Pilots to Pilots
2007 & 2008

We welcome your comments and suggestions.  If you want to add to this comment page, please click HERE

Messages from around the globe with the most recent at the top

RE: ALOHA HAWAII

After 50 years of membership in COPA I continue to be delighted with the breadth of its geographic coverage. I particularly enjoyed Lowell Breckon’s account of his December 2007 flying out of Kahului, Maui as well as Ron Dixon’s letter recounting his not-so-pleasant experience flying out of Honolulu. 

Having lived in and flown around the Hawaiian islands since I retired 10 years ago I can appreciate both viewpoints. My Cessna 172 is based in Hilo on the Big Island. Cross country flights often involve unpredicted and rapidly changing weather, heavy turbulence, high mountain terrain, long flights over open water and of late, astronomical fuel prices. 

The rewards in terms of spectacular scenery and island hospitality still make it all worthwhile.

DR. PAUL RAMBAUT
Hilo, Hawaii

RE: US CUSTOMS DECAL

The U.S. Customs have no sympathy for a lost aircraft border crossing U.S. Customs Decal and little understanding of the forces of nature on the exterior of an airplane in flight. My carefully installed decal came off sometime during a recent flight.

I am sending this information to save someone else the cost of a second decal, a necessary extra 27.50 that I must spend to cross the U.S. border with my aircraft. I suspect this year’s decal supply has inferior glue because I never experienced this problem before.

The following is the response I received from the U.S. agency:

“You will need to purchase a new decal. The only thing I can suggest is to place the new decal inside a clear plastic bag and attach it to the interior window of the door. The problem I see if the decal is on the interior of the slipstream is that a Customs Agent would not be able to locate the decal if you were not present when they were doing their inspection of the aircraft. This would not only be frustrating for you but the Customs Agent as well.”

This is a good example of how little the USA appreciates air tourism. Decals are tracked;  U.S. authorities have my original number and my $27.50. This is an exceptional circumstance and it would be very little cost or effort for U.S. Customs to simply cancel the first decal and issue a replacement, particularly in cases where the decal is at fault.

I also question the need for a Decal. It should be common knowledge in every government department dealing with aviators, that pilots are already screened and tested just to get a license. If the authorities are not satisfied with the personal identification of a pilot license and all the other ownership documentation carried aboard an aircraft, then how can they possibly allow cars to cross the border without also having the prior approval of some sort of sticker or a decal?

We should be treated exactly the same as a motorist, after all, the same officers work both cars and planes at some border crossings.

JOE SCOLES 
Ottawa, Ont.

 RE: CESSNA 162

Adam Hunt’s article on the Cessna 162 Skycatcher published in the June COPA Flight certainly is an interesting and intriguing subject. I feel very much against the Chinese production of the 162 as well as many other things the Chinese produce. I don’t know why. Perhaps I’m scared that with all their cheap labour the Chinese are becoming the leading economic power of the world.

During WWII I flew B-17s out of England and on the last mission I had to fly I ended up being a guest of the Germans. I swore then I would never drive a German made car – I have since, owned three different Volkswagens.

I felt the same way about the Japanese, but I now own a Toyota and Subaru. Will I adjust to China?

Along this line I spend the summer months 75 air miles from the end of the road, in the Northwest corner of Saskatchewan. At 88 years young the canoes are getting heavy on the portage so I have a dream of flying again. I have a multi-engine commercial licence I earned in the dark ages and I have no problem to this day passing the medical. How lucky can I be!

Thus, I’m purchasing a made in Canada Bush Caddy aircraft. It has a small engine, but from what I read, in many ways it out performs the yet to be tested 162.

Also, the Bush Caddy is known to be excellent on floats – got my seaplane rating this past winter. I’ll now be able to fly into those hundreds of lakes and rivers – explore, camp, fish and enjoy. I’ll be proud to have a Canadian made plane at a much lower price than a new aircraft.

However, I do hope you Canadians will speed things up and adopt the new Light Sport Aircraft category. Keep up the good work.

CLARENCE STEARNS

RE: CESSNA 162

I just finished reading an article in the June COPA Flight which I believe was a very one sided and negative portrayal of the new Cessna 162 Skycatcher written by Adam Hunt.
I respect Adam, his knowledge of aviation issues and writing abilities but I feel that he has done great harm in his spin on this new flight trainer. And I am shocked that my national organization, which I have supported with membership and advertising for many years would publish such a negative and critical article without even consulting us, as the Eastern Canada Sales Representative for Cessna Aircraft Company.
Adam's take on a few things is simply wrong and puts Cessna in a very bad light. First, he states that Cessna closed their blog to end debate on the Skycatcher being built in China. There is no debate. They made their decision and yes there was negative reaction by some people.
Posturing about China though may be a hypocritical thing; I do know people like to pay as little as possible for their products and a lot of things are made in China. If people choose not to buy things made in China that is there individual choice, but over 1,000 people have voted with their purchase of the Skycatcher. And as Cessna stated in their defense... this is a global economy and even though people may think their American made cars are made with all American parts and all American labour than they simply don't know that industry.
People love to shop at Walmart’s because of the prices and if you check the origin of products there I am sure you will find that Walmart’s does not discriminate against China in their purchasing decisions.
Adam also get's into pricing and payload, both of which he spins negatively. The payload suits the training environment, 2 people, average 1.5 hour flight. Cessna is not selling it as a family cruiser. And they priced it to be competitive with planes they considered their competition.
The Zenair aircraft he mentions in his article is not even on the radar in the Light Sport Aircraft sales figures I have seen. The 3 top tricycle gear LSA’s on the market today are made in Germany, Czech Republic, and Italy. Obviously, people are not making their purchasing decisions based on where these airplanes are made.
I have been talking with a lot of flight schools who are certainly looking at upgrading their fleets over the next 3-10 years. (Most school fleets consist predominantly of Cessna’s and even Cessna can’t build a plane that will last forever).I have talked with representatives from COPA and with ATAC to try and get a rally going for a product I believe will be the next big trainer world wide. What is not mentioned in the article is that Cessna has built single engine airplanes for 80 years to teach the world to fly! They have the experience to build airplanes to withstand the rigorous environment of flight training which I believe they are doing with the Skycatcher. And that's why people are buying Skycatchers!
Yes because of branding but the Cessna brand is great because they do build good airplanes that perform for many, many hours in very demanding flight operations! And they support their customers for the long run. That's why people buy!
If the flight training schools in Canada do not put pressure on their regulatory agency, Transport Canada, to accommodate this new category then it will be our loss here in Canada.
And I would think that a national organization of aircraft owners would be promoting any products that promote progression in aviation - EAA and AOPA seem to be overwhelmingly supportive in the United States. I’m sure there are many others that will support the case for the Skycatcher!

ANNA PANGRAZZI
Leggat Aviation Ltd.

RE: SHOPPING SOUTH OF THE BORDER

I’m writing for two reasons. One to thank you for running the very nice report on page 9 of the June COPA Flight regarding COPA Flight 28 from Burlington. If any other local (or not-so-local) COPA Flights are interested in such a tour, I’d be happy to set something up.
Secondly, I feel compelled to respond, on behalf of Canadian parts Distributors and Approved Maintenance Organizations (AMO’s), to Ken Armstrong’s article on page 21 of the same issue. While I certainly don’t speak on behalf of all such Canadian organizations, as past-president of CAADMO (the Canadian Association Aviation Distributors & Maintenance Organizations) I feel that I represent more than a few, most particularly, Leavens Aviation Inc.
Mr. Armstrong has upset this particular distributor, and likely many others. While his assertion that “now is the time to shop south of the border” isn’t untrue, it should be pointed out that the bulk of the goods that most distributors and AMO’s sell into the Canadian general aviation market come from south of the border.
As a result, the strength of the Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar has, for the most part, been passed along to the Canadian consumer. I’ve been at Leavens for the past 23 years and for all of those 23 years our prices have been “pegged” to the U.S. dollar. As exchange has fluctuated, so have our prices (up and down).
As a matter of interest, when the Canadian dollar began it’s dramatic rise, late 2002 / early 2003, many product lines were sold at a loss, or very little profit, because they were purchased when the Canadian dollar was weak and sold when the Canadian dollar had strengthened.
Other factors, of course, enter into any price comparisons (labour rates, regional tax rates, freight and customs brokerage costs, mark-ups, etc.), but I’d like to think that the Canadian distributor or AMO is competitive to most anything you’ll find south of the border. At least give one or more of us a try before you head straight south. Doing business in Canada is tough enough as it is!

JEFF LEAVENS
Leavens Aviation Inc.

RE: 406 ELT

Like hundreds of others, as a Private Pilot, I received the recent "Aviation Safety Letter" (ASL 2/2008) including the NSS ELT pamphlets. Having done a number of TSO certifications of ELTs as a Senior Engineer in Transport Canada, I am concerned at the continuing errors regarding ELTs in the aviation media and misleading statements, many through omissions, in much of the "official" information.
The pamphlet states that there are 2 types of ELTs: 121.5/243 MHz, (correct) and 406 MHz (wrong).
This "406" label is misnomer and fuels a popular misconception that it has 406 MHz only, virtually all the "406" ELTs currently have 3 frequencies; it has 121.5/243/406 MHz. TSO C91a with the MOPS in RTCA / DO 183 gives the specifications for a 121.5/243 only ELT; for the "406" ELT, it must also meet TSO C126 and RTCA/DO 204.
Thus, currently, all TSO-C126 (406) ELTs must meet both specs; while "labelled" as "406", they all must include 121.5 for homing as "406 does not lend itself to homing." The 121.5/243 signal is continuous, while the 406 is a single burst every 58 seconds. I have not heard of any "406 ELT" (unlike PLBs & RPIRBs that do not meet TSOC126) that does not also have 121.5, and to meet C126, it must have 121.5 and should also have 243, although Artex now has a two frequency unit, 121.5 and 406.
As outlined in paragraph 1.1 and 1.2, of DO-204, the 406 function is an "...optional adjuct..to 121.5/243.." and that any 406 standalone transmitter (ie PLB & EIRBs) “…is outside the scope... of DO-204…" However, a revision to the RCTA spec, DO204A was just released in December and it incorporates the 121.5 specification as well as the 406 spec; the FAA are currently working on a revision to TSO-C126 to include 121.5 and 406 (without 243.0) as a "standalone" TSO not requiring TSO-91a (which does include 243); I have no timeline on this possible change.
Furthermore, a 406 ELT will not decrease the number of false alerts; however, it will make it easier to track the signal. It is a single three frequency unit in the same case, activated by the same G switch and radiating from a single antenna. The TSO environmental testing for shock, impact, crush, vibration, temperature and mounting is identical, word for word in both DO183 and DO 204.
Prior to SARSAT, there were other methods of "alerting"; depending on the type of operation, there are many ways "of mitigating the risk" without SARSAT.

JIM PALMER
Mississauga, Ont

ed. Jim's experience as a Certification Engineer brings a perspective to this issue that confirms what COPA has been emphasizing regarding the limitations of devices that must survive an accident in order to do their job. Mandating 406 ELTs for our sector of aviation will not appreciably change the prospects of being found. There are several affordable alternatives but they are not permitted in place of an ELT. Readers are urged to visit our website (www.copanational.org) for more information and then help us fight this misguided regulation by contacting their Member of Parliament.


RE: ALOHA HAWAII

I read in the May COPA Flight, with nostalgia and a bit of envy, the account by Lowell Breckon of his flying adventure over Hawaii in December 2007. I attempted a similar adventure in March 1980 during a Hawaiian vacation as one of a group of Saguenay neighbours. My results were different than Lowell's.
Armed with a U.S. Licence issued on the basis of my Canadian one endorsed for Single-Engine Land, I presented myself at the Hawaii Air Academy at Honolulu to enquire about the possibility of renting a C172 for an aerial tour of the islands. My intention was to invite a guest or two to join me for a flight some time later during our three week stay at Waikiki. My logged pilot hours at the time was 700 hours so I felt reasonably confident of my competence to do this.
After a check out ride of an hour, including a touch and go on Ford Island Naval Air Station, Robert Lindberg, CFI, endorsed my log book "172 check out OK for day VFR." However, by then I had revised my self confidence downward and decided against flying unsupervised in the HNL environment. The radio communication maze at this very active airport was daunting and the severe turbulence would mean an ordeal rather than a treat for any non-pilot that I might invite along for a ride.
A seat booked on one of the commercial aerial tours offered over the Hawaiian Islands was a next best choice. These were daily flights in Beech 18 size aircraft flown by pilots acting as tour guides between communications with air traffic. Departing the morning of my reservation, we were back on Honolulu within some 20 minutes, the flight having been aborted over Kaiwi Channel due to heavy showers obscuring the islands that we were meant to see farther east. A second try was proposed for the next day but our group was scheduled to depart for Canadian shores the same day so I declined another ride.
Another chapter to the adventure was added when, in a tourist brochure, I found that glider rides were offered at Dillingham Airfield on the north shore of Oahu. Tucked snugly in the gliders back seat with a younger brother, an active airline captain, we were towed aloft at Dillingham and enjoyed a 20 minute glide in the updraft of the ocean wind blowing against the coastal mountains. We were as surprised to find that we had a retired airline captain as our glider pilot as he was to find that he had two pilots as passengers. The flight then took on the nature of a demonstration of the impressive gliding potentials in the permanent updrafts found in this area.
And there is a postlude. When I became the owner of a FS2000 my first trial with the software was in a simulated C172 from HNL to Dillingham Airfield, counter clockwise around the Oahu coast. Due to having yet to read the FS2000 operating instructions I had to accept a simulated crash at destination as although I found the Dillingham Airfield I had not learned how to control outside visibility well enough to get lined up on final approach.

RON DIXON
Longueuil QC

RE: X-COUNTRY ADVICE

I am a Montana pilot flying a Cessna 185 amphibian. I have been flying for 50 years (mostly on wheels) and usually make one or more trips each summer to western Canada and as far north as the Beaufort Sea.
In late July, I will be flying alone from northwest Montana through Ontario and Quebec to northern Labrador and returning the third week of August. I made a similar trip in 2004 on wheels. I am interested in knowing about interesting things to see along the way and places to stop for meals or for the night where the accommodations are adjacent to either a land or water landing site.
My route is flexible. Fuel is not a major issue as the plane is an amphib and I will have several jerry cans for extra gas.
Is it worth the trip to fly up the east side of Hudson Bay and around the north side of Quebec? Is Goose Bay a good place to visit? Are there any places I should not visit? I would appreciate any information anyone can provide.
Please write me at 28517 Rocky Point Road Polson, MT 59860; Email: skywagon@centurytel.net or Phone: 406-883-2248.

CHUCK JARECKI
 

RE: 180 DEGREE TURN

I have a few comments and quibbles relating to the article by Jack Dueck in the April 2008 edition of COPA Flight. As Jack's diagrams illustrate, this is not a 180 degree manoeuvre but rather anywhere from 260 to 360 degrees to get turned around and aligned with the runway.

Why use a standard rate turn? This eats up precious time and a lot of altitude and real-estate. As the article shows, it will take two minutes to do a 360 degree turn at standard rate and lose up to 1,200 feet of altitude in Jack's aircraft. A more aggressive turn (practiced at altitude before applying it to a real emergency) will lose less altitude and use less real-estate to accomplish which translates to less turning required because you won't be displaced as far off the runway centerline.
As a matter of fact, if you hold runway heading (as required by most towered airports) rather than crabbing into a crosswind to maintain runway track and turn into the wind on your turn-back, even less turning will be required with less altitude lost.

Now, I know, using a 45 to 60 degree bank angle seems scary because it is drummed into pilots that increased bank angles equate to increased stall speed, but that only applies if you are trying to complete a level turn. An aggressive turn-back manoeuvre will not result in a stall if the pilot maintains 1G in the turn while giving up altitude to maintain best glide speed and in the end lose much less altitude than if he were to do a standard rate turn as this article suggests.

Every aircraft will be different, but I have practiced this manoeuvre at altitude and lose no more than 400 feet doing a 360 degree turn using 45 degree of bank in a Piper Comanche 180 with the prop pulled back to coarse pitch to minimize drag.
Fixed gear, fixed pitch prop aircraft will have more drag and lose more altitude than this, but you won't know unless you practice it at varying bank angles to see what works best for your aircraft and then add in a fudge factor.

In most of the light aircraft that COPA members fly the best rate of climb speed will be pretty close to the best glide speed and unless a pilot aggressively pushes forward on the yoke (or stick) after an engine failure on take-off or climb-out he is not likely to get to "B" in the diagram before the aircraft hits stall speed. I believe it is of the utmost importance to emphasize the need for that aggressive push to maintain speed and hence control.

Then there's the question of whether a turn-back manoeuvre, even if done perfectly with minimal loss of altitude (say 600 or 700 feet) will even make the runway at all or end up landing short. I haven't done the math, but I believe the typical general aviation aircraft is going to have to be using at least a 3,000 to 4,000 foot runway to even have the hope of making the runway if the pilot lifts off at the 1,000 foot mark and has an engine failure at 1,000 ft AGL. As always, the wind will play a huge roll and this would be a good exercise for a flight simulator.

HUBERT WREN
Peterborough ON

ed. Your points are well taken, and I am generally in agreement with your stated comments. I do think however, that I should clarify my position with regards to the article and your comments.

1. Let's not quibble about whether the pilot proceeds through 150, or 180, or even 360 degrees in effort to get the aircraft traveling in the opposite direction to the take-off run. If and when he/she is traveling in the opposite direction, they have effectively made a 180 degree reversal to their original flight path.

2. I believe that under the pressure of an engine-out on take-off, a novice pilot should not be attempting to be aggressive in any flight manoeuvre. Any pilot under pressure should try to stay within the scope of his/her flying training and experience. Someone once said, "Under pressure a pilot's brain turns into the size of a small pea, and rolls out of one of his/her ears."

3. I believe most pilots climb out at something higher than Vy in order to provide additional cooling to the engine. I certainly agree that if flying a fast glass, high performance aircraft at Vy, anytime the engine quits you had better get that stick forward quickly because your airspeed will decay quickly in that climb attitude.

4. The intent of my comments, (that I tried to clearly convey with the flight exercise) was to establish once and for all, the idea of a turn-back on take-off after an engine failure was not at all a sure thing. And I sincerely hope pilots will try this manoeuvre at a safe altitude to see for themselves the difficulty and the questionable certainty to be expected. And then with this understanding, they can try the more aggressive approach that you recommend in a safer (higher) environment.
Again, "Under an emergency your brain will not ascend to the challenge, but descend to the level of training."

I very much value your comments. I believe this type of dialog can only add to the safety and enjoyment of our sport.

JACK DUECK EAACC
 

RE: OSHKOSH

My wife and I travelled to AirVenture 2005 and treasure the experience as one of our best. My dream ever since has been to be in a light aircraft flying into Oshkosh and camping under the wing. My wife (God bless her) has given her blessing for me to try to achieve that dream this year.

Before she could change her mind I lodged an entry on the EAA website under their "Rideshare" system, stating that I am looking for a ride in an aircraft leaving from anywhere in the USA or Canada that I can get to by public transport - air, bus, train. I am more than happy to pay a share of the cost of that flight!

But I am worried and can't sleep nights! I have a bad feeling that EAA members planning to go to Oshkosh this year may not think about filling spare seats until the last minute, leaving me too little time to get to their departure point in time and no time to get low cost airfares from Australia.

So, I wonder if you might post this letter on your Club's notice board and/or publish it in your Newsletter in the hope that one of your members may be able to help me fulfil my dream!

I obtained my PPL in 1993 and have flown PA28 (Warriors, Archers), PA28R (Arrow), C172, C182, C210. My PPL is now "suspended" as I purchased an ultralight (an Australian-built, two seat "Jabiru") two years ago, obtained an Ultralight licence and did not undertake my PPL "Annual Flight Review" which was due in May 2006. I would willingly renew my PPL, if required to meet the needs of anyone willing to fly me to Oshkosh. You can contact me by email: ( j.schamb@bigpond.net.au )

JOHN CHAMBERS 
Australia

RE: FLYING POLICE

I have been a Pioneer Member of COPA since 1953. I’m a retired Corporal of the Ontario Provincial Police Auxiliary and I’m still an active pilot. We are planning to form a police pilots association and are trying to find out how many pilots that are, or have been, in a police force. If you are a police officer or retired from a police force and you are a pilot please contact me by email: northernshield@cogeco.ca; by mail: 827 Danforth Place Burlington, ON L7T 1S1; or Tel.: 905-522-9493.

JOHN LUCKANUCK

Pearl Wakefield celebrated her 88th birthday flying with Bob Baker

I had the opportunity to share an afternoon of flying with a young flying enthusiast.

Pearl Wakefield celebrated her 88th birthday on Sept. 26, 2007, and her wish was to go flying.

From a grass strip north of Coronation, Alberta (Colliers Farm), we made her wish come true with a 30 minute flight. She thought it was great and I received a big kiss for taking her over her farm and many of her relative’s homes.

Having flown Young Eagles, it is equally as gratifying to fly an older person.

BOB BAKER
Sedgewick, AB
 

Lodestar CF-CPA

I was drawn to the article in the January edition about "Project Loadstar" as I knew there had been a Loadstar somewhere in my Dad's past. Little did I know that a little research would reveal this very Loadstar featured in the article is the one in which he flew right seat on several occasions between 1952 and December 1953 while flying for Holinger Ungava Transport (HUT).

In fact four of his five logbook entries for this aircraft are in December '53 while engaged in a S.A.R. operation where CPA was one of three different aircraft he flew in over an eight day period while searching for a pilot named "Stapley" and crew who are noted in his log as having eventually "walked out."

Left seat on these searches was a pilot with the last name "Scott." Total time logged on this aircraft was 10.93 hours on five occasions. Other aircraft flown as PIC during this same period were DC3, PBY-5A, Beech-18-C & a Cessna Crane.

Chief Pilot for HUT was Wes McIntosh who became a good friend of my Dad's later in his career. When I was growing up we always had hockey pucks laying around with the initials carved into them HUT.

Dad (Willie McLaughlin) continued in aviation spending his whole life in the pursuit of his passion for flight. When he retired from flying Jetstars, Sabreliners and G3s for Trans Canada Pipe Lines he had accumulated more than 18,000 hours in 29 different aircraft. Dad went on to teach at Flight Safety, Wardair and Airbus before his passing in December 1991.

As you can guess, your article was timely and brought me back to a happier time, a time I thought I might share with your readers.

WILLIS MCLAUGHLIN JR.

RE: MULTICOM

My brother John and I just returned from a cross country trip that started in Kelowna thru Crow’s Nest pass in the Rockies, the prairies to Quebec City and back home via the northern U.S. states and Roger’s pass in B.C. This trip was made safe and well-planned with the use of my Garmin 296 and John’s weather enabled Garmin 496.
The technology is so compelling that we were tempted to keep the CFS on the back seat of our Piper Cherokee 140.
The Jeppesen database included in both GPS receivers allowed us to skirt around restricted zones easily and effortlessly and most of the information was easily accessible in a timely manner. Life is good.
As we all know, the old idiom “time to spare, go by air” proved to be true and we had a lot of time to explore the information available in our GPS receivers. One issue came up time and time again. In the United States, the term MULTICOM is used to designate the Canadian equivalent of an ATF (aerodrome traffic frequency), meaning that there is no one on the airport grounds to respond to an initial inquiry like a UNICOM, therefore all communication is directed to “traffic.”
The Garmin GPSMAPG 296/496 series recognizes frequencies for: ATIS, pre-taxi, clearance, ground, tower, Unicom, Multicom, approach, departure, arrival, class B, class C, TMA, CTA, TRSA. However, it does not recognize the frequencies assigned to Radio, FSS and RCO and these last three are listed as “Other” in the Comm tab.
Relying on the GPS for information caught us at airports such as Penticton (CYYF) and Lethbridge (CYQL) where we directed our communications to “traffic,” thinking that these were MULTICOM airports when in fact the calls should have been directed to “radio” since they have FSS aerodrome traffic services. So, we decided to take the time, while we were on the premises of these airports facilities to dig into this “MULTICOM” thing.
It turns out that term MULTICOM does not exist in Canada and when we called Garmin to try to understand their use of the word, they emphatically declared, “that’s the way it is and there is no plan to change that.” I then asked if this was also the case in other countries such as England and China - they responded affirmatively.
I then called Jeppesen and briefed the customer service agent. I was able to awake her curiosity about this issue. After looking into the database information she discovered that the file Jeppesen sends to Garmin every month does, in fact, include specific information that identifies the missing Comm protocols.
I’m relatively educated and I’m able to mentally translate “MULTICOM” into “ATF” when I look up a Canadian airport in the Garmin database. However, it seems little effort is spent at Garmin in order to translate the current label “Other” into the proper description of the frequencies as found in the CFS
Bottom line is: If your Garmin indicates “Other” in the Comm tab of your destination airport, zip out your CFS, because that airport Comm information is incomplete. We learned from this experience that the GPS is truly only an aid to navigation.
Use of the Canada Flight Supplement and charts is the only way to “be familiar with the available information that is appropriate to the intended flight,” just as they say in the regulations.
LOUIS POIULIOT

ed Even though GPS has become the primary navigational tool for many VFR pilots, there remain some significant bombs in the database, especially when it comes to data outside of the US, and that is why the CFS remains a reliable source of information. I fly extensively IFR using a certified GPS but I always fly the airways and have the VORs tuned in. At some point in the future, TC will wake up and force suppliers to do a better job of managing their databases but we are not there yet. - Kevin Psutka


RE: OLDEST PILOT

I read recently in COPA about a gentleman who was the oldest Monocular pilot in Canada at age 75.
I must point out that my Father Roland G. White of Fonthill, Ontario, who will be 77 this year (July 07) is also a Monocular Private Pilot with an IFR rating. He used to fly a 210 out of Brampton although he has not exercised the privileges of his license now for a few years. I love your publication and read it with interest each month.
DAVID R. WHITE  

RE: CROSSING BORDERS

There has been a steady reduction in duplication and simplification of the processes used by pilots for flying. In general I support such cost cutting measures. Progress cannot be made however without being careful to make sure the systems that replace the old systems function as designed. This is not the case and I saw a number of such examples on a recent trip to one of my favourite “Canadian” fly-ins in Geneseo, N.Y.
I got weather and filed a flight plan – great service – no worries. On arriving at Geneseo there was a customs officer working her tail off – great service, no issues. This was quick but even then there was a guy going around writing down registrations because many Canadians had not yet closed their flight plans. The reason was simple – no phones – in these days of cell phones there is no such thing as a pay phone.
Why not just use a cell phone? The Canadian cell phone I borrowed didn’t work on the 1-800-WX-Brief number. Why, because the call originated from a Canadian number? So plan B - call from a land line – I tried but there was a long line of people trying to do so. Someone gave me a direct number and I got (as many others did) “while this is not our job, I will do it.” Everyone who called the number talked to a different office - all over the U.S. With the flight planned closed late, but closed - I am now there, time for fun and socializing.
Now it is time to come home – the weather looks bad so I will call to get an opinion. I had to use a land line – it was not good as it was a portable and called the WX Brief and got a selection based on a voice selection process – it sort of worked but the volume was too low on the call and I gave up and recalled. This time the voice selection didn’t work well but I got a briefer in some remote location. He immediately started to take information as if I was filing – I stopped him and he tried to give me weather but he had no local knowledge and was relying on me knowing all the local locations that report weather.
I got him, with help, to the Hamilton, Ontario forecast and he at a high rate of speed read the particulars and quickly added ‘VFR not recommended.” He really couldn’t tell me why as there was good ceilings and visibility and only light rain. There was strong gusty wind but he didn’t know what I was flying.
I got off the phone not knowing what to do except to know the weather briefing I got was not satisfactory. I tried to get our flight service in Canada using a Canadian cell phone but our 866 WX-Brief didn’t work even from a Canadian number (I guess it knew I was in the U.S.).
So into a Canadian flight supplement – is there an alternative number to call London FSS? – none listed – I tried hard but not for hours and could find no alternative numbers. I tried NAV Canada customer service number both the 800 numbers and the direct line – no joy – I felt like I was on the back side of the moon!
So Brian tried another approach – I got the direct number to the Hamilton Tower (listed as emergency only) and they gave me local weather and a direct number for London FSS – they were very helpful and pleasant.
I called from a Canadian cell phone to London FSS and it worked. The first question I got was; How did you get this number? I told the briefer and she was more than happy to help me and told me that Nav Canada is changing and there will be new numbers for such an eventuality – she gave me the page number in the Flight Supplement and everything I asked for.
For the average pilot this means in six months to three years we will be in good shape – if you can find it in the new Flight Supplement – this will not be a problem for me because I know now it is in there somewhere and I won’t stop until I find it.
Long and short - I stayed an extra night and had a great time.
It is now Sunday morning the weather looks bad but is improving – I have to get out by 10:00 as the airport closes for the air show. I call CanPass on the 888 number from a cell phone and it doesn’t work! I know better from a previous experience to try to find a direct number. I go to a land line (better than the day before) and things work out good with both CanPass and the call to U.S. FSS. I don’t even bother to get a weather briefing. The guy I am talking to is in Florida. Nice guy and he takes care of my flight plan.
So how do I open? – he has no clue – puts me on hold for 10 minutes – by the time he gets back to me I have found out the frequency of Buffalo FSS and I pass the phone to my traveling companion in another airplane. A third pilot is worried about the airport closing and leaves the phone line up and decides to fly east into the bad weather without a briefing or a flight plan. The three of us depart with about 5 minutes to spare.

Conclusions
1. Canadian service is much better than U.S. flight service at least for Canadians.
2. With new numbers available in the Flight Supplement I will be using them from the states when I can.
3. If Nav Canada follows the American Model I believe there will be safety issues.
4. The U.S. system is already not safe.
5. A Canadian cell phone in the U.S may be of little value.
6. 800 numbers are a real problem and in my mind the accountants on both side of the border are degrading flight safety. We should have universal 800 numbers usable in either country.
I guess I have learned from this – the lesson is not to bother U.S. FSS unless you have to. This is not the right conclusion and I will be the first to admit it but sadly I am a victim of human nature too. May be this is what the accountants want in the first place.
BRIAN KENNEY