...And Here, Darn it, Are The Heartbreakers

Final Compilation/Analysis by ANN E-Media Producer, Paul Plack

It is both the most "fun," and most difficult task, facing the ANN staff at the end of every year -- determining who, or what, did the most to promote the cause of aviation in the past 365 days... while also chastising those people or entities that did all they could to undermine the many successes the aerospace community has managed to accomplish.
 
Alas, 2010 saw more than its fair share of downers, aviation-wise. Sure, "stuff" happens... but a few folks, issues, or entities seemed to go out of their way to create problems for the world of aviation.

So... it is ANN's annual obligation to recognize a dozen of our Aero-Heroes/Heartbreakers for 2010... in something of an informal order -- Saving the 'best' for last.

Let us know what you think of our selections... whom YOU would have liked be included, or omitted, from such a list. In the meantime, we hope those who had something to do with this year's selections think a little more positively about the welfare of this industry, so that future lists become harder and harder to catalog.

Be it ignorance, arrogance or just plain incompetence, these were the folks or topics that made our lot a whole lot more difficult and immeasurably injured the aviation world in the past year.

Shame on those issues, folks, or groups that made our lot so much tougher in 2010...

Aero-Heartbreakers: Agency Blocking Instruction for LSA and Gyroplane Pilots

In speaking appearances during his first full year at the helm, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt tried in 2010 to sell the idea that the agency is, for its size and mission, responsive, efficient, and as light on the controls as its safety mandate allows. In rooms filled mostly with operators of aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates, that line sold pretty well. But for pilots of experimental aircraft, especially the small ones which are general aviation's entry level, Babbitt's comments were very dark comedy.

The E-LSA Problem

Part of the problem dates back to the launch of Light Sport Aircraft and the Sport Pilot certificate in 2005. At the time, the FAA wanted to bring the two-seat, unregistered aircraft, then used to train ultralight pilots, into the new Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (E-LSA) tent. Subject to certain qualifications, they could receive airworthiness inspections, be issued N-numbers, and be used for training. The premise was that five years should be plenty of time for instructors to replace their E-LSA trainers with Special Light Sport Aircraft (S-LSA), which are factory assembled to industry consensus standards. A deadline of January 31, 2010 was set for two-place E-LSAs to be retired from training.

But without the unlimited debt facility enjoyed by the federal government, individuals and companies are bound by market realities, and things didn't go exactly as planned. Manufacturers of these small aircraft charged significantly more for S-LSA versions of their E-LSAs, in part to cover the ongoing administrative burden. Instructors, who in this sector are almost exclusively Part 61 and part-time, saw machines on showroom floors that looked exactly like what they had at home, but at much higher prices. The market would not bear a steep increase in instructional rates, especially after the economy collapsed in 2008. So, most instructors in powered parachutes and similar craft decided the only thing that penciled out was playing chicken with the deadline. Surely the FAA wouldn't let the availability of instruction in these aircraft wither, right?

The instructors lost that gamble, and so did the community they once served. Instruction became much harder to find. Even Letters of Deviation Authority (LODA) for training in experimentals, which are a last resort under FAR 61.319(h) in cases of instructional shortages, were unavailable, because in 2008 the FAA pulled its guidelines under which Field Service District Offices (FSDO) could issue the LODAs. Hit especially hard were would-be students for a Sport Pilot rating in the under-80-knot segment which requires specific training. Only four qualifying S-LSA trainers were available in the US as of Fall, 2010.

EAA and other groups worked the backchannels, and it was widely hoped the two-year LODA clot would be cleared in time for AirVenture 2010. But the event came and went without a word. Finally, in September of last year, new LODA guidelines were issued. They allowed LODAs only for seven specific purposes, with an eighth as a catch-all:

1. Initial flight training for the operation of specific make and model of experimental aircraft.
2. Recurrent flight training for the operation of a specific make and model of experimental aircraft.
3. Primary flight training for the operation of ultralight vehicles only when conducted in low mass, high drag vehicles with an empty weight less than 500 pounds and a maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) less than 87 knots calibrated airspeed (CAS).
4. Jet unusual attitude and upset training.
5. Instrument competency training for specific make and model of experimental aircraft.
6. Training for a flight review in a specific make and model of experimental aircraft.
7. Formation training for specific make and model of experimental aircraft.
8. Other specific training approved by the General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800.

A couple of things jump out of this list. The only primary training FSDOs may authorize is for ultralight vehicles - no primary training for the FAA's own Sport Pilot certificate. Recurrent training, transition training, flight reviews, even jet and formation training are OK, but no way to prepare students for a certificate.

Finally, in late October 2010, Steve Brandon of California Powered Parachutes broke through, and got a LODA for a two-place, E-LSA, powered parachute trainer under the catch-all specified at the end of the list: "Other specific training approved by the General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800." In media reports last fall, he noted that he was only able to get the LODA because there was no equivalent S-LSA training aircraft in the jurisdiction of the Oakland FSDO.

Steve's LODA states, "If the Responsible Person signing this LOA (Letter of Authorization) relinquishes responsibility, this LOA becomes invalid." The good news: The FAA is now in the business of granting training monopolies for large geographic areas, so you'll have no ceiling on your rates. The bad news: If you're successful enough to attract a competitor with a S-LSA version of your aircraft, or the person who signed your LODA decides to back out for any reason, you could be out of business at any time. If you're trying to buy a trainer based on a long-term business plan, that's a non-starter.

The Unique Plight of Gyroplanes

If the situation is frustrating for would-be instructors in fixed-wing E-LSAs, it is utterly ridiculous for gyroplane instructors and students. As was the case in powered parachutes, instruction in gyroplanes happened in "fat ultralights," but in the case of gyros they were nearly always Experimental Amateur Built (EAB) two-place machines, legal under an exemption through one of the sport associations.

When Sport Pilot and LSA rulemaking took effect in 2005, the FAA looked at the simplicity of light sport gyroplanes. These are rotorcraft which have no complex, flight-critical transmissions, are easy to fly, and typically have neither collective pitch controls nor in-flight adjustable prop pitch. It was concluded these were as simple as any fixed-wing aircraft. A Sport Pilot Gyroplane certificate was made part of the rule.

But over in the FAA's Rotorcraft Directorate, where E-LSA and S-LSA machines themselves would have to be approved, this was deemed nonsense. Apparently unconvinced that construction and stability standards would improve safety in the segment, this bureau decided there would be no S-LSA gyroplanes permitted in the marketplace. Gyroplane Sport Pilots could still fly EAB gyros which met the speed, weight and other limits of LSA, but they'd have to build their own.

Consensus gyroplane standards were developed through the ASTM process, just as in fixed-wing, but instead of opening the S-LSA market to gyro manufacturers willing to meet those standards, the FAA grandfathered a few legacy designs as E-LSAs to use as the long-term safety test fleet. None had demonstrated compliance with the standards. Most could not. But somehow, in bureau-land, this was a more valid test than allowing manufacturers to introduce conforming machines. Go figure.

In any event, the end of any new training LODAs in 2008 hit gyroplanes, too, only in this segment there were no certificated trainers, and no S-LSA trainers. The Experimental Amateur Built (EAB) gyros which make up the gyro training fleet have remained available if they had LODAs issued before 2008, but as machines wear out, gyroplane instructors have had no way to replace them. There's theoretically the same "Section 8" path to LODAs for EAB gyros that exists for E-LSAs, but it goes through the FAA's General Aviation & Commercial Division, AFS-800, now managed by Mel Cintron.

The Popular Rotorcraft Association's December, 2010 list of active gyroplane CFIs shows only 13 instructors with available training aircraft remaining in the entire US. Gyro pilots are often getting Private or Sport Pilot airplane add-ons, just so they'll be able to rent something for flight reviews. There are only three US Designated Pilot Examiners for gyroplane, and only one has access to an aircraft. This crisis is not just a Sport Pilot issue. This is also the fleet that serves candidates for the Recreational, Private, Commercial and Instructor certificates.

If Administrator Babbitt's contention is that his agency is only as suffocating as it needs to be to fulfill its safety mandate, a bunch of people under his stewardship didn't get the memo. The dream to fly doesn't surrender easily to bureaucratic barriers, and powered parachutes and gyroplanes are fun, affordable, safe ways to fly low and slow. E-LSA and EAB trainers do not appear to be statistically more dangerous than S-LSA. If you want to see real danger, watch someone fly without training. Opportunities will be getting more frequent.

We appear headed back to the unfortunate legacy of the era of the Bensen Gyrocopter, which came with a self-training syllabus in a three-ring binder, and predictable results. The ultralight 'chute crowd has also worked to improve its safety culture. All the progress made in the last 20 years of reinforcing the value of dual training in gyros and PPCs may quickly be undone.

FMI: www.faa.gov, Comments/Criticism For ANN???