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
Brought to us by AvWeb
Consistent learning is what makes a good pilot a great pilot. And Lightspeed is friends with lots of great pilots. We lean on these experts to help us bring the general aviation community a wealth of knowledge in our series of free downloadable eBooks from our Lightspeed Library.
Expand your understanding on topics like what to do after you make an emergency landing as you wait for help to arrive, how to safely land in a strong crosswind situation (equipped with cool diagrams!) or how to keep yourself and your passengers safe from carbon monoxide in the cockpit.
Our Library also has some stories of inspiration, for lighter reading. Enjoy these pilot profiles of how they became a leader in their field, or what inspires them to give back to their communities. There’s something in the Lightspeed Library for everyone.
Hit the button below to gain access to a world of knowledge. (No library card needed).
NOTE: TIMES LISTED ARE CENTRAL TIME ZONE
GNS™ 430/530 RECEIVER TRANSITION: PLANNING FOR YOUR NEXT GPS AND RADIOS
Considering your upgrade options? Learn about the latest navigation systems from Garmin — and the added capabilities and workload-reducing features they can bring to your aircraft.
GFC™ 500/600 AUTOPILOTS: MODERNIZE YOUR FLYING
Garmin autopilot experts explain the many features and advantages of our GFC 500 and GFC 600 autopilots. Explore how your flying can benefit from these platforms.
CHOOSING A PFD AND MFD: G3X TOUCH™ AND TXi FLIGHT DISPLAYS
Gain insight on the similarities and differences between our G3X Touch and TXi flight displays — and learn which is better suited for your missions.
New Timeline Projected for MOSAIC Final Rule
Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
Here's when the new regulation affecting all aircraft with special airworthiness certificates is expected, according to an EAA official.
The final rule on the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) is now expected sometime in 2025
.
When the comment period closed for the MOSAIC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in January, it was suggested that the final rule might be announced at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, in late July, but that is no longer the expectation.
“It is correct that early to mid-2025 is expected to be the announcement of the final rule,” said EAA spokesman Dick Knapinski. “That’s been no secret. We’ve been telling those who ask that, based on our conversations with the FAA, most recently at our annual winter summit in Oshkosh in early March.”
Knapinski said the FAA sincerely wanted to get the rule ready for this year’s AirVenture, “but it would have been an impressive stretch even in the best of circumstances, given that the NPRM public comment period closed in early 2024. Any slippage would have made that even tougher.”
The timeline was also hit by the need to reopen comments for 30 days in February to backfill an omission in the original document.
The coming election will also use government resources that would be needed to process the new rule, which is intended to reduce certification burdens for new and legacy recreational aircraft while enhancing safety with new technology. Knapinski said the Department of Transportation will release its spring rulemaking plans in a few weeks, and that should give an official timeline for the MOSAIC rule.
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:
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.
Mike Ginter, a leading general aviation advocate and retired U.S. Navy pilot, has been appointed to a new post, leading the AOPA Air Safety Institute.
"For more than 70 years, the AOPA Air Safety Institute has delivered lifesaving information and education to pilots, and I am honored to be part of continuing that legacy,” said Ginter. “It’s important to meet pilots where they are with practical tools and information they can really use, and no organization does that better than ASI.”
Since 2018, Ginter has served as AOPA’s vice president of airports and state advocacy, spearheading efforts to protect airports, bringing 1,000 new volunteers into the AOPA Airport Support Network, and helping to successfully resolve more than 700 airport issues on behalf of AOPA members. Most recently, he led the effort to plan and execute the successful National Celebration of General Aviation Flyover of Washington, D.C., which highlighted the history and utility of GA aircraft.
Prior to joining AOPA, Ginter spent 27 years in the U.S. Navy, retiring with the rank of captain. During that time, he accrued more than 5,300 flight hours and 555 carrier landings, completed four deployments to the Persian Gulf, commanded a jet squadron, and served as operations officer for the USS John F. Kennedy. In 2003, he led the demonstration team responsible for showcasing the capabilities of the Lockheed S-3 Viking. That same year, his squadron won the Chief of Naval Operations Aviation Safety Award.
Throughout his Navy career, Ginter, who earned his private pilot certificate at 18, continued to fly GA aircraft. He previously owned a North American T–6 Texan, and currently owns a 1972 Beechcraft A36 Bonanza and a Cessna 172, which his wife, Donna, is using for flight training.
“Mike is an active flyer who understands the real-world challenges GA pilots face,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “His down-to-earth approach to making every flight safer resonates with pilots of all experience levels.”
The past few years have been among the safest in GA history, and in his new role as senior vice president of the Air Safety Institute, Ginter is committed to ensuring that trend continues by expanding the reach of ASI’s safety content, delivering data-driven analysis, and exploring new ways to support pilots.
With more than 10 million touches each year, ASI provides award-winning videos, podcasts, publications, reports, online courses, quizzes, CFI renewal programs, and more to help pilots fly safely. The institute’s work is supported by generous donations to the AOPA Foundation.
by MEG GODLEWSKI, Flying Magazine
After checking the weather, select an approach and file to an initial approach fix for it.
Question: I am working on my instrument rating, and I have a question about filing to another airport. One of the CFIIs I fly with told me to file to the airport but not a particular fix because it’s really up to ATC to decide what the pilot should do. Another CFII told me to check the weather, see what the flow is, and file to an initial approach fix for an approach in use. Who is correct?
Answer: I advocate checking the weather and seeing what approaches are being supported by the conditions, then select an approach and file to an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) for that approach.
The reason? Because you lose your comms en route or before you are cleared for the approach, you will be following the AVE F procedure, which states that in the event of loss of communication you will fly one of the four: the heading you were assigned, vectored to, told to expect or filed to. If you are operating on an IFR flight plan, you should have at least one of these. This is what ATC expects you to do, so they will be protecting that airspace at the fix you filed to.
If you simply fly to the airport and the airport has multiple instrument approaches and multiple IAFs, ATC is going to have a more difficult time protecting the airspace. It will be like Whac-a-Mole with airplanes. If you file to a particular IAF, and they see a target squawking 7600 at that fix, they will have a pretty good idea that’s you. Make sure you continue to transmit in the blind – this means you make appropriate radio calls and position reports although you cannot hear them reply.
Bonus move: Adjust time en route by five minutes. For example, if it will take 23 minutes to get to the fix, file it as 17 minutes because that way you won’t have to wait for time to elapse in order to shoot the approach.
Remember, you are requesting an approach when you file your flight plan. ATC is not obligated to grant your request, which is why you should have your approach binder with you (in either paper or electronic form). So if you are assigned something other than you filed, you will be prepared to fly what is offered.
“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.
Icon Aircraft filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, seeking a buyer for the company's assets including its California headquarters; manufacturing facility in Tijuana, Mexico; and a facility in Florida. The terms approved by Judge Craig Goldblatt include a purchase price of $15.79 million for all of the company's assets.
The sale could allow the company to continue making airplanes, though the intent of the purchaser was not made clear in court documents, or during the brief hearing held June 18 to approve the sale.
Minority shareholders including company founder Kirk Hawkins, who sued Icon's majority owner, Pudong Science and Technology Investment Co. Ltd., in Delaware state court in 2021 challenging an alleged "expropriation of … intellectual property in aircraft design, aircraft manufacturing, and advanced carbon-fiber structures manufacturing to China," withdrew an objection to the sale. Attorney Sean Mitchell, representing those shareholders, told the court June 18 that revisions to the sale agreement preserve his clients' rights to continue to pursue their claims, and that negotiations between those parties are ongoing. He added that if those negotiations fail to produce an agreement, his clients may return to the bankruptcy court seeking an order allowing them to proceed with pre-petition claims.
The hearing lasted just under 30 minutes, most of that time taken up by debtor's attorney Charles Persons, who recounted a flurry of eleventh-hour offers and counteroffers between his client and two bidders: SG Investment America, Inc., the original "stalking horse" bidder, and Blue, who had ultimately offered two prices: $15.79 million for all Icon assets, or $15.54 million excluding license to the company's intellectual property in China.
Persons told the court that Icon did not have enough cash remaining to extend the bankruptcy auction, and the $15.79 million bid from the "German company" that made the original $13 million offer to open the auction was preferred based on terms and the "certainty" it offered. He also noted that the preferred bidder would require at least six days to consider countering any further offer from Blue.
"We don't have a week to reopen the auction and try this again for what we don't imagine is a significant additional amount of money," Persons said. "The debtors burn, on average, upwards of $750,000 to $850,000 a week right now, and liquidity is extremely tight. We forecast that we would run out of liquidity by the end of the first week of July. Any further delay in closing past the July 2 date is simply unsustainable for the debtors at this time."
Court documents show that one of Icon's largest creditors has been repaid: East West Bank of El Monte, California, which loaned the company more than $60 million at various times prior to the bankruptcy filing, has been repaid those secured claims and its counsel withdrew from the proceedings. Of the remaining $105 million in various unsecured loans Icon owed, the vast majority—$93 million, according to court documents—was loaned to Icon by the same company that had acquired more than half of the company's equity in the years leading up to the bankruptcy. The most recently revised liquidation analysis in the case indicates unsecured creditors will be repaid less than a penny on the dollar once the $15.79 million sale is complete.
According to court documents, Blue will retain his status as a "backup" bidder into September, and could be invited to close the sale if the deal with SG Investment America is not consummated quickly.
Founded in 2006, Icon delivered its first A5 amphibious light sport aircraft in 2016, and 209 more have followed according to General Aviation Manufacturers Association data. According to published reports, SG Investment America is owned by a 160-year-old German manufacturer of sewing machines, Dürkopp Adler GmbH, which is, in turn, owned by ShangGong Group of Shanghai, China, which also makes sewing machines.
Mitchell told the court his clients are satisfied that the revised sale agreements preserve their ability to continue to seek damages under their ongoing state court litigation.
"Our clients are of course disappointed the company has been driven to this point," Mitchell said. "The unfortunate reality is that much of the value of this company was lost in the years prior to the sale, and to these Chapter 11 cases by virtue of the conduct which is at the heart of the derivative litigation. But we are where we are today."
The revised terms of a transaction now required to close within days include provisions for all Icon staff to be terminated, and then offered jobs with the new company, at the new owner's discretion, subject to negotiation of terms and compensation with each employee
----------------------------
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.
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.
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