Dear Mickey Mouse: I am so confused about your TFR airspace that popped up on my TAC chart last year. Is the airspace a rectangle as shown in the AFD graphic or is it round like the text describes? If it is circular, is the center at 6.7 NM from the SLI VORTAC as in the text or at the VFR checkpoint symbol, which is over 7.0 from SLI? Moreover, the lat/lon given textually for the center of the TFR is different from the lat/lon given on my LA TAC chart for the checkpoint symbol. Is the airspace top at 3,000 AGL or 3,000 MSL? I think it might be AGL because it said so on my chart that expired in December 2003 but the current chart no longer specifies. If it is AGL, I have a problem because the aircraft I fly aren't equipped with AGL-meters, so I tried to convert to MSL to use my altimeter instead, but you forgot to tell me the height of the Matterhorn. Maybe the TFR doesn't apply to me because it says the restriction does not apply to "aircraft arriving or departing from an airport using standard air traffic procedures." Now, I always use airports and standard procedures when I fly, but I've heard that this phrase is being interpreted as meaning "under an IFR clearance." Mickey, there have been pilots who have been violated in your mousetrap airspace, ruining their chances at an airline career. But it's not clear where the lateral boundaries, where the top is, or what the rules are to go through it. You should probably rescind this airspace and go through the normal NPRM process, involving the users of the airspace, to be alerted to all inconsistencies before implementing bad law.

HELEN'S CORNER
BY HELEN CRANZ

The following is a condensed version of an article from Aviation Safety, October 1999. If you would like a copy of the article, contact Helen.

Continued from last month, from Aviation Safety, October 1999. If you would like a copy of the article, 
contact Helen.

AIRMANSHIP: The Myths of Ditching: Part II

Myth 7: Ditching Successfully Requires a Great Deal of Skill - Probably not. Pilots of all skill levels seem to put airplanes into the water and survive the experience none the worse for wear. Five of the ditching incidents we reviewed involved student pilots on solo flights who presumably had no ditching training at all and very little flight experience. For that matter, even seasoned pilots generally don't have so much as an orientation on ditching.

Myth 8: A Raft, Survival Suit and Other Equipment Is Required to Survive a Ditching - It's difficult or impossible to tell from the accident summaries how well the pilots and crews are equipped for over water flight. In our estimation, however, most pilots are poorly equipped. Some carry personal flotation devices; far fewer carry rafts and other survival gear. In 179 accidents, we found PFDs mentioned five times and rafts mentioned four times. Yet as the overall record shows, pilots somehow muddle through anyway. This is certainly due in part to the fact that the majority of ditchings, 64 percent, occur in "inshore waters" along an ocean beach, in a sheltered bay not far from land or even a lake, river, pond or canal. Many of these ditching sites are within sight of land or boats and the egressing pilots and crew are able to swim to shore or are quickly picked up by helpful boaters. But is swimming for it really a good idea? Logically, we would say no but the record suggests the opposite may sometimes be true, depending on the circumstances. In 13 of the 179 ditchings, pilots and crew successfully rescued themselves by swimming to shore or, in two cases, oil platforms. In five cases, occupants attempting to swim for it drowned or succumbed to exposure, although other occupants from the same aircraft survived. If there's any pattern to any of these ditchings, it emerges at this juncture: Eight of the 179 ditchings involved banner tow pilots who put it into the drink off a beach, extricated themselves and swam or waded ashore. Everyone survived, leading us to the conclusion that even though the touchdown may be violent and unpleasant, surviving it well enough to swim for it is highly likely. Does this then support the argument that you really don't need survival gear? We think not. At minimum, a personal flotation device for each occupant - plus an extra or two - is cheap insurance in any airplane, even those based in the landlocked desert. Although you may not fly any "serious" over water legs, you'll still have brief exposure over rivers, bays, and lakes and along ocean shores. PFDs improve the already good odds of 
survival. Obviously, you don't need a survival suit to cross Long Island Sound but there's little question that a raft of some sort greatly improves survival odds. A raft does two important things: It gets the occupants out of the water, thus reducing hypothermia risk and it vastly improves the probability of detection when search and rescue comes looking. The accident record is unclear on how long the typical rescue takes. Sometimes it's mere minutes, other times hours or even overnight. One pilot drifted in his PFD for 25 hours after ditching a Grumman. Lucky for him his friends notified authorities, for he hadn't filed a flight plan nor was he talking to ATC when his engine quit. We found 
at least five accidents in which a raft or PFDs would have made the difference between surviving and not surviving. There's also a subtle wake up call here: Even for an airplane on an IFR flight plan, search and rescue may be slow in coming. That doesn't appear to happen often, but it does happen. This argues for being prepared to provide for yourself, including equipment to remain afloat and to signal SAR when it does arrive. When you're adrift in the water, you are on your own and it's better to have too much survival gear than none at all. One last comment on survival equipment: It's not sufficient to merely stow the stuff in the airplane and forget about it until it's needed. A minimal safety briefing of some sort - just as the airlines do - is a must. One Cessna was laudably equipped with both PFDs and a four-man life raft. Unfortunately, one of the passengers inflated the raft inside the airplane, a calamity worse than the ditching itself. The passenger punctured the raft before exiting the airplane, thus rendering it useless, Furthermore, even though the flight was in distress, the pilot didn't brief the occupants on PFD use and they were unable to find and don the vests. Two of the passengers survived, the pilot and another passenger died, although it's unclear whether they drowned after egressing or went down with the airplane.

Myth 9: I Fly a Twin; I Don't Need to Worry About Ditching - Tell that to the pilots of 29 multiengine airplanes that went into the water in the years we studied. These represent 16 percent of all the ditchings. Of course, many twin pilots shut one engine down over the water and make it safely to shore without bothering to report the incident. One crude way of measuring the multi-engine ditching risk is to examine the total fleet numbers measured against reported accidents. According to the FAA, the GA fleet was composed of about 169,200 powered airplanes, as of 1997. That includes pistons, turboprops and jets but not gliders, lighter than air or experimental aircraft. The vast majority - 85 percent - are single engine airplanes; the remaining 15 percent are multi-engine airplanes. At a glance, it would 
appear that multiengine airplanes ditch at a rate equal to their representation in the overall aircraft population. Of course, the flaw in this reasoning is that multi-engine pilots may - and probably do - fly over water more readily than do their single-engine brethren, reasoning that the extra engine gives them a safety edge. This would mean that their actual exposure to the over water risk is greater as a group than it is for single-engine pilots. The important thing to know, however, is that multi-engine airplanes simply aren't immune to the ditching scenario and thus pilots need to carry the same safety equipment that single-engine pilots should. Also worth noting is why the twins wound up in the water: On the 29 which ditched, 13 appeared to be bonafide mechanical problems in which engines quit for what 
appeared to be failures of some kind. Again, the blue water crowd is at greater risk. Eight of these incidents involved long range ferry jobs and in five of these ditchings, the pilot was unable to maintain altitude after shutting an engine down because the airplane was legally over gross with excess fuel for ferry. In that sense, the ferry pilot suffers a unique risk until he's burned off most of his fuel. Having a second engine does him no good. In general, a ditching induced by fuel exhaustion is the province of single-engine pilots but twin drivers are hardly immune. Five of the 29 multi-engine ditchings were the result of fuel exhaustion compared to 45 fuel exhaustion or mismanagement incidents 
among singles.

Some Conclusions - Because ditching accident details are wanting, drawing incontrovertible conclusions from a review of accidents is tricky business. But one thing is certain: Landing an airplane in the water under control is a highly survivable experience that appears to take very little skill, experience or preparation. Nine out of 10 pilots who attempt it succeed, even when ditching offshore in the ocean. Given this high rate of success, it makes sense to carry at least basic floatation in every airplane, not just those that venture over water or coastal areas. If you ever find yourself afloat in a river or even a pond - and many pilots have - a device as simple and cheap as a personal flotation device will greatly improve your already good odds of surviving. The need for a raft is less compelling for aircraft operated in inland areas. But we consider it must equipment for forays over the Great Lakes, to the Caribbean and along coastal and inshore areas. This is especially true in temperate or cold climates, where pilots and crew might exit a sinking airplane safely only to die of hypothermia awaiting rescue. Of course, the best strategy is to avoid going into the water in the first place. Don't run out of gas and make sure the gas you have isn't fouled with water or other debris. A third of all ditchings are caused by fuel exhaustion, mismanagement or contamination. These are absolutely avoidable. Second, use carburetor heat when you suspect icing. Time and time again, aircraft are fished out of the water with no apparent mechanical faults, strongly suggesting that carb ice is the culprit. Mechanical failures are listed as the cause in nearly as many ditchings about 25 percent - as is fuel exhaustion but we're skeptical of making too much of this. Many ditched aircraft aren't recovered, so investigators have to take the pilot's word for what happened. It's not that we don't trust pilots, but absent an examination of the air filled tanks, few are willing to admit running an airplane out of gas. Finally, if you take away no other wisdom from this examination of ditchings, know this: All things considered, when faced with the choice of landing on the water or impacting trees, rocks or other rough surfaces, the water is more likely to be survivable. Where this might come into play is during an emergency landing where you're confronted with the choice of a beach, lake or river, or a wooded area. No contest; the water wins.

Article by Paul Bertorelli, a CFII and ATP is editor of The Aviation Consumer.

MARCH 2004 SAFETY TIPS -- BY JOHN MAHANY

This month the speaker at our CFI meeting will be Walt Rogers, who is the Meteorologist in Charge of the Los Angeles ARTCC Center Weather Service Unit. They provide specialized support to the FAA for Aviation Weather. He has a power point presentation for us. Walt has been active in aviation for over 30 years, and is an experienced sailplane pilot.

Well, they did it to us again. The Secret Service instituted the Presidential TFR again on March 3 and 4, during the President's visit, which kept us from conducting VFR training flights. When this happened last August, I sent a letter to The White House, expressing my concerns. I received a reply in November, from TSA Administrator, Adm. Loy. He acknowledged my concerns, but stated that Presidential TFR's would continue, due to the situation at hand. 

Dear Mr. Mahany: Thank you for your letter of August 18, 2003, to President Bush concerning Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) implemented during official Presidential travel. As you may be aware, the United States Secret Service (USSS), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) coordinate the restricted airspace for Presidential protection TFRs. TSA, FAA, and USSS are working collaboratively in an effort to review the Presidential protection TFR process in order to ensure that the restricted airspace is clearly defined. We are striving to obtain airspace protection that affords the President maximum security with the least possible impact on general aviation. This is often an arduous task given the varied travel schedule of the President. Undoubtedly, there will continue to be instances where Presidential visits will affect aviation operations for a period of time. TSA acknowledges the frustration that the recreational and general aviation communities are having as a result of the existing airspace restrictions throughout our Nation. However, current events have demonstrated that there is a clear need to take such precautions. We will continue to strive for a reasonable balance between security, commerce, and airspace access in our dealings with our fellow Federal agencies. Our primary goal has been and always will be ensuring the public's security from any and all aviation threats. I hope this information addresses your concerns. Sincerely yours, J.M. Loy, ADM, Administrator

THE OTHER HANK SMITH CONGRATULATES LEICHER AND MAHANY

Most pilots in the Long Beach District equate the name Hank Smith with quality pilot instruction. But, did you know there are actually two Hank Smith's and they are both members of Long Beach Flying Club. You must all know our long-time local FAA Designated Pilot Examiner Hank Smith. But, the other Hank Smith has also been a full-time flight instructor over 25 years. Hank was the first CFI in California to be designated a Master and one of the first ten in the United States. But, he had an unfair advantage. As a Director of the NAFI he was on the Standards Committee that created the designation. He spends way too much time flying out of Torrance Airport and not enough time over here. He emailed us to congratulate Leicher and Mahany on following in his footsteps as LGB FSDO and FAA Western-Pacific (California, Arizona, Nevada, and Hawaii) CFI of the Year. During one 14-year stretch Hank won the first award seven times and was runner-up the other seven years. He won the second award in 1989 and 1994. "The highest award I ever received in aviation was runner-up for the 1994 FAA CFI of the Year USA. The man who beat me by a 3 to 2 verdict in Washington D.C. had been a CFI over 50 years and was the longtime head of the famous Aviation Department at the University of  Illinois. I was never so proud to finish second in my life!" Hank stopped submitting applications a few years ago. "I had my turn. I'm glad to see other deserving instructors like Harry and John get the recognition and respect they deserve!"

NOTAMS

NOTAM: Club pilots wishing to write safety articles for our monthly newsletters would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks to Helen Cranz, John Mahany and Hank (TOA) Smith for the help with this newsletter!

EMAIL: If you would like to receive this newsletter or the LBAA newsletter via e-mail, send your address to club@LBflying.com.

NOTAM: Report from the Airspace User's Working Group: Pilots are invited to use the Los Alamitos PAR system for training (they would like the business). This publication would WELCOME an article about the procedure.

NOTAM: LONG BEACH AIRPORT ASSOCIATION NEEDS YOU -- the time is NOW to join -- LBAA applications are available at the club. We need your support -- all LBAA membership fees go to printing costs of the quarterly newsletter and protecting General Aviation rights at Long Beach Airport. Your Long Beach Airport Association dues donations are TAX DEDUCTIBLE so sign up today!!!