Initially, I wanted to move to Florida. Being close to family that I was never around, excellent opportunities for flight training, I mean, how bad could it get?
I was never fond of the weather, but it was a great place to visit.
My family moved to Florida the day after my graduation from high school, making me the only one in my generation of the Newball family to have had all his schooling in the Los Angeles Unified School District (which in spite of its shortfalls, is considerably superior to what Florida could ever offer). Regardless, I saw moving to Florida as a new horizon to cross. It was a transitional period anyway. High school to the unknown world (at the time), childhood to manhood, and from land-based person to pilot.
Once here, however, things didn't go as planned.
Part of our welcoming committee were two strong hurricanes that damaged the house my family had just bought. Companies that did repairs on the house did a cut-and-run job. They did a job halfway (quality-wise), charged an arm and a leg, and when trying to settle a charge, they were nowhere to be found. The company "folded", and the business owners disappeared from the face of the planet. 'Stick it to the customer' mentality, what I like to call the 'Florida' mentality.
I was listening a few years ago to a talk show host from the West Palm Beach area, who is originally from Northern California, and was shocked at how people manage to live in this state, with its low pay, and lower quality of life than what the West Coast offers. He later added that he enjoys living here.
I failed to see his logic.
I come from a city that never sleeps. I can literally, jump in the car, and find something to do, or get a midnight bite, or whatever comes to mind. In Florida, everything dies just after sunset. Nothing to do. My co-workers tell me about locations in downtown West Palm Beach, and I drive by them, with hardly any life. Is this what people call "fun"?
The transition has been so hard, one of my sisters became lactose intolerant (brought on by post-traumatic stress from the hurricanes), and I have become considerably more aggressive and, dare I say, paranoid (the former requires me to hold myself back at work). Something I never felt in California. And, my entire family agrees that it was the worst mistake we ever made.
Yes, it is something I now regret deeply and painfully.
We tried selling the house, but with the housing bubble bursting right as we were planning to move back, we were tied down to Florida. Stuck in the armpit of the universe.
But you take the bad with the good. I started attending Embry-Riddle, and I am working for an airline. I am doing what I can to wrap myself in that while I stay here. But once I get a better paying job, I am moving back to California. All my friends that have left LA regret that decision. And I agree with them. Los Angeles is home.
I'm a proud 'Angeleno'. I will do what I can to get back. Come hell of high water, I'm going back one way or another. My heart is still there, and I can't live without it.
Now to listen to some music that tugs at my heartstrings with California on my mind...
Jacob Wheeler - Magic (original, and instrumental)
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass - Route 101
Randy Newman - I Love LA
George Strait - Marina Del Rey
Hall and Oates - Man on a Mission
Bob Marley and the Wailers - Satisfy My Soul
Hall and Oates - Life's Too Short
28 November 2008
20 November 2008
A small fantasy...
For years, I have always desired to build my own airplane. I had looked at Van's RV-9A, an all-metal two-place kit plane that has pretty good performance, and I had also looked at (more preferably) the Glasair Super II-FT, which is fast, and is all-composite.
But my heart was set on canard designs, like the planes that made Burt Rutan famous. The Vari-Eze, and the Long EZ, both composite aircraft, have tandem seats and a bubble canopy. And both have a very nice property of flight. Both wing surfaces (stabilizer and wing) provide positive lift, as opposed to a "conventional" wing placement, where the stabilizer in the back provides negative lift. The canard design allows for better stability, and better efficiency. Though it hasn't caught on in mainstream aviation (the closest was the Beech Starship, which production didn't last long). Even so, this concept, as old as powered flight itself (the same used by the Wright Brothers for, of all things, stall prevention) allures me.
Maybe it is because the first time I flew in a GA airplane was my Young Eagles flight back in 1999, in a Rutan Long EZ.
I had looked at many designs. In my ideal airplane, I would want a fuel-efficient design. I would also want speed. I also want a lot of range. Well, as far as fuel efficiency goes, I would probably build a Cassutt 111M racing plane. If I wanted speed, I'd ditch the Cassutt and go for a Lancair Legacy. But, if I wanted range, I would probably go to a Lancair IV, or something comparable.
Now, I forgot to add something. Part of that fantasy was building a plane of my own design. Back to the canards! Although I have no engineering knowledge, I have ideas. I have many ideas that can be translated to a full-scale aircraft.
I know (in theory, not in practice) how to build composites using foam, fiberglass, and epoxy. I also know that the ideal powerplant for my airplane would be something small, not exceeding 80 horsepower, using a fixed-pitch pusher propeller.
Again, I'm no engineer, but I have doodled on paper what this plane would look like.
My love of canards had me researching designs from World War II, and I was captivated by the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden. Though the design had only 45 minutes of flight time (the project was cut short because of the war's end), the original design held a lot of promise, with jet engines and rocket propulsion in the design's future. I had an idea.
Why can't I build a one-seat personal cruiser, with a bubble canopy, just a little bit of storage space (probably large enough to only carry a rolling bag small enough for a carry-on, and a flight kit), with computer displays instead of steam gauges to save weight, with plenty of range (north of 1300 nautical miles), and speed (so the bladder will allow you to see the aircraft's full potential). The aircraft will be small, with folding wings (allowing it to be towed to your garage, not hangar), and simple compartmentalized systems. My idea is to build an airplane that is easy to build, easy to maintain, and affordable to operate (one of the reasons why some pilots opt to build rather than buy).
My aircraft, which I arbitrarily designated the NE-20 (NE for Newball, and 20, because all my drawings and ideas were aligning to a common design when I turned 20). I temporarily called it "Shinden" because of its slight resemblance to the original (though now, I'm considering renaming the plane "Calisto", because changes continue to be made to the design).
Before, I wanted something that could literally fit the cockpit of an F-16 inside. But, I scratched that. I visuallized my body in a small cabin, leaning back by about 35 to 40 degrees, legs forward, just like in an F-16, or more aptly, in a Focke-Wulf FW-190 (the pilot sits reclined for better G tolerance in high-G maneuvers). Not for high-G tolerance, but a reduced "frontal profile" that would require a larger canopy and fuselage (you're not as high when you're reclined, versus sitting upright).
Putting the proper instrumentation in a tiny panel was a predicament. But with the advent of glass cockpit systems, and computer displays, you can have the same amount of information in a typical "six-pack" in one small screen, in much the same way a modern business jet or airliner would have. Plus, with a young guy like me, I would prefer glass over steam gauges anyway. A full EFIS unit would cost about the same as a bundle of similar analog instruments that would portray the same information. It costs less to maintain an EFIS system as well.
I had estimated the cost of materials, tools, avionics, and instruments to amount to roughly $20,000. The engine would be either the ULPower UL260, or Rotax 912, both topping out at 85 horsepower. I was also considering using the Wilksch Airmotive diesel, but with the cost of jet fuel where it is (normally about $2 above 100LL), I opted to stay with avgas engines.
It's a small fantasy. But, who knows. Maybe I'll run into a lot of cash, buy half the inventory of Aircraft Spruce and Specialty, and build this plane in the garage...after I get an aeronautical engineer to "attack" my design, and find faults with it (I'm sure there will be many).
But my heart was set on canard designs, like the planes that made Burt Rutan famous. The Vari-Eze, and the Long EZ, both composite aircraft, have tandem seats and a bubble canopy. And both have a very nice property of flight. Both wing surfaces (stabilizer and wing) provide positive lift, as opposed to a "conventional" wing placement, where the stabilizer in the back provides negative lift. The canard design allows for better stability, and better efficiency. Though it hasn't caught on in mainstream aviation (the closest was the Beech Starship, which production didn't last long). Even so, this concept, as old as powered flight itself (the same used by the Wright Brothers for, of all things, stall prevention) allures me.
Maybe it is because the first time I flew in a GA airplane was my Young Eagles flight back in 1999, in a Rutan Long EZ.
I had looked at many designs. In my ideal airplane, I would want a fuel-efficient design. I would also want speed. I also want a lot of range. Well, as far as fuel efficiency goes, I would probably build a Cassutt 111M racing plane. If I wanted speed, I'd ditch the Cassutt and go for a Lancair Legacy. But, if I wanted range, I would probably go to a Lancair IV, or something comparable.
Now, I forgot to add something. Part of that fantasy was building a plane of my own design. Back to the canards! Although I have no engineering knowledge, I have ideas. I have many ideas that can be translated to a full-scale aircraft.
I know (in theory, not in practice) how to build composites using foam, fiberglass, and epoxy. I also know that the ideal powerplant for my airplane would be something small, not exceeding 80 horsepower, using a fixed-pitch pusher propeller.
Again, I'm no engineer, but I have doodled on paper what this plane would look like.
My love of canards had me researching designs from World War II, and I was captivated by the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden. Though the design had only 45 minutes of flight time (the project was cut short because of the war's end), the original design held a lot of promise, with jet engines and rocket propulsion in the design's future. I had an idea.
Why can't I build a one-seat personal cruiser, with a bubble canopy, just a little bit of storage space (probably large enough to only carry a rolling bag small enough for a carry-on, and a flight kit), with computer displays instead of steam gauges to save weight, with plenty of range (north of 1300 nautical miles), and speed (so the bladder will allow you to see the aircraft's full potential). The aircraft will be small, with folding wings (allowing it to be towed to your garage, not hangar), and simple compartmentalized systems. My idea is to build an airplane that is easy to build, easy to maintain, and affordable to operate (one of the reasons why some pilots opt to build rather than buy).
My aircraft, which I arbitrarily designated the NE-20 (NE for Newball, and 20, because all my drawings and ideas were aligning to a common design when I turned 20). I temporarily called it "Shinden" because of its slight resemblance to the original (though now, I'm considering renaming the plane "Calisto", because changes continue to be made to the design).
Before, I wanted something that could literally fit the cockpit of an F-16 inside. But, I scratched that. I visuallized my body in a small cabin, leaning back by about 35 to 40 degrees, legs forward, just like in an F-16, or more aptly, in a Focke-Wulf FW-190 (the pilot sits reclined for better G tolerance in high-G maneuvers). Not for high-G tolerance, but a reduced "frontal profile" that would require a larger canopy and fuselage (you're not as high when you're reclined, versus sitting upright).
Putting the proper instrumentation in a tiny panel was a predicament. But with the advent of glass cockpit systems, and computer displays, you can have the same amount of information in a typical "six-pack" in one small screen, in much the same way a modern business jet or airliner would have. Plus, with a young guy like me, I would prefer glass over steam gauges anyway. A full EFIS unit would cost about the same as a bundle of similar analog instruments that would portray the same information. It costs less to maintain an EFIS system as well.
I had estimated the cost of materials, tools, avionics, and instruments to amount to roughly $20,000. The engine would be either the ULPower UL260, or Rotax 912, both topping out at 85 horsepower. I was also considering using the Wilksch Airmotive diesel, but with the cost of jet fuel where it is (normally about $2 above 100LL), I opted to stay with avgas engines.
It's a small fantasy. But, who knows. Maybe I'll run into a lot of cash, buy half the inventory of Aircraft Spruce and Specialty, and build this plane in the garage...after I get an aeronautical engineer to "attack" my design, and find faults with it (I'm sure there will be many).
16 November 2008
My First Airshow...El Toro '93
Imagine a warm, sunny day in Orange County, California. Back in 1993, when Marine Corps Air Station El Toro was still open and holding its annual airshow, my family went for the first time. And it was an experience. I had never been around so many airplanes, nor had I been so close to both civilian and military planes alike (I was one of those boys in elementary schools who had practically learned a good portion of the inventory of the US arsenal that had wings on it). But I had no preference. Both were cool.
I remember seeing the Red Barons fly for the first time there. Hearing those roaring Stearmans flying, and seeing them fly a graceful show was something.
Seeing Patty Wagstaff fly for the first time in my life. That was also inspiring.
The USAF Thunderbirds were there as well. It was the first time I saw an F-16 fly in person. Of course, I was 6 years old at the time. And, on top of that, one fly over me.
It was also the first time I saw aviation's ugly side. An F-86 Sabre, pulling out of a loop way too low slams against the flightline, and created a huge fireball. One larger than the controlled pyrotechnics of the air attack demonstration. That one made the ground shake significantly. The explosion caught my attention, and I looked to see a huge plume of smoke, in three different colors: white, yellow, and black. I was too short to see what was going on, and I heard my dad say, "He crashed...". I stood on my tiptoes to see what happened, but to no avail. At the time, I had no compulsion to do anything but watch and try to see what would happen next. A lot like Ernest K. Gann's experience when he saw a DC-3 crash, sitting in a jeep with another pilot, and so suddenly, and insidiously stunned, that they were unable to do anything to help.
I never thought that I would see a plane crash in person. And although some memories of that day were foggy, I remember the atmosphere felt different.
The airshow went on, however. The civilian acts continued, and the Thunderbirds did fly. By that time, I had forgotten about the crash. I was in aviation-sensory-overload, seeing so many airplanes fly, and being around so many people who went for one thing: to see planes and pilots do what they do best. To fly. Watching in the same awe that people had when barnstormers flew into their towns and gave rides, or even daring aerobatic acts in their biplanes.
From what I understand and remember, the pilot of the Vietnam-era F-86 unfortunately died.
You can download the video here, and you will see the crash that I, and about 200,000 other people saw.
I have read in the scant accounts of that event that many people left after the crash. I have also read accounts of airshow enthusiasts driving home mid-show right after a crash. As if they cannot stomach the rest of the show. And with such a bitter note that an accident brings, who can blame them? I never understood it until reflecting on what I experienced that day over 15 years ago.
Since then, I have not seen a plane crash in person. But I have seen airshow pilots perform during one of their last airshows, like Eric Beard, Jimmy Franklin, Bobby Younkin and Jim LeRoy. Seeing such great pilots fall is something that all aviation enthusiasts feel pain in. A heavy, hard pain. Seeing their acts, and sharing their love for flight and adventure creates a bond between performer and attendee, pilot and spectator, aviator to dreamer. I nearly cried when I heard about those fine men losing their lives doing what they loved. It hurts the airshow industry by fueling the reputation that airshows are dangerous. It hurts pilots because it hurts their professional reputation. It hurts enthusiasts and fans dearly, because they lost a figure, a friend.
I still attend airshows, and obviously, I still love flying, of course. I had been attending airshows for years, and will continue to do so for years to come. Flying is something beautiful, too beautiful to keep to yourself. It needs to be shared. You embrace the good in that it provides wonderful memories for life. You also learn to embrace the bad, since each accident has a lesson that all pilots should learn. It's why I am so bent on becoming a pilot. And it's why I'm pursuing a minor in aviation safety at ERAU (my major is professional aeronautics). Each error has a lesson to be learned. And, although there is no such thing as a working crystal ball, anticipating such errors, be it in airmanship or in design, is key. The latter can only go so far, and though morbid in thought, it will take an error of the scale of an incident or accident for all pilots to learn something. Though it is not a positive experience, it is part of "growing pains", so to speak, in our pilot careers.
Blue Skies and Tailwinds to all.
I remember seeing the Red Barons fly for the first time there. Hearing those roaring Stearmans flying, and seeing them fly a graceful show was something.
Seeing Patty Wagstaff fly for the first time in my life. That was also inspiring.
The USAF Thunderbirds were there as well. It was the first time I saw an F-16 fly in person. Of course, I was 6 years old at the time. And, on top of that, one fly over me.
It was also the first time I saw aviation's ugly side. An F-86 Sabre, pulling out of a loop way too low slams against the flightline, and created a huge fireball. One larger than the controlled pyrotechnics of the air attack demonstration. That one made the ground shake significantly. The explosion caught my attention, and I looked to see a huge plume of smoke, in three different colors: white, yellow, and black. I was too short to see what was going on, and I heard my dad say, "He crashed...". I stood on my tiptoes to see what happened, but to no avail. At the time, I had no compulsion to do anything but watch and try to see what would happen next. A lot like Ernest K. Gann's experience when he saw a DC-3 crash, sitting in a jeep with another pilot, and so suddenly, and insidiously stunned, that they were unable to do anything to help.
I never thought that I would see a plane crash in person. And although some memories of that day were foggy, I remember the atmosphere felt different.
The airshow went on, however. The civilian acts continued, and the Thunderbirds did fly. By that time, I had forgotten about the crash. I was in aviation-sensory-overload, seeing so many airplanes fly, and being around so many people who went for one thing: to see planes and pilots do what they do best. To fly. Watching in the same awe that people had when barnstormers flew into their towns and gave rides, or even daring aerobatic acts in their biplanes.
From what I understand and remember, the pilot of the Vietnam-era F-86 unfortunately died.
You can download the video here, and you will see the crash that I, and about 200,000 other people saw.
I have read in the scant accounts of that event that many people left after the crash. I have also read accounts of airshow enthusiasts driving home mid-show right after a crash. As if they cannot stomach the rest of the show. And with such a bitter note that an accident brings, who can blame them? I never understood it until reflecting on what I experienced that day over 15 years ago.
Since then, I have not seen a plane crash in person. But I have seen airshow pilots perform during one of their last airshows, like Eric Beard, Jimmy Franklin, Bobby Younkin and Jim LeRoy. Seeing such great pilots fall is something that all aviation enthusiasts feel pain in. A heavy, hard pain. Seeing their acts, and sharing their love for flight and adventure creates a bond between performer and attendee, pilot and spectator, aviator to dreamer. I nearly cried when I heard about those fine men losing their lives doing what they loved. It hurts the airshow industry by fueling the reputation that airshows are dangerous. It hurts pilots because it hurts their professional reputation. It hurts enthusiasts and fans dearly, because they lost a figure, a friend.
I still attend airshows, and obviously, I still love flying, of course. I had been attending airshows for years, and will continue to do so for years to come. Flying is something beautiful, too beautiful to keep to yourself. It needs to be shared. You embrace the good in that it provides wonderful memories for life. You also learn to embrace the bad, since each accident has a lesson that all pilots should learn. It's why I am so bent on becoming a pilot. And it's why I'm pursuing a minor in aviation safety at ERAU (my major is professional aeronautics). Each error has a lesson to be learned. And, although there is no such thing as a working crystal ball, anticipating such errors, be it in airmanship or in design, is key. The latter can only go so far, and though morbid in thought, it will take an error of the scale of an incident or accident for all pilots to learn something. Though it is not a positive experience, it is part of "growing pains", so to speak, in our pilot careers.
Blue Skies and Tailwinds to all.
12 November 2008
Airport improvement. Evil, or is there actually a reason behind it?
"Not In My Backyard!" is the mantra of people who refuse to have something bigger than them displace them or affect them in any matter (even in a positive way, which they tend to blind themselves from). In some circumstances, I wholeheartedly agree with their stance. I wouldn't want sexual predators living near me or my neighbors. Nor would I want railroad tracks be set near my house (if my house was there before, then they can find somewhere else to lay tracks).
But there are some things that people tend to rally against. One such thing is the local airport.
I have seen people start rallies to close the local airport down (if you're in Chicago, don't worry. Mayor Richard Daley is WAY ahead of you in that department! I think you should worry about STOPPING him). People say that airports bring a lot of noise, and a lot of pollution. People say that houses near airports lose value because of the noise, and that it shouldn't be that way.
But lets go back to the beginning of the problem. Why live near an airport?
In spite of my disdain for the region I live in, I am happy that I live close to an airport. For me, it's comforting to hear a whirling propeller overhead. In fact, if I hear a propeller that sounds different (say, a different engine tone, or a different prop RPM), I'll run to the window, waiting to see if it's something special, like some sort of aerobatic or experimental airplane, or a classic Stearman biplane, or an older model twin.
But I digress.
Here's the issue. People nowadays tend to be myopic. They see what is only in front of them, and whatever comes into view unexpectedly will startle them and anger them, like a little dog seeing a bird fly from the bush he's sniffing. "Out of my tree!" he barks, then goes back to sniffing. "Not in my backyard" the neighbor cries, and then goes back to his business.
Those people are like those working to shut down Santa Monica Airport. A group of myopic individuals who seek only their personal gain, rather than the gain of the community. The airport neighbors that are noisier than the aircraft causing all the "noise".
People tend to forget all the gains that are made in aviation each day. Technology is getting better in aircraft and engine design to reduce pollution (noise and carbon) and more importantly, increase safety. Pilot training is at its best, and continues to improve. And the ancillary costs to run an aviation operation, such as a flight school, or a fixed-base operator, or an airline serving the community, and all the infrastructure that must be built and maintained brings jobs to the community. People should be thankful that they have an airport near them.
These people forget that airports bring important jobs, especially nowadays in this economy. Airports bring money, BIG money into the community! They're not there to cause a big raucous above your house. They're here for a reason, be it to train, or to work, or to sign a deal with a local business. Airports really ARE your friends.
Of course, why did you move under the approach path of a runway? You didn't see those planes flying over you?
Reminds me about work one day. One customer at the baggage office went to complain that his wine bottles in a poorly packed bag broke, and wanted the airline to pay for it. After being asked why he packed the bottles in that manner, he said "so if they break, the airline could pay for it". Like him, complainers of airport proximity, and the non-aviation-savvy general public as a whole, share the same logic. "I'm going to buy this house. And I'll get that airport to go away after I move in. That'll increase the value of my house!" Sorry, the airport was there before you were. The airport has the right to stay and if necessary, expand if the need arises.
Today, in West Palm Beach, Florida, the county held a "public workshop" regarding the FAA's findings on extending or moving a runway at Palm Beach International. More of which can be read here (please advise via email if the link is dead).
West Palm Beach mayor Lois Frankel believes that traffic is decreasing at Palm Beach International. She believes there is no purpose in extending the runway. She feels that because of the rising cost of fuel and air travel, as well as the current economic state has decreased traffic, apparently so much so that it will effectively kill any justification for extending a runway (I'm guessing she doesn't want the hassle of complainers of airport proximity calling her office since her hands would be effectively be tied regarding the situation).
The FAA believes, however, that an alternative would be to build a new airport, a "green airport" (an airport build out of green space, like a large empty field, like Denver International Airport, though nowadays, "green" will also refer to reducing carbon footprints, and conserving energy, and all that jazz). I'm for that as well. However, people need to realize that there is a huge need for airports in a National Airspace System that is becoming saturated.
The solution is to build more runways. Not user-fees, not auctioning landing and departure slots to the highest bidder, but adding runways to add the capacity for more traffic.
There are many other solutions, but limiting airports to a level that is not near their greatest potential, or closing airports for the gain of only a small group of people. For the convenience and "peace" of a few hundred people at the departure and arrival ends of an airport that has closed, would it really be worth losing literally thousands of jobs from outlying communities? Or what about losing all of that influx of money from those noisy "big wigs" in their corporate jets going to YOUR area to make big business deals that would benefit your community? Think about why they are in your community. It's your airport!
That's why I urge my readers to visit http://www.aopa.org/asn/ to see AOPA's efforts in supporting your local airports. Airports of all sizes need protection. Though some airports are thriving with the support of their communities, there are others that are not as fortunate. Airports like Santa Monica Airport, are in danger of having their operations severely limited, if not closed altogether.
Just as how it's my airport, it's there for YOUR use as well. Just as how it's my airport, it's also your interest to be protected!
Some airport authorities are providing free soundproofing to homes that are affected by airport noise. If you are that irritated by airport noise (or porbably more accurately, that stubborn to move), give your local airport authority a call. For example, as a good gesture, Los Angeles World Airports is offering free home soundproofing to airport neighbors of LA International, LA/Van Nuys, LA/Palmdale, and LA/Ontario airports. The City of Los Angeles is offering this service to its citizens (I keep stressing this, because airport neighbor/NIMBYs have lashed out at this gesture of good will towards them). Rather than fight the airport, you should help your airport improve. Be a good citizen and work hand in hand with your local airport authority.
I am willing to do whatever aviation asks of me (my personal mantra, similar to John F. Kennedy's quote, is "Ask not what aviation can do for you, but what you can do for aviation!"). People, we have taken so much for granted in aviation. And we have even dared to impose our wants on aviation. It's high time we return the gracious favor that aviation has given us. Work with local pilots at airport open houses. Work in conjunction, rather than fight against, your local airport authority. A symbiotic relationship between the airport and its neighbors is not only possible, but is happening now!
Airports like Palm Beach County Park Airport (Gassaway Field, previously known as Lantana), have such a relationship. It's not perfect, but both the airport neighbors (of which I am one) and the airport live peacefully in coexistence. The airport neighbors do not list the airport as one of the worries of the neighborhood. And, people, that's what it's all about! Though it isn't ideal (the airport has not held any type of large-scale open-house event, no less an airshow, where a large volume of volunteer work exists), it's getting there. There should be more public awareness of aviation. Just like our roads, airports are there to serve ALL of us. Airports are probably the most important neighbor we will have.
But there are some things that people tend to rally against. One such thing is the local airport.
I have seen people start rallies to close the local airport down (if you're in Chicago, don't worry. Mayor Richard Daley is WAY ahead of you in that department! I think you should worry about STOPPING him). People say that airports bring a lot of noise, and a lot of pollution. People say that houses near airports lose value because of the noise, and that it shouldn't be that way.
But lets go back to the beginning of the problem. Why live near an airport?
In spite of my disdain for the region I live in, I am happy that I live close to an airport. For me, it's comforting to hear a whirling propeller overhead. In fact, if I hear a propeller that sounds different (say, a different engine tone, or a different prop RPM), I'll run to the window, waiting to see if it's something special, like some sort of aerobatic or experimental airplane, or a classic Stearman biplane, or an older model twin.
But I digress.
Here's the issue. People nowadays tend to be myopic. They see what is only in front of them, and whatever comes into view unexpectedly will startle them and anger them, like a little dog seeing a bird fly from the bush he's sniffing. "Out of my tree!" he barks, then goes back to sniffing. "Not in my backyard" the neighbor cries, and then goes back to his business.
Those people are like those working to shut down Santa Monica Airport. A group of myopic individuals who seek only their personal gain, rather than the gain of the community. The airport neighbors that are noisier than the aircraft causing all the "noise".
People tend to forget all the gains that are made in aviation each day. Technology is getting better in aircraft and engine design to reduce pollution (noise and carbon) and more importantly, increase safety. Pilot training is at its best, and continues to improve. And the ancillary costs to run an aviation operation, such as a flight school, or a fixed-base operator, or an airline serving the community, and all the infrastructure that must be built and maintained brings jobs to the community. People should be thankful that they have an airport near them.
These people forget that airports bring important jobs, especially nowadays in this economy. Airports bring money, BIG money into the community! They're not there to cause a big raucous above your house. They're here for a reason, be it to train, or to work, or to sign a deal with a local business. Airports really ARE your friends.
Of course, why did you move under the approach path of a runway? You didn't see those planes flying over you?
Reminds me about work one day. One customer at the baggage office went to complain that his wine bottles in a poorly packed bag broke, and wanted the airline to pay for it. After being asked why he packed the bottles in that manner, he said "so if they break, the airline could pay for it". Like him, complainers of airport proximity, and the non-aviation-savvy general public as a whole, share the same logic. "I'm going to buy this house. And I'll get that airport to go away after I move in. That'll increase the value of my house!" Sorry, the airport was there before you were. The airport has the right to stay and if necessary, expand if the need arises.
Today, in West Palm Beach, Florida, the county held a "public workshop" regarding the FAA's findings on extending or moving a runway at Palm Beach International. More of which can be read here (please advise via email if the link is dead).
West Palm Beach mayor Lois Frankel believes that traffic is decreasing at Palm Beach International. She believes there is no purpose in extending the runway. She feels that because of the rising cost of fuel and air travel, as well as the current economic state has decreased traffic, apparently so much so that it will effectively kill any justification for extending a runway (I'm guessing she doesn't want the hassle of complainers of airport proximity calling her office since her hands would be effectively be tied regarding the situation).
The FAA believes, however, that an alternative would be to build a new airport, a "green airport" (an airport build out of green space, like a large empty field, like Denver International Airport, though nowadays, "green" will also refer to reducing carbon footprints, and conserving energy, and all that jazz). I'm for that as well. However, people need to realize that there is a huge need for airports in a National Airspace System that is becoming saturated.
The solution is to build more runways. Not user-fees, not auctioning landing and departure slots to the highest bidder, but adding runways to add the capacity for more traffic.
There are many other solutions, but limiting airports to a level that is not near their greatest potential, or closing airports for the gain of only a small group of people. For the convenience and "peace" of a few hundred people at the departure and arrival ends of an airport that has closed, would it really be worth losing literally thousands of jobs from outlying communities? Or what about losing all of that influx of money from those noisy "big wigs" in their corporate jets going to YOUR area to make big business deals that would benefit your community? Think about why they are in your community. It's your airport!
That's why I urge my readers to visit http://www.aopa.org/asn/ to see AOPA's efforts in supporting your local airports. Airports of all sizes need protection. Though some airports are thriving with the support of their communities, there are others that are not as fortunate. Airports like Santa Monica Airport, are in danger of having their operations severely limited, if not closed altogether.
Just as how it's my airport, it's there for YOUR use as well. Just as how it's my airport, it's also your interest to be protected!
Some airport authorities are providing free soundproofing to homes that are affected by airport noise. If you are that irritated by airport noise (or porbably more accurately, that stubborn to move), give your local airport authority a call. For example, as a good gesture, Los Angeles World Airports is offering free home soundproofing to airport neighbors of LA International, LA/Van Nuys, LA/Palmdale, and LA/Ontario airports. The City of Los Angeles is offering this service to its citizens (I keep stressing this, because airport neighbor/NIMBYs have lashed out at this gesture of good will towards them). Rather than fight the airport, you should help your airport improve. Be a good citizen and work hand in hand with your local airport authority.
I am willing to do whatever aviation asks of me (my personal mantra, similar to John F. Kennedy's quote, is "Ask not what aviation can do for you, but what you can do for aviation!"). People, we have taken so much for granted in aviation. And we have even dared to impose our wants on aviation. It's high time we return the gracious favor that aviation has given us. Work with local pilots at airport open houses. Work in conjunction, rather than fight against, your local airport authority. A symbiotic relationship between the airport and its neighbors is not only possible, but is happening now!
Airports like Palm Beach County Park Airport (Gassaway Field, previously known as Lantana), have such a relationship. It's not perfect, but both the airport neighbors (of which I am one) and the airport live peacefully in coexistence. The airport neighbors do not list the airport as one of the worries of the neighborhood. And, people, that's what it's all about! Though it isn't ideal (the airport has not held any type of large-scale open-house event, no less an airshow, where a large volume of volunteer work exists), it's getting there. There should be more public awareness of aviation. Just like our roads, airports are there to serve ALL of us. Airports are probably the most important neighbor we will have.
10 November 2008
Phil Boyer Passes the Torch to Craig Fuller, the new president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association...
Earlier this year, I became a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I became a member when the users of aviation began polarizing with regards to funding the National Airspace System and its modernization.
But what is this? An airline employee, one who gives his all to the airline he works for, doing what he can to make the airline profitable, joining what the airlines' deemed as the enemy, not paying "their fair share"?!
That's right. I joined AOPA in rebellion against what my airline, and the Air Transport Association was trying to pull on GA. Airline executives don't know that it's the GA environment where their pilots learn to fly in nowadays. Airline executives don't know that GA contributes more to aviation, and communities involved in aviation way more than some money-hungry airline would ever even dare consider! It's a fight that AOPA won recently.
Without ceremony, we succeeded in preventing user-fees from happening...for now. We know that the airlines will try to pull this stunt again, but we know that they will fail.
Phil Boyer is seen in some aviation circles as a superhero. And he should rightfully carry that title. All that he has done for general aviation deserves accolades. And although I have never seen Mr. Boyer in person, I want him to know how much I appreciate what he has done for general aviation. Though I was unable to attend AOPA Expo this year, I did keep myself updated online.
Craig Fuller is the new president of AOPA. He now leads the first and foremost organization of pilots in the world, and I know he will receive our support. Hand in hand, all of us will succeed in making general aviation safer, more reliable, and a lot more fun for pilots and non-pilots alike. We're with you, Mr. Fuller.
And I'd like to thank Mr. Boyer for everything he has done for the GA pilot. He knew pilots well. And though with a heavy heart that we see him leave, the torch has been passed on.
Thanks, Phil.
But what is this? An airline employee, one who gives his all to the airline he works for, doing what he can to make the airline profitable, joining what the airlines' deemed as the enemy, not paying "their fair share"?!
That's right. I joined AOPA in rebellion against what my airline, and the Air Transport Association was trying to pull on GA. Airline executives don't know that it's the GA environment where their pilots learn to fly in nowadays. Airline executives don't know that GA contributes more to aviation, and communities involved in aviation way more than some money-hungry airline would ever even dare consider! It's a fight that AOPA won recently.
Without ceremony, we succeeded in preventing user-fees from happening...for now. We know that the airlines will try to pull this stunt again, but we know that they will fail.
Phil Boyer is seen in some aviation circles as a superhero. And he should rightfully carry that title. All that he has done for general aviation deserves accolades. And although I have never seen Mr. Boyer in person, I want him to know how much I appreciate what he has done for general aviation. Though I was unable to attend AOPA Expo this year, I did keep myself updated online.
Craig Fuller is the new president of AOPA. He now leads the first and foremost organization of pilots in the world, and I know he will receive our support. Hand in hand, all of us will succeed in making general aviation safer, more reliable, and a lot more fun for pilots and non-pilots alike. We're with you, Mr. Fuller.
And I'd like to thank Mr. Boyer for everything he has done for the GA pilot. He knew pilots well. And though with a heavy heart that we see him leave, the torch has been passed on.
Thanks, Phil.
05 November 2008
Dreams of Flight...
My first flight in a small airplane occurred back in April 17, 1999. I was in the seventh grade. I had been pestering my dad for months to take me to Torrance Airport, because of this program called "Young Eagles", run by the Experimental Aircraft Association. He finally gave in, and took me there. It was a basic introduction to aviation. Plenty of other kids were there, just about none that I have seen before. Many boy scouts were there...I wasn't sure why. But that's beside the point.
During my middle school years, I was practically glued to the channel back then known as "SpeedVision". Their program block consisted of car racing, motorcycle racing, and boat racing. However, part of their program block had some of the best aviation programming ever. Shows like "Legends of Air Power", "EAA Sport Flying", and yearly coverage of AirVenture Oshkosh, among a weekly aviation news magazine. The EAA programming really spoke to me, because it felt tangible. I was thoroughly convinced that I have the capability to build my own airplane.
At that time, I had dreams of being the next John Roncz or the next Burt Rutan (hey, when your bloodline crosses with that of the Wright Brothers like mine does, your dreams tend to be really big). I also had dreams of being the next Sean D. Tucker, or the next Leo Loudenslager. Designing and building airplanes, along with airshows, were the big thing in my young life.
Then it all hit home that day.
"Gilroy Newball", the man called. I was next to fly. And what was this? I was going to fly in a Rutan Long EZ? Not only on this day, do I fly in a GA plane for the first time, but I also fly in a Rutan design?!
Ron Scroeder of EAA Chapter 96 (the Torrance/South Bay area of Los Angeles) is the pilot and owner of the Long EZ I flew in. He showed me how to climb into the back seat of a Long EZ, and showed me around. He started the engine, raised the nose and lowered the nose gear, and we started taxiing to Runway 22L at Zamperini Field (TOA). I felt my heart beating faster and faster as we lined up for takeoff. Then, he opened the throttle, poured on the power, and the little Long EZ began racing down the runway. In no time, we were in the air. I looked to my left, towards the General Aviation Building, and I saw my dad there, waving at me. I waved back.
Climbing was an awesome experience. With the Long EZ's bubble canopy, we were able to have an unrestricted view above us. We saw planes above us, and all over. Looking right, we saw some jets taking off from LAX, and to the right, we saw many planes...Cessnas, Pipers, Beeches, and some experimental planes as well.
My two friends who went with me also had a chance to ride. Between the three, I was the first to go. One of them went in a Thorp T-18, and the other in a Van's RV-6A.
We flew around the Palos Verdes Peninsula, then over San Pedro and the Harbor. It was a beautiful flight. My first in General Aviation.
The little plane felt like a fighter. The bubble canopy, the sidestick, the small quarters, it was an ethereal experience. I felt like a new person after we landed. It was a wonderful experience. It was one that confirmed my love for flying.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the good folks of EAA Chapter 96. I'd love to fly with you guys again. Not as a passenger, but as a pilot. I want to pass the torch that was passed to me. I kept that flame of aviation alive, and I want to share that flame with others.
During my middle school years, I was practically glued to the channel back then known as "SpeedVision". Their program block consisted of car racing, motorcycle racing, and boat racing. However, part of their program block had some of the best aviation programming ever. Shows like "Legends of Air Power", "EAA Sport Flying", and yearly coverage of AirVenture Oshkosh, among a weekly aviation news magazine. The EAA programming really spoke to me, because it felt tangible. I was thoroughly convinced that I have the capability to build my own airplane.
At that time, I had dreams of being the next John Roncz or the next Burt Rutan (hey, when your bloodline crosses with that of the Wright Brothers like mine does, your dreams tend to be really big). I also had dreams of being the next Sean D. Tucker, or the next Leo Loudenslager. Designing and building airplanes, along with airshows, were the big thing in my young life.
Then it all hit home that day.
"Gilroy Newball", the man called. I was next to fly. And what was this? I was going to fly in a Rutan Long EZ? Not only on this day, do I fly in a GA plane for the first time, but I also fly in a Rutan design?!
Ron Scroeder of EAA Chapter 96 (the Torrance/South Bay area of Los Angeles) is the pilot and owner of the Long EZ I flew in. He showed me how to climb into the back seat of a Long EZ, and showed me around. He started the engine, raised the nose and lowered the nose gear, and we started taxiing to Runway 22L at Zamperini Field (TOA). I felt my heart beating faster and faster as we lined up for takeoff. Then, he opened the throttle, poured on the power, and the little Long EZ began racing down the runway. In no time, we were in the air. I looked to my left, towards the General Aviation Building, and I saw my dad there, waving at me. I waved back.
Climbing was an awesome experience. With the Long EZ's bubble canopy, we were able to have an unrestricted view above us. We saw planes above us, and all over. Looking right, we saw some jets taking off from LAX, and to the right, we saw many planes...Cessnas, Pipers, Beeches, and some experimental planes as well.
My two friends who went with me also had a chance to ride. Between the three, I was the first to go. One of them went in a Thorp T-18, and the other in a Van's RV-6A.
We flew around the Palos Verdes Peninsula, then over San Pedro and the Harbor. It was a beautiful flight. My first in General Aviation.
The little plane felt like a fighter. The bubble canopy, the sidestick, the small quarters, it was an ethereal experience. I felt like a new person after we landed. It was a wonderful experience. It was one that confirmed my love for flying.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the good folks of EAA Chapter 96. I'd love to fly with you guys again. Not as a passenger, but as a pilot. I want to pass the torch that was passed to me. I kept that flame of aviation alive, and I want to share that flame with others.
01 November 2008
"Chasing The Sun"
If anyone has seen it, they would know what I'm talking about.
"Chasing The Sun" is a documentary "mini-series" of sorts that is about the first 100 years of powered flight. From the dunes of Kitty Hawk to crossing the Atlantic, to flying around the world in airplanes with no propellers six miles above the earth, it's an absolute ant total immersion into aviation history. And it was beautifully made. It really hit home with me. And I know it struck a common chord with all our flying brethren who have seen it. History of aviation, birth and growth of the airlines, into modern aviation. It's a beautiful documentary series.
One thing I never understood, however, was why PBS (in this case, KCET-Los Angeles, the producers) did not even bother putting it on DVD. You have to dig real deep into PBS's website to find any reference to it, since it isn't even on sale!
What's worse is that you cannot find anything related to it on YouTube or Google Video, or anything like it. Which is a shame, since people are constantly putting up snippets of aviation documentaries or other videos on such sites for the world to see.
If anyone would send a link to where to buy it, if it is being sold anywhere, or to a petition to get the documentary series in publication again, I'd be glad to put the link here, and sign any petition. To hide such art is a shame. It is a beautiful work of art, and it should be experienced by all once more, especially now in these tumultuous times in aviation.
"Chasing The Sun" is a documentary "mini-series" of sorts that is about the first 100 years of powered flight. From the dunes of Kitty Hawk to crossing the Atlantic, to flying around the world in airplanes with no propellers six miles above the earth, it's an absolute ant total immersion into aviation history. And it was beautifully made. It really hit home with me. And I know it struck a common chord with all our flying brethren who have seen it. History of aviation, birth and growth of the airlines, into modern aviation. It's a beautiful documentary series.
One thing I never understood, however, was why PBS (in this case, KCET-Los Angeles, the producers) did not even bother putting it on DVD. You have to dig real deep into PBS's website to find any reference to it, since it isn't even on sale!
What's worse is that you cannot find anything related to it on YouTube or Google Video, or anything like it. Which is a shame, since people are constantly putting up snippets of aviation documentaries or other videos on such sites for the world to see.
If anyone would send a link to where to buy it, if it is being sold anywhere, or to a petition to get the documentary series in publication again, I'd be glad to put the link here, and sign any petition. To hide such art is a shame. It is a beautiful work of art, and it should be experienced by all once more, especially now in these tumultuous times in aviation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)