“As long as diverging income inequality continues, as long as the better paid wage earners find their pay to be stagnant or declining, flying is going to be out of reach except for the most resourceful and determined.”
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
What’s Wonder Bread got to do with GA?
AVweb’s Paul Bertorelli posits a new theory about the stagnating GA industry: He says blame Wonder Bread. In his blog, which you can read in full here, he states:
Confusion reigns over ETS implementation in Europe
By: Charles Alcock
Environment Europe’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) is not much more than a year away, with a mandatory introduction date of January 1, 2012, for all operators making even the shortest flights into the continent’s airspace, and yet there is still widespread confusion about how key aspects of the system will work. In particular, with less than six months until the March 31, 2011 deadline for verified 2010 emissions and activity reports to be submitted, there are serious doubts about what operators need to do to find an accredited verifier and how much the process will cost them.
Environment Europe’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) is not much more than a year away, with a mandatory introduction date of January 1, 2012, for all operators making even the shortest flights into the continent’s airspace, and yet there is still widespread confusion about how key aspects of the system will work. In particular, with less than six months until the March 31, 2011 deadline for verified 2010 emissions and activity reports to be submitted, there are serious doubts about what operators need to do to find an accredited verifier and how much the process will cost them.
For many in the business aviation community, and especially those based outside Europe who might log only a small number of flights into Europe, the core dilemma is how user-friendly the rules for small emitters–defined as emitting fewer than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year–will prove to be in practice.
When the European Commission (EC) approved the so-called small emitters tool for calculating emissions from data generated by Eurocontrol, many bizav operators let out a sigh of relief on the assumption that this would be easy enough for them to figure out their own CO2 numbers and avoid the need to involve costly consultants.
More specifically, it was hoped that there would be no need to use accredited verifiers to check the emissions reports because the data would be accepted as having come from an approved, independent source.
However, there has been no official ruling to excuse small emitters from using a verifier. As things stand, operators accountable to national authorities in many of the 27 European Union (EU) states are still struggling to find lists of the accredited verifiers that they are permitted to use. Even those who can find verifiers are not clear as to what this service will cost them, mainly because authorities have yet to rule on whether to waive the costly site visits that strictly speaking are required to complete the process.
So far only the ETS authorities in Germany and France have published lists of verifiers for the aviation sector, and in the case of France the companies listed have not actually completed the accreditation process and so are not yet legally approved to do the job. Accreditation bodies in other countries, including the UK, are still working on the applications from companies that have applied for approval, but in some states the ground rules and timetable for this key process have not even been confirmed, raising serious doubts as to whether operators assigned to these states will be able to meet the March 31 deadline. Failure to meet the deadline could trigger significant fines.
Prospective verifiers SGS and VerifAvia told AIN that operators should begin the process with companies that they believe are likely to be accredited, in the hope that they will be and that the authorities will then accept the completed ETS reports.
Verifiers are divided as to whether site visits, even for small emitters, will be required. Paulomi Raythatha, UK product manager for SGS, said that at least for the first year site visits would be mandatory as this is the only effective way to ensure that operators are following an acceptable process to monitor and report emissions.
However, Antony Barrett, business development manager with BSI, predicted “sense will prevail” and that expensive site visits will not be required and that confirmation of this could come before the end of next month. VerifAvia CEO Julien Dufour explained that individual states will decide whether or not they waive the site visit, and he expects at least some will do so.
Several verifiers told AIN that they have yet to work out pricing, in part because of the uncertainty as to whether site visits will be needed but also because they are trying to work out what rates the market will bear. Since all the approved verifiers are expected to be based in Europe, in theory, a small U.S. operator might have to meet the cost of a verifier crossing the Atlantic for several days. Pressed by AIN to give estimated prices for a small emitter’s verification, verifiers indicated that these could run from around $1,800 to $3,400. For a medium-sized operator, the estimates increased to as much as $12,000.
Universal Weather & Aviation regulatory services supervisor Adam Hartley said the verification process could be complicated by the fact that many of the accredited verifiers will have a background in dealing with ground-based industries and will have little or no appreciation of the aviation sector’s circumstances. The flight-planning group is looking into setting up its own ETS support subsidiary to help operators with monitoring, reporting and verification. Its online EU-ETS Reporting Resource Center already provides a wealth of information on the process.
“ETS is still totally misfitted to this part of aviation,” Hartley told AIN. “However, we do expect [the authorities to give] more leeway during the pre-trading period into next year.”
The March 31, 2011, deadline for verified emissions reports applies only to those operators who registered to participate in the 2010 reporting period that will result in free CO2 credits being assigned. Many operators who expect to be small emitters effectively decided that this would be more trouble than it is worth. Nonetheless, these operators will need to be ready to monitor and report their emissions from the start of 2012.
Numbers Don’t Stack for Small Emitters Tool
The ETS small emitters tool for calculating CO2 emissions is remarkably simple at first glance, consisting of no more than an Excel spreadsheet into which operators can insert data from flight plans filed with the Eurocontrol central flow management unit. The resulting calculations are based on stored data for fuel burn of listed aircraft types.
But early users of the system have uncovered significant discrepancies. Aaron Misko, co-owner of Ohio-based ETS consultants Shockwave Aviation, has crunched numbers for 60 operators covering more than 100 aircraft operating last year. He found CO2 emission estimates overstated to the tune of 40 to 50 percent in the case of aircraft such as the Bombardier Global Express and Global 5000.
Misko has alerted Eurocontrol and the European Business Aviation Association to the inaccuracies. He told AIN that in reality the problem is of no direct consequence yet to operators, which will not be accountable for emissions until 2012 and by then the errors could be rectified.
Some ETS experts have acknowledged that the small emitters tool will be inaccurate but have maintained that it is still a financially viable option if it avoids the need to use consultants and verifiers. If European authorities are, after all, going to insist on data being fully verified then this calculation too could prove to be ill founded.
Building a winning team
Jamie Beckett is a CFI and A&P mechanic who stepped into the political arena in an effort to promote and protect GA at his local airport.
Powerful allies can pop up out of the blue, if you’re open to recognizing the opportunity. Since my basic rules of advocacy lean in the direction of the more the merrier, I am always on the lookout for either new converts, or old stalwarts, who are willing to join the campaign to make general aviation more readily accepted, and better understood.
My most recent flirtation with expanding the roster of our growing airport friendly team of players started simply enough. A friend sent me an e-mail that essentially said, “I have a friend who is interested in aviation. Can you make time to meet her?”
“Sure,” was my quick and honest response. If someone wants to get together to talk about airplanes, aviation, or the airport, I’m ready for a cup of coffee and a good chat. Who knows? They might become a valuable asset down the road. Or they might become a good friend. It’s certainly possible that the setup will be no more than a one time deal that results in nothing more stimulating than the caffeine my drink can supply. But that’s a chance you just have to take if you’re hoping to build a working team that can have a truly beneficial effect in the long run.
In this most recent case at least, the decision to get together was a true winner.
It turns out that my friend’s characterization of my coffee date as, “interested in aviation,” was just slightly conservative. The charming, southern woman I met is in fact a captain for a major airline. She has flown everything from light singles early in her career to turbine powered heavy iron more recently, which makes her a true professional in my book. But she is honest enough to acknowledge that commercial airline work is nearly as foreign to general aviation and piston-powered single-engine aircraft as general aviation is to the management staff hunkered down in most city hall offices.
As peculiar as it may seem, it is exactly that recognition that GA and the airlines are only loosely connected in the aviation world that makes the participation of a line captain so potentially powerful. While a flight instructor like myself might receive only minimal respect at city hall, and a private pilot might receive even less, a full-blown airline captain can easily get the attention of everyone in the room. And that’s a positive. Because while we may deliver essentially the same message to the airport management, the airline captain will automatically find her message to be better received and more likely to be acted on.
That’s reality. It’s unfair, it’s myopic, and it’s counter-productive in a general aviation environment – but it’s the way of the world. I can live with it. But then I don’t have any need to be the center of attention, either. It’s perfectly okay with me if the winning argument comes from somebody else – as long as we are all on the same page and carry the same message forward, what difference does it make who gets the credit for scoring the winning point? Progress is progress. I’m just happy to be on the team, coach.
What I anticipated would be a one-hour encounter turned into a three-hour festival of story-telling, reminiscing about pilots and days gone by, and a few familiar memories about early flying experiences. It turns out we both flew out of the same airport early in our careers, and we both took check rides with the same, old-dog examiner in Vero Beach many years ago.
It’s a small world, indeed. But it’s a world with two more pilots who took the time to get better connected, both of whom are ready to go to bat for the local airport, and carry the fight as far as it has to go to win the day.
So what was my next step after meeting a fellow pilot and finding out what an asset she might be to the team? I shot off an e-mail to a good friend here in town that said essentially, “I just met the most fascinating woman who flies for a living – wanna meet her for coffee?”
And so the team continues growing, and becoming more powerful.
I like the way this is working out. We still have a long way to go, but we’re getting there – little by little. There’s no doubt about that.
You can reach Jamie at Jamie@GeneralAviationNews.com.
Flightcraft named Cirrus service provider
Flightcraft Inc. is the new Cirrus authorized service provider in Portland, Ore., and the surrounding area.
“Partnering with Cirrus is a great opportunity for both companies, but Cirrus owners are first to reap the benefits,” said John Frevola, vice president of Flightcraft. “These owners can get all of their Cirrus needs met through Flightcraft’s complete line of services, including maintenance, fueling, avionics installations and repair, aircraft management and charter service, accessory and component overhaul, and parts support for aircraft worldwide.”
For more information: CirrusAircraft.com or Flightcraft.com
Cougar Sues Sikorsky Over Fatal S-92 Crash
By: Mark Huber
Rotorcraft, Accidents On the eve of a Canadian Government report on the fatal March 2009 crash off Newfoundland that killed 17 of 18 aboard a Sikorsky S-92A, operator Cougar Helicopters and its insurers filed a $26.6 million suit against the OEM. Cougar is charging Sikorsky with “fraudulent misrepresentation, reckless behavior and willful misconduct” relating to the performance of the helicopter’s main gearbox (MGB) and its ability to function without lubricating oil for 30 minutes. Cougar is also suing the federal minister of transport and Sikorsky’s Helicopter Support repair subsidiary.
Cougar Flight 491 crashed into the Atlantic 11 minutes after pilots reported falling MGB oil pressure, and examination of the wreckage revealed that two of the three titanium studs that secure the oil filter bowl assembly to the helicopter’s main gearbox had failed. Sikorsky subsequently made changes to the MGB, including replacing the titanium studs with ones made from steel.
Cougar filed a statement of claim with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sikorsky’s lawyers moved quickly to quash the suit on jurisdictional grounds, and a hearing will be held to consider that motion next month.
The 30-minute run-dry claim is at the heart of the suit. Since landfall was within 30 minutes’ flying time, Cougar maintains that its pilots acted properly when they turned the helicopter around, rather than ditching immediately, after the low-pressure warning alerted. Cougar’s claim asserts, “By promoting and advertising the S-92 as having a ‘30-minute run-dry capacity,’ Sikorsky fraudulently misrepresented to buyers and operators the airworthiness and flight safety of the S-92” and thus showed “callous disregard for the risk of death or injury to crews and passengers.”
Sikorsky declined to comment, but earlier this year it reached an undisclosed settlement with the lone crash survivor and the families of the deceased.
Rotorcraft, Accidents On the eve of a Canadian Government report on the fatal March 2009 crash off Newfoundland that killed 17 of 18 aboard a Sikorsky S-92A, operator Cougar Helicopters and its insurers filed a $26.6 million suit against the OEM. Cougar is charging Sikorsky with “fraudulent misrepresentation, reckless behavior and willful misconduct” relating to the performance of the helicopter’s main gearbox (MGB) and its ability to function without lubricating oil for 30 minutes. Cougar is also suing the federal minister of transport and Sikorsky’s Helicopter Support repair subsidiary.
Cougar Flight 491 crashed into the Atlantic 11 minutes after pilots reported falling MGB oil pressure, and examination of the wreckage revealed that two of the three titanium studs that secure the oil filter bowl assembly to the helicopter’s main gearbox had failed. Sikorsky subsequently made changes to the MGB, including replacing the titanium studs with ones made from steel.
Cougar filed a statement of claim with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sikorsky’s lawyers moved quickly to quash the suit on jurisdictional grounds, and a hearing will be held to consider that motion next month.
The 30-minute run-dry claim is at the heart of the suit. Since landfall was within 30 minutes’ flying time, Cougar maintains that its pilots acted properly when they turned the helicopter around, rather than ditching immediately, after the low-pressure warning alerted. Cougar’s claim asserts, “By promoting and advertising the S-92 as having a ‘30-minute run-dry capacity,’ Sikorsky fraudulently misrepresented to buyers and operators the airworthiness and flight safety of the S-92” and thus showed “callous disregard for the risk of death or injury to crews and passengers.”
Sikorsky declined to comment, but earlier this year it reached an undisclosed settlement with the lone crash survivor and the families of the deceased.
Solar storms pose threat to aircraft nav and com systems
By: Malcolm Payne
ATC, Safety Progression in the development of both aircraft and their systems have made it so that in many cases pilots manage the systems more than they handle the airplane. However, old-fashioned piloting skills remain as essential as ever since such systems can be affected by interference from outside sources such as the sun–a vulnerability that might rear its head quite soon. Every 11 years the sun emits solar flares that can disrupt long-range communications and cause aircraft navaids to fail, and particularly those that depend on satellite navigation system. Such flares create difficulties in planning and operation, and the next expected flare–in 2013–will be particularly difficult because it will coincide with an enhanced magnetic cycle, according to Dr. Richard Fisher, director of NASA’s Heliophysics division.
ATC, Safety Progression in the development of both aircraft and their systems have made it so that in many cases pilots manage the systems more than they handle the airplane. However, old-fashioned piloting skills remain as essential as ever since such systems can be affected by interference from outside sources such as the sun–a vulnerability that might rear its head quite soon. Every 11 years the sun emits solar flares that can disrupt long-range communications and cause aircraft navaids to fail, and particularly those that depend on satellite navigation system. Such flares create difficulties in planning and operation, and the next expected flare–in 2013–will be particularly difficult because it will coincide with an enhanced magnetic cycle, according to Dr. Richard Fisher, director of NASA’s Heliophysics division.
In Europe the Technical and Air Safety Committee of the London-based Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators has issued a warning that space scientists say that solar storms are impending and will cause problems for satellite-dependent systems such as GPS and ADS-B.
Scientists believe the solar storms will temporarily shut down navaids. Particularly disturbing is the fact that it is difficult to forecast the location and timing of such failures.
At a recent conference in Washington representatives from the government agencies studying solar storms gathered to raise awareness about the upcoming solar storm and facilitate the sharing of information among the user community, including flight crews and developers of satellite communications, GPS systems and domestic electrical-generation and -distribution systems.
Given adequate warning of an impending storm, managers of the systems can reduce the risk of damage by putting satellites in a non-functioning mode and disconnecting transformers to avoid electrical surges.
The National Academy of Sciences first raised the alarm in 2008 by producing a report titled “Severe Space Weather Events–Social and Economic Impacts,” outlining how many high-technology electrical systems (such as power grids and satellite navigation) can be rendered unusable through intense solar activity. In cost terms a major solar storm could leave a financial bill greater than that for 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)