.5 inches away. Also, the coaxial cable for the transponder antenna should be no longer than about 8 feet (due to losses), which is why we tend to mount the transponder directly below the box, usually on the forward fuselage on the "boot" cowl area, on the bottom side.
Hope this helps. Get back with any additional questions/issues.”
Hope this little story helps you better lay out the antennas on your plane. The moral is to never mount any antennas on the inside of a metal structure aircraft, such as is shown on the plans of certain metal kit aircraft where the ELT antenna is located in the baggage compartment or in the fairing between the horizontal and vertical tail. They will not work, are in violation of the TSO, and are, hence, an unsafe installation.
Keep building, flying, and maintaining.
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken.
That’s exactly where I found myself when pondering the question, “Do I need to put a compass in the Titan T-51D Mustang that I’m building?”
After all, putting a mechanical compass in a modern aircraft seems akin to putting a wind-up clock in a Tesla. Searching for guidance, I spoke with fellow builders, flight instructors, and avionics experts. The simple answer I received every time was “Yes.” Then I made one last call to my good friend and consummate federal aviation regulations expert, Ric Peri at the Aircraft Electronics Association. Peri’s answer: “Well, let’s go through the FARs and figure it out.” And down the rabbit hole we went…
It started simply enough. FAR 91.205 specifies various instruments required for flight under VFR, starting with these three:
Most people interpret “magnetic direction indicator” to mean a compass. But does it? And we also need to consider that Part 91 covers general operating and flight rules, not the certification of the aircraft. So, we need to dive into Part 23, which covers airworthiness standards for the airplanes most of us fly.
Part 23.1303 stipulates the minimum required flight and navigational instruments, and it matches up exactly with FAR 91.205. Part 23.1327 covers the accuracy and installation of the magnetic direction indicator, but it doesn’t define what exactly that is. Can it be an electronic instrument, driven by a magnetometer, or does it have to be a mechanical compass? If we look at the amendments to Part 23 and the associated commentary, we can see that the FAA has gone back and forth on the topic over the years.
In 1993, Amendment 43 to Part 23 addressed the issue directly, and the commentary on the revision explained that a magnetic direction indicator has to be a non-stabilized magnetic compass based on the following explanation: “The non-stabilized magnetic direction indicator, which does not require power from the airplane's electrical systems, provides directional information to the pilot when all other directional navigation systems have failed due to loss of power.” The FAR language was changed to read, “A direction indicator non-stabilized magnetic compass.” No powered instruments need apply. End of story.
This wording was maintained through other amendments, until Amendment 62 in 2012, where the wording for minimum required flight and navigational instruments mysteriously changed back to “A magnetic direction indicator,” language that remains to this day. So, what happened? Does an electronic instrument now count? Sorting through volumes of commentary that went into the rationale for many of the changes in Amendment 62, they all point to “Yes.” Beginning in 2012, there was an industry push to accept that electronic instruments could deliver levels of accuracy and reliability that mechanical instruments simply could not. And so, the requirement for a “compass” has finally been relegated to the history books. A “magnetic direction indicator” is the current requirement for VFR flight, alongside the airspeed indicator and altimeter. (IFR flight requires additional instruments including artificial horizon, directional gyro, slip-skid, rate of turn, and others.)
Given the numerous electronic flight instruments available for the general aviation pilot, will this soon make the classic wet compass a thing of the past? The answer is…maybe. Some primary flight displays and electronic flight instrument systems on the market still list a “compass” as required equipment under their supplemental type certificates. It would certainly have been better if their STC language matched the FAA’s “magnetic direction indicator.” But the pieces are certainly in place to support a retrofit, all-electronic panel that meets the FAA requirements for certification, redundancy, and emergency power backup.
In 2015, the FAA released a policy statement (PS-ACE-23-08) acknowledging the superiority of electronically driven attitude indicators, making it possible for thousands of aircraft to easily upgrade to electronic attitude indicators and dump their old vacuum pumps. These days, many new flight instruments on the market utilize modern magnetometers, delivering reliable and highly accurate magnetic direction indication. I suspect it won’t be long before the old wet compass and all of its issues are a thing of the past. The FAA removed the “compass” specific requirement from the private pilot certification standards back in 2013. Now it’s time for the retrofit avionics industry to step up and complete the process, relegating those compass correction cards to the museums. Until next time, I hope you and your families remain safe and healthy, and I wish you blue skies.
Jeff Simon is an A&P mechanic, IA, pilot, and aircraft owner. He has spent the last 22 years promoting owner-assisted aircraft maintenance and created the first inspection tool for geared alternator couplings available at ApproachAviation.com. Jeff is also the creator of SocialFlight, the free mobile app and website that maps more than 20,000 aviation events, hundred-dollar hamburger destinations, and also offers educational aviation videos. Free apps are available for iOS and Android devices, and users can also visit www.SocialFlight.com.
April 4, 2024By Jim Moore AOPA, Share via:Editor's note:
This story was updated April 5 to include additional information.
Icon Aircraft, which first delivered the amphibious light sport A5 in the summer of 2016, petitioned for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Delaware, where the company headquartered in California (with facilities in Florida and Tijuana, Mexico) is incorporated, on April 4.
The company issued a news release reporting the bankruptcy filing, and that it intends to continue operations while the process unfolds. The company said it seeks to sell the business to new owners using Section 363 of the bankruptcy code, which could enable the buyer to take ownership free and clear of any liens.
“We plan to continue to produce and sell aircraft and provide first-rate service, training, and support to our customers,” CEO Jerry Meyer said in the news release. “We believe this process will enable the business to address its current challenges and emerge with new ownership— stronger than ever—and continue building amazing planes with a focus on innovation, safety, and incredible flying experiences.”
According to the petition (among several documents filed on the first day of the proceeding included in an online docket maintained on Icon’s behalf), Icon owes $68 million to the company’s 30 largest creditors, 95 percent of that total—$65 million—owed to East West Bank of El Monte, California. The company owes a much larger sum—$105.4 million—to three lenders who issued 21 unsecured notes in recent years. Of that total, $93 million, came from the entity based in China that also owns about half of the company's equity, according to other documents in the case file.
According to data compiled by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Icon has delivered 209 aircraft since the first A5 was sold in 2016, through the end of 2023. While the company did not report billing revenue in the GAMA reports prior to 2022, total revenue for that year was $12.9 million, according to GAMA's year-end report, with 36 aircraft delivered, dropping to $12.6 million for 2023 with 33 aircraft delivered.
An affidavit filed in support of the petition notes that the company needs to produce and sell eight to 10 aircraft per month to break even.
The document lists the company's total debt at $173.7 million, including $3.3 million owed to vendors and suppliers, and $170.4 million in unsecured notes issued since March 2020, 54.6 percent of which came from Pudong Science and Technology Investment (Cayman) Co. Ltd., which, according to the affidavit, also owns "approximately" 50 percent of Icon's equity.
PDSTI's investment in Icon came under scrutiny in 2021 by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, according to the affidavit. "Although CFIUS eventually cleared PDSTI’s investment without the need for mitigation in February 2022, the investigation consumed significant portions of the Company’s already limited resources, including management’s time as well as professional expenses," the affidavit states.
Shareholders also took issue with the company's ownership in a lawsuit filed in Delaware Chancery Court in June 2021 against other shareholders, attempting to force changes in executive leadership and halt alleged transfer of technology to China, a case that is ongoing.
Manufacturing and supply chain strain during the COVID-19 pandemic was listed first among the factors contributing to the company's declining liquidity, and the company ramped up borrowing quickly, even as the pandemic was still emerging as a global crisis, starting with $12.5 million loaned by PDSTI in March 2020, followed by another $23.9 million in January 2021. Lenders, primarily PDSTI, provided an additional $19 million during the course of 2022, and just under $50 million in 2023, all but $5 million of which was loaned by PDSTI.
“The purpose of the Chapter 11 filing is to resolve the Company’s financial challenges and position the A5 for success for years to come,” Meyer said in the release. “We understand that this situation creates a hardship for everyone involved. However, without taking these steps, there is not a viable path forward for the business to do what we do best—build incredible airplanes and support our aircraft owners.”
The A5 is the only model Icon has produced. It earned a positive review from AOPA Pilot Editor at Large Dave Hirschman in 2015, among the first to fly the amphibious light sport aircraft. First announced in 2008, the company began collecting deposits years before the first airplane was delivered, and employed an unusual purchase agreement for the two-seat airplane, including contract provisions that gave the company the power to approve or disapprove any future sale. The price, first projected to land around $139,000, had climbed to a base of $207,000 by the time those purchase agreements were employed. It has climbed higher since: According to the GAMA data, the 2022 billing divided by the number of aircraft delivered comes to $359,000, which increased to $381,818 in 2023 with fewer aircraft delivered. A5 deliveries peaked in 2018, at 44 aircraft shipped for the year.
While the company touted safety features including a “spin-resistant” design, standard angle of attack indicator, and ballistic airframe parachute, a series of incidents and accidents put a dent in the A5’s image, including the 2017 death of A5 designer Jon Karkow and his passenger when, according to the NTSB, the aircraft struck terrain while maneuvering at low altitude, likely after mistakenly entering a different canyon than intended. That was followed five months later, in November 2017, by the death of legendary MLB pitcher Roy Halladay, who had taken the first delivery outside of the company’s training fleet and hit the water while flying low in Florida.
Other accidents followed, not always involving injuries, but each raising afresh questions about the safety of the A5 that Hirschman examined in a 2019 story.
“The reasons for this litany of horrors are varied, and few threads seem to tie them together,” Hirschman wrote. “Having flown the A5 for about 40 flight hours—including a formal checkout and a transcontinental ferry flight—I suspect that pilot overconfidence is a factor. The airplane flies so obediently, and it has such benign handling characteristics, that it gives the false impression it can do anything. Its spin-resistant design, however, doesn’t mean it won’t stall. It will. The airplane is easy to overload, and with a gross weight of 1,510 pounds and a mere 100-horsepower engine, the A5 has a meager power-to-weight ratio.”
Hirschman noted, however, that available data contradicted the notion that low-time sport pilots were flying themselves into trouble with the A5. “In fact, low-time sport pilots are yet to be involved in a single Icon accident,” Hirschman wrote. “Instead, it’s high-time, experienced pilots—many with advanced ratings—who are at fault. Not once has a mechanical problem contributed to an Icon crash. Every one of them has been pilot error, according to NTSB and FAA reports.”
More recently, Icon announced in March that the FAA had approved a 60-pound increase in the A5’s useful load, to 490 pounds, along with FAA certification in the primary category, which makes the A5 subject to fewer restrictions in Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America.
Icon noted in the press release that it has secured debtor in possession financing and will seek an expedited sale under the bankruptcy process.
“To minimize the adverse effects on its business and the value of its estate, the company has filed customary motions with the Bankruptcy Court to get court approval to sustain its operations in the ordinary course, including honoring commitments to customers and vendors and fulfilling obligations to all employees,” the April 4 press release states.
In contrast to the A5’s long-delayed arrival on the market, the bankruptcy filing suggests the company has prepared carefully and filed the petition with many key pieces in place. A first-day hearing was scheduled for April 5 at 10 a.m. in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, with judge Craig T. Goldblatt presiding.
The comment period is now over.
Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.
SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for the NPRM published on July 24, 2024, titled ‘‘Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification.’’ The FAA is extending the comment period to allow commenters to review and comment on a Memorandum to the Docket that the FAA posted to the docket (FAA–2023–1377–1343) on February 1, 2024, regarding an ex parte communication between the FAA and representatives of ASTM International regarding the NPRM.
DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published on July 24, 2023, at 88 FR 47650 and extended on October 4, 2023, at 88 FR 68507, and closed on January 22, 2024, is was reopened until March 11, 2024.
If you are curious about what the MOSAIC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would change for sport pilots and light sport aircraft?
READ THE EAA SUMMARY CHART for
MOSIAC by clicking on the button below:
It's been more than two decades since then-Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley ordered large X’s carved into the runway, rendering it unusable. (Flying Magazine)
Where were you on March 31, 2003, when the aviation world woke up to the news that Merrill C. Meigs Field in Chicago had been destroyed?
I was at Sun ’n Fun Aerospace Expo in Lakeland, Florida, working as an aviation reporter. Early that morning I started getting voicemails and emails telling me about the large X’s carved into the runway, rendering it unusable and trapping a handful of aircraft based there.
One of the first to see the damage was a pilot who had planned to land at Meigs but had to divert to another location. He reported the damage to a surprised air traffic controller who, like himself, was not aware that Meigs had been destroyed.
The abrupt closure took airport employees by surprise as well. One of the Meigs tower controllers told a local news outlet that he learned he was out of a job while driving into work and heard a local radio station reporting on the damaged runway.
At Sun ’n Fun, which is the second-largest aviation convention in the U.S., the destruction was talked about somberly. How could this have happened?
We quickly learned that the heavy equipment operators that came to the airport under the cloak of darkness and dug those massive ditches into the runway were acting on orders from then-Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Daley was not the first Chicago politician to propose the closure of Meigs Field.
In the 1980s, Mayor Jane Byrne suggested closing the airport and turning the property into a park. Local pilots, aviation advocacy groups, and businesses that appreciated the convenience of an airport so close to downtown objected to the idea.
In addition, the FAA noted that the airport had received agency grants, and each grant carried an assurance that it would remain open a set amount of time—usually 25 years—so that the grants can be amortized. At the time, the airport had most recently accepted a grant in 1976. In theory, the earliest the airport could be closed was 2001.
The airport was built shortly after World War II on Northerly Island, a human-made peninsula minutes from downtown Chicago. The airport had a single runway measuring 3,900 feet by 150 feet. In 1952, the airport was named after Merrill C. Meigs, publisher of the Chicago Herald-Examiner newspaper and an aviation enthusiast.
The land, which is owned by the Chicago Park District, was leased for the airport. The location being so close to downtown Chicago made it popular for businesses, medical flights, and for a short time, commercial aviation. It was so busy that a control tower and two instrument approaches were added. By the late 1990s, commercial aviation had given way to general aviation and medevac flights. Meigs was also popular in the virtual aviation world, as it was the default airport for Microsoft Flight Simulator.
In 1994, Daley revived the idea of closing the airport and redeveloping its 75 acres into a park. The FAA reminded the city that it had accepted FAA funding for improvements and by doing so agreed to grant assurances that stipulated the airport remain open.
Daley continued to push for closure, and in 1996, the Chicago Park District refused to renew the lease for the airport. Large X’s were painted on the runway identifying the airport as closed.
In response, the Illinois Legislature and the FAA strongly opposed the action, and the combined pressure resulted in the reopening of the airport. The painted X’s were removed and the airport resumed operations. The understanding was that the facility would remain open until at least 2026.
Aviation organizations loudly defended the airport and its convenience for downtown businesses, yet the threat of closure remained. The pilots attending the Meet the Administrator public forums at EAA AirVenture held up large red-and-white signs that read “SAVE MEIGS FIELD” to get their point across.
Aviation groups such as the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) continued to watch the airport. The FAA repeatedly noted that it is in the business of protecting airports, not closing them, reminding the city of Chicago that the grant assurances stipulated the facility stay open. In addition, FAA regulations state that closure of an airport that includes an instrument approach—Meigs had two—requires a 30 days notice prior to shutdown, which was never given.
Aviation advocacy groups were quick to respond to the airport’s destruction. Phil Boyer, AOPA’s president at the time, called out Daley for what Boyer called a lack of honor: “The sneaky way he did this shows that he knows it was wrong.”
EAA president Tom Poberezny was attending Sun ’n Fun when he heard about Meigs Field. Within two weeks, the organization became part of a GA coalition that lobbied the U.S. Senate to support the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act, which called for the codifying of the historical political agreement between then-Illinois Governor George Ryan and Daley to preserve Meigs Field for another 25 years.
Meanwhile, Daley defended his actions, claiming the destruction was done “due to safety concerns,” citing a potential terrorist attack similar to 9/11 when terrorists used aircraft to attack the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. This story was quickly discounted when the Department of Homeland Security stated that the airport’s proximity to downtown Chicago was not a risk and that no threats had been made against the city.
Daley then told multiple media outlets that the abrupt closure was done as a means to prevent lengthy and costly litigation as various entities fought to keep the airport open.
For several months, pilot organizations and aviation groups lobbied for the repair of the runway and the reopening of Meigs Field, but it was not to be.
Several weeks after the forced closure, which became known as “Daley’s Midnight Raid” in aviation circles, the FAA gave permission for the 16 aircraft left stranded to depart using the taxiway as a runway.
That was not the last time aircraft used the facility, however.
In July 2003 a pilot on the way to EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, experienced mechanical trouble and made an emergency landing in the grass next to the remains of the Meigs runway. Daley accused the pilot of intentionally landing there as a publicity stunt to “embarrass him.” The pilot maintained that he had engine trouble, and the grass infield was the most suitable place for an emergency landing. The FAA sided with the pilot’s interpretation.
In August 2003, the demolition of the remaining infrastructure of Meigs Field began. Today, it is a park. Even in the virtual world, Meigs in MSFS is gone—lost to the ages.
In 2005, the FAA fined Chicago $33,000 for closing an airport with a charted instrument approach without giving the required 30-day notice. At the time, the maximum fine the agency could levy by law was $1,100 per day. The city of Chicago appealed the fine, and aviation advocacy groups and elected representatives were quick to note its amount. Some $33,000 was “pocket change”’ to many municipalities that wanted to close the local airport.
In response, the Meigs Legacy Provision was passed as part of an FAA reauthorization bill. The provision increased the maximum fine per day from $1,100 to $10,000 per day for illegal airport closures.
In September 2006, the city dropped all legal appeals and agreed to pay the $33,000 fine, as well as to repay the FAA for the $1 million of Airport Improvement Program (AIP_ funds that were used to demolish the airport and build Northerly Island Park.
Meigs Field’s saga serves as a warning whenever other airports are threatened. The message is clear: It could happen here.
“Remember Meigs Field!” has become the battle cry of endangered airports.
Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) and Reid-Hillview Airport (KRHV)—both in California—come to mind. Both airports date to the early days of aviation. When they were built, they were in farm fields away from the city. Today, they are surrounded by industrial and residential development. And both are facing threats of closure from their elected city and county officials.
Credit to Flying Magazine and Meg Godlewski
Meg Godlewski has been an aviation journalist for more than 24 years and a CFI for more than 20 years. If she is not flying or teaching aviation, she is writing about it. Meg is a founding member of the Pilot Proficiency Center at EAA AirVenture and excels at the application of simulation technology to flatten the learning curve. Follow Meg on Twitter @2Lewski.
UPDATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2024 THE RESTRUCTURING AT VANS AIRCRAFT IS GOING WELL
WATCH THEIR YOU TUBE VIDEO BY CLICKING THIS LINK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnSxXp_cxsc
PS - They will be at AirVenture, but not at Sun'n Fun.
***********************
UPDATE FOR VAN'S CUSTOMERS WITH OPEN ENGINE/POWERPLANT, PROPELLER AND AVIONICS KIT ORDERSJan 27, 2024
When Van’s filed for Chapter 11 protection in early December, many of our customers had open orders and deposits on various Van’s airframe kits and third-party items including engines, propellers, avionics kits, and powerplant kits. Several weeks ago, Van’s sent notice to customers with deposits on aircraft kits stating that these orders contained terms, conditions, and pricing that Van’s could not perform and that these orders needed to be modified or canceled. The deadline to modify or reject those orders is January 31, 2024. Since that notice, the rate of customer reorders has been high and we appreciate our customers’ support and engagement.Over the past several weeks, we have been working through open customer orders and related deposits on hundreds of third-party items. In the next few days, we will begin sending official notices to customers with these open orders, informing them of the price changes that Van’s is making on each order. The official notice each customer receives will contain a link to a web portal where each customer can review their specific price increase. Customers who receive these notices will be given 14 days to decide whether to accept or reject these modified orders.We realize that many customers with orders for Van’s airframe kits who are facing the January 31 deadline also have open orders for third-party items. Some of those customers have been waiting to see what their cost increases will be on these third-party items before deciding whether to modify or reject their airframe kit orders. If you receive an official notice to modify or reject a third-party item order and you have not yet decided to modify or reject your airframe kit order, your deadline to modify or reject your airframe kit order is extended to the same date by which you must decide to modify or reject your third-party item order.Below is a summary of the approximate price increase by major group type on third-party components. If you accept our modified offer, Van’s will apply 100% of your prior deposit(s) toward the same product(s) on your revised order.
We know these price increases create hardship for our customers. However, without taking these steps and making these price changes, there simply is not a feasible path forward for Van’s Aircraft. Increasing these prices allows us to remain in business to provide parts, kits, and support for the thousands of builders and owners of Van’s products, and to be around to support each of you for years to come.
As we work through the Chapter 11 planning requirements and execute our daily operations, the staff at Van’s Aircraft have been hard at work. We’ve processed a large volume of kit reorders and continue to handle related emails and phone calls. We’re shipping kits to customers every day, and we’ve started sending replacement parts to some customers with kits that contained laser cut parts.We’re also currently finalizing the plan for customers who have open orders for Lycoming engines, Rotax powerplant kits, propellers, and avionics kits.Of note:
Many customers have emailed and called us to offer words of encouragement, and we want to say “thank you.” Your kind words always help, and are very much appreciated!We will have more news to share in the coming week.
UPDATE AS OF JAN 18, 2024
MANY VAN'S AIRCRAFT CUSTOMERS STILL AWAIT WORD ON PRICE HIKE.
Five of the hundreds of Van's Aircraft customers who must decide by January 30 whether to accept a steep price hike or join the pool of unsecured creditors in the ongoing bankruptcy case voiced frustration during a January 16 hearing before Judge David W. Hercher, and were told by the company's attorney that answers to key questions would be provided soon.The proceeding, conducted by videoconference, was scheduled to take up routine matters, though the judge was patient with customers who chose to speak up when invited to do so. The first of five was John Aufdermauer of Castro Valley, California, who said he paid a deposit on an airplane kit and a deposit on a Lycoming engine, and had not received word on what new terms might apply to the engine purchase."They're making us make a decision by January 30 without knowing what the deposits on the engines are going to be, [and] the airplane is no good without an engine," Aufdermauer said. "I don't know if a lot of people can make decisions." According to documents filed in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, more than 3,500 contracts were in effect, at the time of the bankruptcy filing, between Van's Aircraft and customers who had ordered aircraft kits, engines, propellers, avionics, or some combination of these, or who had placed deposits on completed aircraft. Company officials have told the court they need about 70 percent of those contracts to be approved with new, higher prices in order to successfully reorganize. Company officials reported during a January 12 creditors' meeting that 50 percent of customers contacted had accepted the new pricing, and cited 60 percent in a January 16 proceeding—though it remains unclear exactly how many customers are still waiting for a proposal. Court records show that notices were recently served to 481 customers, both individuals and businesses, seeking contract modifications including a roughly 30-percent price increase for the aircraft kits. Those notices account for 798 contracts (many customers ordered multiple kits, as many as 20 headed to a single customer in Brazil), a little less than a quarter of the total agreements referenced in the December 4 filing. Attorney Timothy J. Conway, who represents Van's Aircraft, responded to Aufdermauer's comment during the hearing with news that the company has been meeting with engine suppliers, and expects to provide detailed offers to remaining customers soon."So far, over 60 percent of the kit buyers have agreed to modify," Conway said. "I understand the other 40 percent may be waiting on more information. We expect to be able to provide that information by next week, in advance of the January 30 deadline."Conway told the court that customers who opt to reject the new terms will have 30 days to file a claim in the bankruptcy case, and that customers will be exempt from the February 12 deadline to file claims that applies to all other creditors. Notices have not yet been issued to customers who ordered and paid deposits for engines, propellers, or avionics from Van's Aircraft, Conway said, and, pending further planned discussions with vendors, "it is our expectation that we'll have proposals out to the customers on those probably next week."That will leave just a few days to decide whether to accept the price increase, and at least one of the five customers who spoke on January 16 wanted to know what, if any, laser-cut parts were included in the components already supplied. Clyde Hamstreet, a corporate turnaround consultant hired by the company to help lead the reorganization effort, told the court that "a team of people" is working to figure out which customers have not been contacted regarding the status of their orders, and the company "will also be sending out notice to people regarding laser-cut parts." Conway, following another customer who reported waiting months for a status update on their order, said, "We're obviously inundated with emails and we'll be getting back to people as quickly as we can."The company recently posted a series of videos detailing the manufacturing issue that led to cracks appearing in dimples around holes cut by lasers, though the company's own review found that the cracks do not affect the strength or service life of those parts, and, while it had initially offered replacements to customers who reported a problem with cracks in parts, the plan moving forward will be to replace only those laser-cut parts that are "in the most highly loaded structural locations," according to a January 2 court filing.The company said in October that issue affects more than 1,800 customers, some of whom received multiple kits. The company noted in the January 2 filing that it needs to know how many customers will accept the price increases, and, separately, the resolution of the laser-cut parts issue, to determine if it will be able to reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy. Company officials told the bankruptcy trustee during the January 12 creditors' meeting (which featured significantly more input from displeased customers) that if roughly 70 percent of the customers with outstanding orders accept the new terms, the reorganization plan will be feasible. "We think we're going to get very close to that," Hamstreet told the bankruptcy trustee at the January 12 proceeding. Conway told the judge four days later that the company expects to file its Chapter 11 reorganization plan—a comprehensive document that will chart a course out of bankruptcy—by March 4, if not sooner, even with the delays in notifying many customers about new pricing and terms of sale, or the disposition of laser-cut parts.Under questioning by the bankruptcy trustee on January 12, the company estimated that if it is ultimately forced to liquidate, the current inventory of incomplete aircraft and parts will become nearly worthless, about 2 cents on the dollar at scrap metal prices. More than 11,000 aircraft kits had been sold over the course of a half-century by the time the company sought bankruptcy protection.
Credit to Jim MooreManaging Editor-Digital Media AOPA
UPDATE AS OF JAN 8, 2024
VAN’S ENGINEERING PRESENTATION: TESTING ANALYSIS AND RESULTS FOR LASER-CUT PARTS
The Van’s Aircraft Engineering team has recorded two presentations related to the acceptability, use, and testing results of laser-cut parts in RV aircraft. The below videos include an 18-minute summary presentation with an introduction by Dick VanGrunsven, as well as a highly-detailed, 2-hour presentation by the Van’s Engineering team. These presentations have been made to groups of civil aviation authorities as well as a group of kit industry experts. Following our publication of the below Van’s Engineering presentations, Kitplanes Magazine published a panel discussion with those industry experts, which we have also included below.In short, the results of extensive testing of laser-cut parts manufactured for Van’s Aircraft shows that the parts are safe for use in aircraft construction. Van’s Aircraft worked with a third-party professional company that specializes in fatigue and materials testing in the design and execution of its test program, which included the same tests being run at both companies to validate methodology and results. Van’s has applied a significant engineering margin to the test results, assuming the combined worst-case scenarios in terms of fatigue and aircraft operational usage. Specifically:
Given these extreme calculations, the aircraft’s lifespan is considerably higher than would be expected for an RV aircraft and is considerably longer than any flying RV. When calculating for actual, typical use the lifespan is many multiples greater than for any RV.If, after viewing the below videos you have questions that have not been answered, please feel free to submit them via the form at the end of this page. The Van’s Aircraft engineering staff will answer commonly asked questions during January, and we will post some of the more common questions and answers below as they are compiled. Note that this form is not for support purposes, but rather for questions about the testing and evaluation of laser-cut parts.
18-minute summary presentation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p21B4ZZ3meE
Long-form engineering presentation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-W4WH57qW0
The long history leading to this is in the Aircraft section under the Aviation & Space News Tab at the top of the Website
BY THOMAS BLACK
BLOOMBERG
Reliable Robotics Corp. said Wednesday that it’s flown a small cargo plane on loan from FedEx Corp. without a human on board, a step toward the autonomous flight startup winning regulatory approval for its remote-pilot system.
In coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration, the 12-minute flight of the Cessna 208B Grand Caravan on Nov. 21 took off from and landed at Hollister Municipal Airport in Northern California. A remote pilot handled all the radio calls and monitored the plane during the flight from about 50 miles away at the company’s command center in Mountain View, California. It was Reliable Robotics’ second automated flight, after flying a much smaller Cessna 172 in 2019.
“We demonstrated automated taxiing, takeoff and automated landing, all without a pilot on board,” said Robert Rose, co-founder and chief executive officer of Reliable Robotics in an interview. “It was like a normal operation with the FAA.”
The flight is part of the startup’s effort to gain full approval from the FAA. The agency accepted Reliable Robotics’ plan for certifying the technology this summer after a four-year effort, said Rose, who expects to get FAA regulatory approval within two years. Since 2021, the company has worked under contracts with the Air Force, which is interested in the system for logistics and refueling aircraft, Rose said.
The system will be used by remote pilots who supervise only one aircraft at a time rather than one pilot managing multiple, autonomous flights, he said.
The remote pilot is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and watches things such as air speed, altitude and predicted flight path. The pilot can maneuver the plane if needed to avoid unexpected aircraft or objects, but doesn’t control the plane during the flight. During the November test, the remote pilot didn’t have to do anything besides the radio calls, Rose said.
By having remote pilots, air cargo companies, such as FedEx or United Parcel Service Inc., could boost efficiency because a pilot would be able to do an early morning flight on the East Coast and then switch to guide a plane on the West Coast, he said. By not having pilots tied physically to the aircraft, planes can be repositioned more easily to match where demand is strongest, he said.
FedEx hasn’t committed to using the technology but said it’s looking for innovations that could help enhance service to remote locations.
“We look forward to further testing and learning throughout this collaboration with Reliable Robotics,” the company said in an emailed statement.
As with autonomous vehicles, the system must prove it’s as safe or safer than human operators before its adopted widely. Flights will start in cargo and eventually be adopted by airlines, helping ease scheduling problems and reduce the shortage of pilots. Instead of eliminating jobs, the technology will create more flying demand by lowering costs, Rose said.
“The near future, I believe, is going to be having remote pilots in control centers managing one aircraft at a time,” he said. “There’s huge cost savings in that.”
Reliable Robotics now runs a small cargo airline in New Mexico with five piloted Cessna Caravans that does work for FedEx hauling packages. The purpose is to understand the industry needs and to function as an “incubator for this technology.” But there are still kinks to be worked out.
“Our system doesn’t do automated engine starts, so somebody has to be in the plane to start the engine,” he said. “We’re working on that.”
Connect with FAADroneZone: Facebook | Twitter
We know you have questions about Remote Identification (ID). We’re here to help you figure it out.
Do I have to fly with Remote ID?
Remote ID applies to drones which are required to be registered or have been registered with the FAA, including those flown for recreation, business, or public safety, and drones that are foreign-registered.
While drone operators were required to comply with Remote ID beginning September 16, the FAA recognizes the unanticipated issues that some operators are experiencing with complying with this rule and will exercise discretion in determining enforcement actions for noncompliance through March 16, 2024.
Why is Remote ID necessary?
Remote ID is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the national airspace system by distinguishing compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk. Remote ID also helps to lay the foundation for routine advanced operations such as package delivery and flying beyond visual line of sight..
What do I need to do?
There are three ways to be Remote ID ready:
How do I know if my drone or broadcast module is Remote ID ready?
1. Go to the FAA UAS Declaration of Compliance website
2. Click on “View Public DOC List”
3. Filter by “RID”
4. Search for your drone or broadcast module
My drone or broadcast module broadcasts Remote ID but is not on the Public DOC List, am I Remote ID ready?
No, even if advertised as “Remote ID ready” or uses other verbiage, only drones or broadcast modules listed on the FAA DOC are considered to be in compliance with the rule. However, the FAA’s policy on Remote ID enforcement discretion provides until March 16, 2024, to have the DOC updated.
Do I need to update my drone’s registration with Remote ID information?
If your drone or broadcast module is listed on the public DOC list, you need to register or update your existing drone registration through FAADroneZone to include the standard Remote ID drone or Remote ID broadcast module serial number. The Remote ID serial number is not the same as your drone’s serial number. Drone owners should check with their manufacturer for additional information.
Since recreational pilots only need to register once and can apply that registration number to multiple aircraft, they can list one Remote ID broadcast module serial number and move the broadcast module from drone to drone as long as it is listed on the same registration.
Part 107 pilots need to register each drone individually. Therefore, each drone must have its own Standard Remote ID or Remote ID broadcast module serial number.
Visit our Remote ID webpage to learn more about adding a Remote ID serial number to your drone’s registration.
Have more questions? We’re here to help at the UAS Support Center or call us at 844-FLY-MY-UA (844-359-6982).
When reports started surfacing about issues in the Rotor X community, ANN did two things that are highly unusual in the aviation journalism world.
First, we researched, corroborated, and looked into both sides of the issue to find out what appeared to be the truth of the matter -- not a short or easy process.
Second, we actually reported on it -- one of the more unusual aspects of such stories like these today.
Now, ANN has learned that Rotor X has filed for bankruptcy in the state of Arizona. The official documents we've seen so far indicate that Rotor X is filing their bankruptcy, pro se (both unique and questionable considering the size of the claims involved), and is doing so under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code which tends to suggest that they actually think they're going to reorganize the complex and convoluted mess that we've documented so far.
Nearly 100 customers are reportedly affected by over a year's worth of broken promises, undelivered kits, incomplete kits, and what can only be termed as untrue statements by the company as it attempted to prop up its faltering operations -- possibly, it appears, with the support of one or two players in the Builder Community.
We’ve all heard pilots discussing their weekend plans or just shooting the bull on 123.45 while the rest of us try to report our positions in Alert Areas (training areas). This annoying interruption can be downright dangerous.
The FAA actually has a frequency for BS’ing between aircraft believe it or not. The frequency 122.75 is dedicated for general air-to-air communications between private fixed-wing aircraft.
Please use 123.45 if you intend to communicate with another aircraft during a maintenance flight, or for reporting your position in an Alert Area, and by all means please keep your transmissions short and concise.
Want to discuss dinner plans, talk about your airline interview last week, meow, or chat about anything unofficial? Then 122.75 is the frequency for you. Everyone will greatly appreciate it!
The FAA contends commercial airline passengers bound to central Florida airports from northeastern U.S. states will no longer experience delays or re-routes during what the agency called “typical” space launches.
Based on analyses of past space launches and data provided by the U.S. Space Force and major space launch concerns—the FAA has determined existing airspace restrictions pertaining to Florida launches are generally excessive and may be safely reduced. By not closing the aforementioned airspace, the FAA ensures busy overwater routes linking airports in the Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. metropolitan areas to destinations the likes of Orlando, Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Sarasota are utilized to the fullest extent.
Individual space-launch operations, on average, occasion the re-routing of 36 Part 121 air-carrier flights. Subject re-routes affect as many as 4,300 passengers, waste up to three-hundred total minutes (five-hours) of irrecoverable time, and necessitate over 1,300-nautical-miles of unplanned, unpleasant, and unprofitable flying.
By virtue of the FAA’s revised space-launch policy, flights formerly obligated to re-route around the Cape Canaveral region will remain more consistently along the most optimal and efficient routes.
Ten of the 12 space-launches undertaken since the April 2023 implementation of the FAA’s new policy saw no flights rerouted.
To better convey the particulars of its revised space-launch conventions, the FAA has produced a public-service video titled Safe Integration of Space Launches. Parties wishing to view the two-minute, 42-second presentation may do so by visiting: www.faa.gov/space/airspace_integration .
Pilots are often nervous about flying into or around airports with skydiving operations. There’s really no need to be, as Paul Bertorelli explains in this AVweb video. Just avoid the airport by three or four miles on the downwind side when transitioning and don’t overfly a dropzone airport if you’re landing there. Just fly a normal (not too tight) pattern. Watch the video by Paul Bertorelli published 5/29 with full credit to AvWeb