Encouraging Girls to be Pilots

Two things happened recently to prompt this blog post. First, I exhibited at the Great Lakes Aviation Conference last weekend with my 9 year old niece, Delaney. Second, I received an email asking me about the role models on the website. More about that later.

So, first off, the Great Lakes Aviation Conference (GLAC) was held at Eastern Michigan University Student Center in Ypsilanti, Michigan. I'm not sure for how many years GLAC has been put on, but this was my second year having a booth for Girls With Wings.  The purpose of the conference, taken from their website, is to offer a variety of opportunities to interact with the Midwest's aviation community. Besides 150 exhibitors there to answer questions, it was possible to shop for the best in avionics, pilot gear and training aids, and experience the latest products on the market.  Additionally, informational and instructional breakout sessions offered a wide variety of topics presented by expert speakers from all over the country. Session topics range from simple VFR to real-world IFR flight issues. Other seminars address weather information, aircraft ownership opportunities, FAA issues, flying destinations, and the latest and greatest of everything in aviation.

For $30 (less $5 if you preregistered on the website), pilots could attend the following sessions:

• PIC Responsibilities - Steve Hoogerhyde, FAA Safety Team Program Mgr., Operations, Rapid City, SD
• Flying to Alaska - Joe Kuberka, Blue Goose Aviation, Peyton, CO
• Safety Management - Tom Leahy, Aviation Safety Inspector, Cleveland FSDO, Cleveland, OH
• Test Flying the Airbus A380 - Terry Lutz, Experimental Test Pilot, Airbus S.A.S., Blangnac Cedex, France
• Aircraft Accident Investigation - Naji Malek, Asst. VP, General Aviation Claims Dept., New York, NY
• Contributions to Aviation Safety - Mike McKinley, Deputy Dir., Office of Audit Evaluation, Washington DC
• Wilderness Survival - Mike Millard, Aviation Safety Inspector, Cincinnati, OH
• Aviation Medicine Update:  Holding on to Your Medical - Dr. Greg Pinell, Senior flight Surgeon, Freeland, MI
• Digital Training to Analog Flying:  Is there a Problem? - Bill Rantz & Geof Whitehurst, Western Michigan Univ., Battle Creek, MI
• Bird Strikes - Tom Seamans, Wildlife Biologist, USDA/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center - Ohio Field Station, Sandusky, OH
• CSC DUATS - Leon Thomas, CSC DUATS, Chantilly, VA

Additionally, every IA, A&P, Director of Maintenance, Parts Manager, and Parts Purchaser was encouraged to attend, as the Professional Aviation Maintenance Association (PAMA) has recognized the GLIAC as a sanctioned regional event. While renewal requirements have changed for all IA's to every second year, the training requirements have not changed. A/P Mechanics with IA privileges may obtain eight hours of FAA approved instruction per year for renewal.  Twelve seminars enabled attendees to get a full eight hours of instruction in one day at the GLIAC.

Not bad for $25. However, I was disappointed to see such low attendance for a regional aviation event. Last year the conference was two days (if I remember correctly) and in a bigger facility. I don't have any figures on attendance, but this year we were in a smaller room and for only a day and there were large blocks of time where the exhibitors were only talking to each other (which was a worthwhile exercise in itself).


So, I admit ignorance. Is this a sign of worsening times in aviation? Are these seminars not of interest to people? The admission? The topics? Was it the location (I know I felt a little old walking around a Student Center where college students could biologically be the age of my children)?

Speaking of children, I saw two. In addition to my niece, aged 9, I also saw a boy her age, but that was it. It wasn't really a child friendly event, so I'm not criticizing. Perhaps I should clarify: "child-friendly" depends on the kid. My niece had a blast. I picked her up after school on Friday and we drove the three hours there to set up that night. The resident dog of the friend I stayed with woke her up at 6am, and she was raring to go and "sell stuff" that day. We got there entirely too early for the opening at 10am so we took some time to walk around the other booths.Which brings me to my point.

Delaney has helped me at numerous shows in the past, mostly at local airports during the summer. She memorizes her script: "Girls With Wings is a nonprofit organization encouraging more girls to have an interest in aviation. We are doing fundraising for our outreach activities such as presentations to girls' groups, an interactive website and scholarships for flying lessons." I absolutely love to see most people's willingness to take the time and bend down to hear her (she has a very soft voice). She loves to make suggestions for people and to decorate and rearrange to booth to her specifications (and for the most part I'll let her). She's been an instinctive marketing agent from about 5, her age the first time she helped me out promoting GWW.

Before and after every show, Delaney and I talk about the "behind the scenes" of having a business - like gross v. net, shrinkage and breakage, the hard work before and after the show, how to approach people, making a good impression, etc. I even let her ring up sales, with a little supervision. She has heard me talk about flying since birth, but yet.... She has no interest in being a pilot.

Yup, that's right. The Founder of an organization to encourage more girls [yadda yadda] cannot even make her own niece inspire to be a pilot. Egads. Does that make me a failure? I don't think so. Delaney wants more than anything to own her own restaurant some day. She checks out cookbooks from the library and bugs everyone with a kitchen to let her cook something for them. She is completely serious and wants the "hook" of her cafe to be that mothers will feel welcome coming with their kids to hang out for a while. She's got the whole thing planned out. Well, just about as well as a pre-teen could.

So I'd like to think what Girls With Wings is offering her is 1. lessons in owning a business and dealing with the public, and 2. a chance to build her self confidence. The mission of GWW is to use women in aviation as role models to inspire girls to achieve their full potential. And that is whether their dreams are to be a pilot, a mechanic, an engineer, etc., or something totally unrelated to aviation.

Therefore, I was a little taken aback when a woman at the GLAC asked Delaney whether she wanted to be a pilot. Delaney gets this all the time, and is accustomed to answering, "no, I'd like to own my own restaurant." Most people recognize that this is a valid, ambitious goal (of course, subject to change) and let it go. However this particular woman kept asking Delaney why not? "You can be a pilot" she says. "It's easy." "You want to drive a car some day, right? Well, flying an airplane is as easy as driving a car." And on and on. Poor D didn't know what to say and so therefore the woman turned to me and said, "Well, you have Girls With Wings, right?" To which I just nodded. What could I say? We encourage, not insist on, an interest in aviation.

My point is that I am fully aware not all girls are destined or interested in becoming pilots or other aviation professionals. Our presentation introduces them to flying, but the lesson I want them to walk away with is they can comprehend anything, achieve any feat, and even fly a plane if they just put their minds to it.  Perhaps their future is not in aviation, but this still is a fantastic tool to help them to understand the true meaning of this lesson: doing what they love may require hard work and study, the results of which can be great rewards and personal satisfaction.

Which brings me to point two. Many people have asked if Girls With Wings is just to encourage girls to be pilots.  I have admitted before that GWW is a little pilot heavy, but this is mostly because of who has submitted a bio. However, a recent email asking this question prompted me to look at the 87 role models we currently have on the site.

A little number crunching reveals so far that 75 of the role models are/have been pilots (only 19 with the airlines); and further, 8 are helicopter qualified, 4 each have glider and balloon ratings. One is a Ultralight/Light sport pilot, 2 do aerobatics regularly. Thirteen have taught people how to fly, 21 have their own planes. Six role models are aviation mechanics, 4 are air traffic controllers. Four are/have been dispatchers, 3 are Flight Officers/Navigators. Eight perform or speak about aviation, including one wingwalker; three are engineers. Twenty one have military experience, one is a Civil Air Patrol Commander and one was a Women Air Force Service Pilot. Five are/have been flight attendants. We've even got a shuttle flight controller and a Teacher in Space. Two are Girls With Wings scholarship winners and eleven are authors. It's important to note that twenty eight are moms since we need to let everyone know that a woman can do these things and still have a family. Further, eight women have their own businesses (two are non-profits), plus two attorneys, a filmmaker, a police officer, an aerial firefighter, a hairstylist and an artist.

Wow. That's an amazing group of women!

AcroCamp Trailer

The first trailer from the upcoming documentary, starring yours truly:

Acro Camp Trailer 01 - Final Final Version from Steve Tupper on Vimeo.

Taking my sister for a ride (literally)

In my new life as an unemployed multiengine turbine jet pilot training to be a single engine piston instructor, there are a few harsh realities I have had to come to terms with. First and foremost, the 40 or so hours I have logged in Cessna 172s/182s over the last 15 years did not make me proficient in class (the airplane category, in which I do profess competency, is divided into single-engine land, multi-engine land, single-engine sea, and multi-engine sea classes), no matter how much experience I had in other aircraft. Let me count the ways....


In recognition of nearly everyone's New Year resolution: weight. Not mine (although now that you mention it,  that IS a factor), but the airplane's. My most recent ride was a Citation X with a maximum weight of over 36,000lbs. The Cessna 172, dependent upon model, may have a max weight of not much more than 2000lbs. p.s. I'm not telling you mine.

Since the Ten is the fastest civilian jet with a maximum cruising speed of 525 knots (972 km/h), or .92Mach (nearly the speed of sound), it should be noted that its approach speed, or the speed to which you slow in preparation for landing, is not much less than cruising speed of a 172, around 120 - 130kts or so (172 model specific, of course). The approach speed of a 172 may be less than 80kts. A CE750 (the FAA model designation for a Ten) would be in serious trouble at this speed (the wings unable to produce enough lift). Moreover, slow flight in a 172 can be 40 to 50kts. The airplane is held aloft, in part, by the clenching of gluteal muscles.
  
Slow flight is the name given to a training maneuver where a pilot flies to a safe altitude and then deliberately slows the airplane to a speed just above its stall speed. This maneuver is valuable in that it teaches the pilot to maintain control of the aircraft in adverse conditions; it requires coordination between hands and feet in order to maintain and it reminds the pilot of the signs and symptoms of a stall, attuning the pilot to recognize them should they occur in an emergency. 

I was kidding about the gluteal muscles. Not that they're not clenched, but that they hold the airplane aloft.
  
Note the above definition mentioned feet. In a multi-engined aircraft, pilots don't use their feet on the rudder pedals so much. Unless they're using the brakes, which are activated by applying pressure to the top portion of the brakes. A rudder is a control surface on the "tail fin" that controls yaw in the vertical axis, i.e. change the horizontal direction in which the nose is pointing.  Pilots let their heels touch the floor so they're not tempted to burn the brakes at high speeds, risking a blown tire. I have done this. Once you've endured the derision of  your coworkers for delaying an international VIP mission for the US Army for this reason, you will make it the last time you commit this error. Trust me. But rest assured, a pilot flying a single engine airplane (with some exceptions - I always feel like I need to make disclaimers!) is usually working those rudder pedals to maintain coordinated ("streamlined") flight.

Rudder shown deflected right

There are two other reasons pilots flying multi-engined airplanes use the pedals less often than a single engine pilot. The first is that with two engines the thrust produced by each engine tends to "balance" the turning tendency the airplane would have from each engine. Whereas with a single engine we have what's called P Factor: an aerodynamic phenomenon experienced by a moving propeller with a high angle of attack that produces an asymmetrical center of thrust. [I am way oversimplifying, go to Wikipedia for a more indepth definition.] In other words, right pedal. And in right and left turns, right and left pedal. Well, let's just say, a lot of pedal. Often. In multi-engine airplanes, the ones I have flown anyway, we also had Yaw Damper, which also meant as soon as it was engaged the pilot's feet go to the floor. And stay there. A habit I am trying very hard to unlearn...

So, to recap issues thus far. Weight, speed, controls... all of which is a bit different than what I'm used to. It's going to take a little practice. Practice in the maneuvers, as mentioned above, to become comfortable again in this unfamiliar airplane.

The panel in the Ten looks like this

Which brings us to instrumentation. 

Whereas in a 172, you'll often find this

 I bring this up because I am going to embed a video (hopefully), of some of the maneuvers that I have been practicing to refresh my skills. The video was produced by Rick Felty, a huge Girls With Wings Supporter and prolific YouTube poster of flying footage. [Read how the panel evolved in this blog entry from Aviation Mentor.]

How do I know he supports Girls With Wings? He's been known to sport our Definition of a Pilot tee in his videos. However, as you can see, he's a bit spoiled, with an instrument display more like the one in the Ten! The airplane panel I am now using looks more like the picture on the bottom, with round "steam gauges." (BTW, I took this opportunity to query the WWW about why the round dials are called this, and it seems the consensus is because they look like the gauges in steam engines - which doesn't have anything to do with the operation of an airplane. There's no shoveling coal to become a pilot that I know of. Several are gauges that use pressure, though, so maybe that's the link...?) Note that Rick does a few other maneuvers, like steep turns and falls - I mean, stalls - to increase his skills handling the airplane.


Ok, now that I've given you a list of excuses as long as my arm - oh wait! there's more! I am also accustomed to flying at a very high altitude for very long distances under IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. To oversimplify yet again, I am used to filing a flight plan and being under positive control of the Air Traffic Controllers all the time. In the Ten I could fly in any kind of weather, or in many cases over it, whereas in the 172 one has to be more concerned with weather hazards and regulations, especially when flying under VFR, or Visual Flight Rules.

To explain why this matters, please forgive me, but I'm going to chop and slap down a big bite of text from Wikipedia:

To put instrument flight rules into context, a brief overview of VFR is necessary. Flights operating under VFR are flown solely by reference to outside visual cues, which permit navigation, orientation, and separation from terrain and other traffic. Thus, cloud ceiling and flight visibility are the most important variables for safe operations during all phases of flight.^[3] The minimum weather conditions for ceiling and visibility for VFR flights are defined in FAR Part 91.155, and vary depending on the type of airspace in which the aircraft is operating, and on whether the flight is conducted during daytime or nighttime. However, typical daytime VFR minimums for most airspace is 3 statute miles of flight visibility and a cloud distance of 500' below, 1,000' above, and 2,000' feet horizontally.^[4] Flight conditions reported as equal to or greater than these VFR minimums are referred to as visual meteorological conditions (VMC).

Visual flight rules are much more simplistic than IFR, and require significantly less training and practice. VFR provides a great degree of freedom, allowing pilots to go where they want, when they want, and how to get there.^[5] Pilots are not required to file a flight plan, do not have to communicate with ATC (unless flying in certain types of "busier" airspace), and are not limited to following predefined published routes or flight procedures.
VFR pilots may use cockpit instruments as secondary aids to navigation and orientation, but are not required to. Instead, the view outside of the aircraft is the primary source for keeping the aircraft straight and level (orientation), flying where you intended to fly (navigation), and for not hitting anything (separation).^[6]

I love the sentence that says, "Visual flight rules are much more simplistic than IFR, and require significantly less training and practice." This may be true, but it is possible to get out of the habit, or, as I have done little VFR flying, to never become comfortable with it.

So I finally get to my point. I had a couple of recent single engine airplane flights under my belt when I decided to go for one of those $100 hamburgers I had blogged about - with me the only pilot at the controls! [Nearly everything I've ever flown, from the Huey to the Ten, has required a two pilot crew.] My sister, a ground-pounder, believe it or not, agreed to go with me. I only say believe it or not because other family members, especially those who used to change my diaper, have refused. Even though I have been a professional pilot for 17 years and potty trained for more than twice that long. Tracy is younger than me so she doesn't have that particular bias.

I ended up, because of marginal VFR weather (yes, this is what the weather briefer issued), going to the same airport I blogged about recently to enjoy another Gorgonzola pizza. Only... I couldn't enjoy it. I reference the definition of VFR flying above when I tell you that I flew low. Yeah, completely legal, but lower than I have ever flown so I could stay below the clouds. The Federal Aviation Regulations state:

§ 91.119   Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

So I more than complied with this, but in addition, I wasn't talking to Air Traffic Control! It was awfully quiet in there (actually, my sister was asking a bunch of really great questions, like "can you fly with the window open?" I had to ask someone later why you'd want to, and he said aerial photography. *facepalm*) and I missed the reassuring voice of the controller giving me traffic alerts and frequency changes.

And then, this is the worse part. I got lost. Ok, maybe just disoriented, but I am used to programming an FMS, or flight management system, and having the airplane practically land itself at my intended destination. I was trying to use a combination of looking outside at the natural and man made features and inside at my instruments to find my way, but when push came to shove I hit "direct" on the GPS. At such a low altitude, I wasn't giving myself a very good angle at which to recognize the airport environment. My sister, a pretty smart cookie, was the one who called my attention to the fact that the distance to the airport on the GPS had started counting UP. Luckily I needed to go that way to enter the traffic pattern anyway....

Obviously we survived the flight because I'm still blogging. But I could hardly eat any pizza imagining what I could be missing. My stomach was in knots thinking I busted some regulation and would received a letter with a return address of the FAA with information on which one. When I got back to the airport I conferred with my flight instructor and he assured me I was fine. As did his student, a pilot so new he'd not gotten his license yet, but more recently familiar with this type of flying.

But this experience reinforced in me how much I still had to learn. The principles of flying are universal, the regulations apply (and therefore should be known) to everyone, but that doesn't mean I was comfortable - or confident - in flying a 172 just yet. As I state in my CFI to CFI article, I, like most women I have met, need to feel confident in their abilities to be able to progress in their training. I will blog next about how I was able to find more, if not most (yet) confidence. So that next time I can enjoy that $220 pizza. Yes, that's how much it cost to rent the airplane for the trip.

Confidence, btw, was the theme of this month's Penelope's Page, a Girls With Wings publication for the younger set!