Barnstorming Review

At the AOPA Aviation Summit last November I had the pleasure of meeting so many people with fascinating projects to energize and grow the General Aviation (GA) community. One of those people was Suzanne Brindamour, who wrote the music for Barnstorming, a documentary film.

Subtitled "friends really can drop out of the sky," this chronicle of two guys who landed in a farmer's field to get photos of their vintage airplanes with a tractor launched a decade old tradition.

Barnstorming was a popular form of entertainment in the 1920s in which stunt pilots would perform tricks with airplanes, either individually or in groups called a flying circus.The term barnstormer was also applied to pilots who flew throughout the country selling airplane rides, usually operating from a farmer's field for a day or two before moving on. "Barnstorming season" ran from early spring until after the harvest and county fairs in the fall.

Due to safety issues (competition to thrill the audiences called for more and more dangerous maneuvers), regulations were put in place that severely curtailed this practice by the 1940s. The Airport Facility Directory published every 56 days by the National Aeronautical Charting Office, FAA, states the following AIRCRAFT LANDING RESTRICTIONS:

Landing of aircraft at locations other than public use airports may be a violation of Federal or local law. All land and water areas are owned or controlled by private individuals or organizations, states, cities, local governments, or U.S. Government agencies. Except in emergency, prior permission should be obtained before landing at any location that is not a designated public use airport or seaplane base.

Of course, all regulations go out the window in case of emergency, which is why the pilots had an excuse ready for landing in a field should the owner be less than welcoming. It turned out that this particular farmer and his family had no problem with the interruption to their busy life on their farm. The Dirkson's accepted the offer of free rides and invited the pilots back for a BBQ the next year. It was, as they said, an opportunity for a new experience, as they can't get away much when running a dairy farm.

Call me a cynic, but what struck me most about this documentary was its tribute to the ways things used to be. Or at least how we imagine them to have been. And how we wish they still were. Simple and unselfish. Friends sharing what they have purely for the enjoyment of others. In the years since the two group's introduction, the annual event has become what they call an "airshow," bringing in about 100 locals and attracting classic cars in addition to the handful of vintage airplanes.

The pilgrimage to the Indiana farm begins with flights from all over the country to a staging base allowing them all to reach the destination at the same time. Since many of these airplanes don't have an electrical system, meaning no radios with which to communicate, this in itself is an accomplishment. The majority of the planes have open cockpits and no instruments to navigate through the clouds, so weather is a huge variable (not to mention the risks of landing in a sloppy, muddy field).

Locals say kids start asking when the planes are going to arrive in March, though they have months still to wait. The nine year old neighbor, Solana, that I was watching with, marveled at the effort involved to prepare for their arrival, and said, "I can't wait to see them land." The event brings a crowd out for the potluck so the Dirkson family sets out numerous tables and folding chairs out in the front yard. And then the kids sit out there to wait... Even I had goosebumps when they finally came into view.

The show's events feature a "Ribbon" Cutting (that's toilet paper to me and you) by one of the planes, balloon popping, candy dropping, and a contest to see who can bomb the tractor (using bags of flour). And of course, rides for the kids.

The cinematography in the film was amazing and the accompanying music transports you to a romantic place filled with the best parts of aviation and America for span of only 48 minutes. If only life were this pretty and simple more often.


Barnstorming - A Documentary Film is for those folks who would like to visit such a place. If only for a little while.

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!



 

Training to standards

You would have to be hiding under a rock to not have heard about all of the fuss going on about flight training. Most notably, you've probably heard that the FAA's Aviation Safety Bill has been passed, dictating, among other things,  that First Officers for commercial airlines must have a minimum 1500 hours of flight time (in reaction to the horrific plane crash over Buffalo, NY, last year).

The problem is this flight time (logged as actual hours flying not just training and studying) is really hard to come by. For example, I spent 7 years in the military flying Hueys and King Airs and got barely over 1200 hours. I was "lucky" in the sense that I wasn't paying for my flight training (albeit the Army was squeezing work out of me in other ways). The estimated cost these days for a private pilot certificate is anywhere from $3000 to $10,000. [I only put the $3000 figure in there because I saw it advertised. If you believe that, I have heard you can make this amount in one week working part time at home on your computer. No, really, I just got emailed this information.] When one gets that private pilot designation, he or she may have approximately 100 hours. Only 1400 more to go.

But there's more training to do. After you get your private, there's the instrument, commercial ratings, and then, most likely, your flight instructor certificate, which is what I'm working on now. Pilots can work up to 1500 hours of flight time by buying it, if they have a trust fund, since hourly rentals of small single engine airplanes are at least $100/hr. Or by slowly working at it, instructing, banner towing, etc. Anything that doesn't involve flying passengers for money. Because I did all of my initial training in the Army, I went a little different route. I now have over 4000 hours of flight time (having left the military and flown for both the commercial and fractional airlines), but no instructor time.

So, did I feel that I was a competent enough fresh out of the military pilot with 1200 hours flying a Beech 1900 in the busy, weather intensive Northeast US? Well, not always, at first, but I flew for the most part with a heck of an awesome captain, Mike, who taught me a lot as did just flying the airplane getting more experience. After completing the airline's training course, I went to Michigan to fly routes into and out of Pittsburgh. The airline, which is out of business now (no fault of mine, I should state) ran a pretty shady operation, trying to patch things together with duct tape and super glue as much as possible to keep the planes going. However, they had some great pilots. You'd have to be, flying an old, beat-up turboprop through the weather to such small, out of the way airports. For all of these reasons, the eye of the FAA was upon us. Because the FAA is always watching...

The FAA can sit in on just about anything in the airlines, and that includes your jumpseat (usually an actual seat in the cockpit, but in a 1900 it was seat 1A which had a headphone jack). They're there to make sure the pilots are running a safe flight. They can also do a "ramp check" to make sure the airplane is airworthy and legal. I remember asking Mike that if, gasp, the FAA, who takes your license away first and then asks questions, came to inspect us what we should do differently (or what wasn't I doing that I should). And Mike confidently replied, "Nothing. Everything you're doing every day is exactly how it should be done."

That's what I liked about flying with Mike. Without being anal about it, he ran a by the book operation. Other captains, ones that were not so particular, might ignore regulations, or operate in "gray" areas or be a little more forgiving of potential safety issues. When a first officer flies with such a captain, they never know what they're going to get. Heck, I had flown with captains that refused to use the checklists (so I would read them to myself - I couldn't help it!).

My point to this post is that you fly the way that you're trained. IF you care enough to continue this training into the way you conduct yourself as a pilot. Does it take any longer to do things by the book? Not really. But when the eyes of the FAA are upon you, it sure makes it easier to have those good practices ingrained. Plus, as I'm sure I've mentioned before in this blog, I never want my actions to result in the loss of the lives of others.

This is the attitude I want to convey to my students as a flight instructor. There are tons of stories about "Never Again," "I Learned from This," and other lessons pilots have learned in hindsight (I've got quite a few of them myself), but we're better off limiting the number of errors we introduce into our flights.

By the way, the new legislation also:

• Requires the FAA to strengthen regulations governing pilot training programs at airlines. The NTSB has urged airlines to provide remedial training for pilots who make errors or have difficulty on tests of their flying.
• Gives the FAA three years to impose new regulations requiring airlines to establish pilot mentoring programs and professional development committees, as well as modify existing training programs to include leadership and command training.

Jet Age Book Review

One of the cool things about having a presence in the aviation world is that people are quite often willing to send me their books to review, as in the case of a book about Amelia Earhart or one on Flying Above the Glass Ceiling. These are two recent blog entries made easy by the fact that I liked the books. I don't usually say anything when I don't. Go ahead. Call me a wimp. But I'm a nice, non-confrontational wimp.

So I kind of figured when I got an email from a marketing agent within a publishing house asking me to review their newly released book that I wasn't going to be all that thrilled with it. Ok, first, it's kind of a stretch that as the founder and Executive Director of a non profit organization (that just received it's 501(c)(3) designation by the way, for any of you thinking about year end donations...) using aviation to inspire girls to achieve their full potential, that I would have a tie in to a book subtitled "The Comet, the 707, and the Race to Shrink the World."

Initially I viewed this request in the same light as vague requests from unknown persons suggesting they do guest posts on the blog about "how to travel with kids," or "how to develop online educational resources." I suppose those topics apply more than "how to drain spinach for a prize-winning veggie quiche," but I usually pass on such offers.

Additionally, the email emphasized, "Sam Verhovek’s Jet Age (on sale 10/14, $27) offers an intimate view into the minds of pioneer aviators – the men [my emphasis] who helped shrink and connect our global village. Jetsetters, pilots, and history buffs alike will receive an invaluable framework for evaluating the current airline industry and appreciating the evolution of astonishing commercial aircraft models."

Not exactly a Girls With Wings niche.

And of course, there's the time issue. Now that I'm simultaneously working on my CFI (Certified Flight Instructor) rating and GWW, there just isn't a lot of free time. Not that I'm complaining, thanks to the recent AOPA article on GWW and the subsequent VERY successful trip to the AOPA Aviation Summit. It's due to this lack of extra time that I haven't been promoting my own book, Penelope Pilot and her First Day as Captain, as much I should. Insert thought cloud above my head, "Oh, to have such an expert staff of people for Girls With Wings...."

And a book tagged with "How Boeing's Gamble Changed the World: Airline Triumphs and Challenges," sounded a bit like a text book.

How wrong I was.

I actually found a space to fit the book into my carry-on luggage to California for the Summit. I was able to crack it open on the trip back, hoping it would act as a sleep aid on my first leg to Charlotte. Well, I never did get to close my eyes, reading the book cover to cover on the four hour flight (I have always been quite the speed reader, too).

Far from a dry narrative of the scientific development of aircraft engine technology, the book is more of a social commentary into the transition from propeller driven passenger airplanes into the standard we hold now for our commercial airline conveyance: jet aircraft. Just ask anyone who finds themselves facing the set of stairs into a "puddle jumper."

Airline travel in its beginning stages was loud, bumpy and, um, prolonged. The airplanes utilized big heavy turbine or piston engines with propellers that caused noise and vibration in the cabin. Plus, un- or under-pressurized airplanes can only fly as high as the body can handle, leaving it down low in the turbulent air currents and often storms. The flights were also slow, taking quite often days to fly across the country, but, let it be said, faster than it took to drive. And there wasn't much in the way of regulating the environment for the passengers. Recommended items to pack were warm clothes, face-masks (no air purification) and sick sacks.

So the 1952 appearance of the de Havilland Comet was a welcome addition to the "glamorous" jetsetting life style - only now it was literally, "jet-setting." The British airplane featured a cabin for 36 passengers, "ensconsed in seats covered with a blue herringbone-weave, wool-faced tapestry," and a library, seperate bathrooms for men and women, and, most importantly, a special Comet Cocktail served only aboard the jetliner (presumably not served to the pilots, as well). The airplane's sleek design incorporated four engines enabled speeds of 500 miles per hour, seven miles above the earth, and a fuselage with a fatal flaw. No one at the time was able to determine why three Comets exploded while in flight. You could google the answer right now, but I would suggest that the process as laid out in Jet Age is much more interesting and detailed and worth the read.

Far from shutting down the development of other jet airliners, the competition to build a better mousetrap led to the expansion of the R&D divisions at Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed, et al. And the procurement departments in the commercial airlines of the day, such as Pan Am, Trans World, and Eastern, among others who actually still remain in existence. I won't go into depth into these areas, nor with the insertions of historical factors (like, of all things, ballooning, and the Messerschmitt jet fighter built by the Germans in 1944), but know that the contributing facts put forth by the author seamlessly blend in to the comprehensive retelling of how the jet engine was conceived, built, refined, and then put into generally accepted practice, and the people, some quite famous, who made it possible.

I therefore can confidently recommend this book, especially because you won't learn just about the jet engine, but also the businesses and personalities of the day, how politics and finances have shaped the airline industry and how women have come to play a part in it. Ok, yeah, first as stewardesses but also, eventually, as pilots (there IS a Girls With Wings tie in!). Jet Age, by Sam Howe Verhovek, is really a educational and entertaining book telling the story behind the story in how airlines and their airplanes have evolved.

I'm so glad I was contacted by their "people."

My AOPA Summit '10 trip to CA

This November I left the weather in Northeast Ohio to almost the exact same weather in Southern California. No kidding, a solid week of sun and mid-60's in Cleveland, in November and I missed it? Yes, but what I got to experience in SoCal was SO much better!

I have to admit, however, I was totally dreading this trip on the airlines. I have not flown commercially since my furlough started in January, and given all of the bad press the TSA (short for Transportation Security Administration) has been receiving, I expected quite the molestation ritual. Surprisingly, at my airport it was like nothing had changed - when I flew back home out of LA, either.

I first visited a long time friend, Barbara, proprietor of Plane Mercantile, a wonderful eclectic store of antiques and nostalgic aviation items. We met at the first appearance of the Girls With Wings retail line at the Ninety-Nines International Conference in DC in 2006 when Barb walked up to me after a long day of driving from Cleveland and setting up tables to ask if I wanted to share dinner. Actually, I believe she called it "beer." She was a great source of information then and still is - about many things, but mostly about aviation. She has an encyclopedic memory of the growth of aviation over the last century, with several works including "Pancho: The Biography of Florence Lowe Barnes" an excellent and complete of the life and times of the famous society aviatrix and owner of the Happy Bottom Riding Club.

Barbara and I meet yearly at many aviation events, like Women in Aviation's annual conference. This year she also had a booth at EAA's AirVenture, or (Spl)Oshkosh. And, of course, we both had a presence at AOPA's Aviation Summit. More about that later. First, I wanted to also share with you that Barbara and her family have a love of all things aeronautical. Even her sons are pilots. Her husband, Philip, has had a career as an engineer and test pilot that a wall of citations and awards clearly demonstrate. So I was more than willing to go have a $100 hamburger (see previous blog entry) in their Beechcraft Model 18, or "Twin Beech", a 6-11 seat, twin-engine, low-wing, conventional-gear aircraft.

We flew to Mojave Airport, where we just happened to actually see a very famous aviation engineer with some serious mutton chops, not so coincidentally, in a restaurant named Voyager. Besides being the home of Mojave Air and Space Port, a world renowned flight research center hosting the latest and most advanced aeronautical designs, it is also a boneyard. Mojave's dry desert climate and acres of available open space makes this an ideal location for aircraft storage. Numerous large Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, and Airbus aircraft owned by major airlines are stored on site. Some aircraft reach the end of their useful lifetime and are scrapped at Mojave. Others are refurbished and returned to active service.

When we got back from this trip, Philip, also a A&P (airframe and powerplant mechanic) with IA (Inspection Authorization), offered to conduct a little ground school using their Cessna 150. So he removed the cowlings and proceed to point out all the parts of the engine, to which I was known to utter a few "Ooooh's" and "Ahhhhh's," and "Really's" and "No Kidding's." I'm a pretty visual learner, and all of this talk about fuel mixture and carb heat, etc., on a piston engine, no less, when I'm used to turbine engines, REALLY helped me to understand more about how the small engines work. He also walked around and demonstrated the angle of attack on the propeller and because of gyroscopic progression, makes the airplane yaw to the left, requiring right rudder on takeoff...  ok, I can see I'm losing you non-pilots. Here's some more information if you're interested. Anyway, I can tell you that two hours was priceless - and I'm hoping to be invited back out again for more (that's a hint, Barb and Phil!).

It was then time to travel to Long Beach to begin setting up the Girls With Wings booth at the AOPA Aviation Summit. After carrying my items in, box by box, from the farthest spot my car could have been parked, to the location of my booth (I can't afford to pay the people that provide logistical support for these events to move my things and so I therefore use my own muscles - it makes up for the overeating I usually do on such trips!), I had a Girls With Wings presentation to do! Again, I am so lucky to be meeting such great people promoting more girls' interest in aviation - and one of those people is Monika, the woman behind the documentary Flyabout. Monika and I had just participated in a joint event at Kent State University call Women Take Flight to interest young women to explore the many exciting opportunities for careers in journalism, aviation and filmmaking. Over 150 folks attended!

Monika also has a 7 year old daughter who's in Brownies, so I did a presentation for her troop and a group of older Girl Scouts. The girls were amazing - very interested and involved in this introduction to “everything” a pilot needs to know in order to complete a flight. This interactive presentation incorporates various aeronautical tools. My talk always begins by asking the girls if they think they could ever figure out what a pilot does, to which they invariably reply “no.” After showing them navigation charts, demonstrating the methods of communicating with ATC, and playing a game explaining what the flight instruments do, I remind them that they told me at the onset they never thought they would be able to figure out how to fly! See more about the presentation. [I tried to upload video here, unsuccessfully. You can go to the webpage to view three new videos!]

The next day the AOPA Aviation Summit kicked off. I could not have had such a successful booth there without the help of the aforementioned Monika, and Ceci, Adrienne, and Carole - among others. It was AMAZING how many visitors said the came there just to meet me after the article in the AOPA Magazine about GWW. Many folks brought their daughters by just to purchase their autographed copy of the Penelope Pilot book - like Cary here. I would also like to thank Rod of myTransponder for allowing me to participate on a panel "Making Aviation More Social," the video of which is now being shown on AOPA Live. I was able to meet with three CFI's of the Year on this panel, but I treasured the opportunity to meet all of the attendees of the event. Next year, Hartford, CT, September 22-24!

Break down of the booth after the event was much easier with the motivation of being done. Plus I had a good night's sleep to look forward to. Having a booth is hard work, but it's the best way for people to learn about Girls With Wings. Yes, we do also sell items here, but that helps us a little with fundraising. Plus, the more people sporting a "Yes, Girls Can Fly" message the more the word will be spread. Sunday we went to the Griffith's Observatory, a very famous landmark in LA that you might recognize, and Monday (after I took the boxes of remaining GWW stuff to the Post office), we visited Paramount studios. California, although quite smoggy, is really a beautiful place. I've flown over and into it plenty of times, but this was my first chance to see it from ground level.

If THAT wasn't enough, my fellow AcroCamper, Michelle, took me for a ride in her Super D to see it from the sky! We flew over to Camarillo, CA, for a bite to eat. Do I look a little green in this picture? It's not from the food. Nor did we do any aerobatics. No, I would like to have one of these in my hangar, but for now, I am so appreciative of friends that are willing to share! Michelle had been considering a Bonanza, but after AcroCamp, knew her future was in a taildragger. She actually picked it up from the factory and had it custom painted in her favorite color, orange. I'm telling you, the new paint was like satin. And the white interior, at least for now, was spotless. No, you local flight schools, Michelle will not be offering this airplane for you to lease quite yet!

And the next morning's two hour drive to cover less than 20 miles to get to LAX nearly concluded my California trip (I had to pull an OJ Simpson in CLT to make my connection). Big thanks to all mentioned above for their willingness to volunteer, extend their hospitality, stop by and say hello, etc. It was a trip I will never forget!

$100 Hamburgers

This Halloween weekend I enjoyed my first $100 hamburger. No, thank goodness, my lunch was not actually $100. This is a catch phrase for the practice, a long standing tradition (defined), of flying to another general aviation airport in a general aviation airplane just to go to lunch (or golf or shop, etc.) at another airport. Many of the 5300 or so "General Aviation" or GA airports (compared to about 600 "commercial" airports) are co-located with some fabulous restaurants celebrated by both pilots and the local general public alike. It’s unfortunately getting so expensive for this hobby that they’re now calling this the $200 or $300 hamburger. Those brave enough, of course, of actually figuring the actual cost of operating their own airplane.

My pilot for the day (since I am still doing some CFI training and cannot yet afford to rent an airplane for such a pleasure trip) was Nancy, a fellow Lake Erie 99 (The Ninety-Nines was the first organization of Women Pilots). Along for a ride was Nancy’s husband, Jim, and another 99, Meigs. There are 231,607 airplanes classified as "GA" and Nancy and Jim are part owners in one of them.

They use a timeshare to have access to an airplane, which many people do if they cannot afford or wish to take on the responsibility of buying one outright. They signed a lease in a Cirrus 22 making a monthly payment of less than $1000/mo with two other owners to covering operating expenses. Additionally, they pay an $90 hourly wet rate with covers their maintenance and upgrades. Really, not a bad way to go if you can afford it. See if you should rent or buy an airplane.

So, we all met at Summit Air at Akron’s Fulton Airport, where they keep the Goodyear Blimps (HUGE hangar to left), to prepare for the flight early on this chilly Saturday morning. I have told my fellow 99s, Nancy included, that I was so interested in getting a ride anytime they went flying. Yes, I’ve been a pilot for 17 years, but although it’s been a blast, my flight time hasn't been logged for my pleasure alone. I have been the type of pilot most people think of when they think pilot: someone who flies for the airline or the military. Never a pilot that flies mostly for fun, like many general aviation pilots. By the way, I can't tell you how many pilots are GA pilots because there's not any such category. There are pilots with their private pilot certification that can't fly "for hire" but many pilots with their commercial rating that can do both.

Nancy has been, shall we say?, reluctant to take me flying since I met her. She's got this crazy notion that because I fly professionally that I know everything there is to know about flying. Yes, I know about my airplane, and the kinds of flying that I've done, but not about flying around for hamburgers (peanuts, yes. Colgan Pilots, btw, are understandably a little riled because their new contract will have 6 year captains making less than $40k/yr). So I told Nancy that I wanted to learn from her watching get ready for the flight. I’ve never seen someone so nervous! I was nervous as well, you know, since I'm supposed to be getting ready to teach people how to do this as a flight instructor. I was quite reassured to see watching her that I remember a great deal from my training - such things as calling flight service, for example, as Nancy is doing here.

The truth is, I think Nancy makes a perfect poster child for folks everywhere that are interested in being a pilot but not a career pilot. Nancy flies, just for fun. And fun she is. Always has a smile on her face and a great attitude. This whole flying thing is still pretty new to her. Not the flying thing, per se, because she spent many years as a “stewardess.” Nancy looks 50, though is a smidge older than that; that’s what she was called when she worked for the airlines. I figured that’s where she got the bug. She also had a brother who flew for the Navy and has 360 carrier landings. 

But no, that wasn't it.

FYI, according to the Airplane Pilots and Owners Association, the average student pilot today is in his 30s, and the typical average active pilot is a decade older. In addition, more than 25 percent of all U.S. pilots with current medical certificates are in their 50s. And some pilots learn to fly after they retire.

Perhaps it was her husband, Jim, along for the flight, that encouraged her to get her license. See Pinch-hitter Course article.

Nope, Jim isn't a pilot.

I've seen Jim around a few 99s events and have to admit, I just assumed he was. I was quite surprised when I asked him outright and he said no. So I asked him for a few words for the blog. Jim says, “I’m in safe hands on this flight with 3 women pilots. Nancy took up flying as a hobby at age 60. Her first instructor was a woman who encouraged her to go for her instrument rating which was also strongly encouraged by her brother. In the middle of that training, she decided to re-start the effort on a high performance single engine Cirrus 22 all glass cockpit. I am very proud of her determination to master that complex rating and fly the Cirrus 22.” 

Well, then, what inspired her to pick up flying? If not a career in aviation, a family history of flying, a supportive husband, what?

The answer may be seen in photo to right. The influence of/inspiration from another woman pilot.

Nancy was finally inspired to start flying by the other woman pilot in our group, Meigs. They were both members in another group, the Questers, and Meigs had come in to talk to that group about the 99s, a kind of walking/talking show and tell about women pilots. After the talk, Nancy apparently disappeared, not seen by Meigs until she joined the 99s about two years later. As a pilot. (From right, me, Nancy, Meigs, Deb, and Helen, all Lake Erie 99s).

Meigs is a pretty impressive woman herself. Her father was George W. Kirkendall, who worked for Taylor Aircraft, which produced the 1st Piper Cub on which he was the test pilot for its first flight September 12, 1930. Meig's husband wasn't a pilot either, but he talked her into getting a license so they could enjoy more time at their vacation destination by flying together instead of driving! Meigs ended up making 28 cross country trips and joined the Civil Air Patrol flying rescue missions and cadets – amassing over 2700 hours! (To left, Nancy and Meigs finish their post-flight.)

So everyone admires the airline and the military hotshots in their uniforms, leading a cushy life and making the big bucks (cough, cough), but you might walk right past a group of pilots who fly the general aviation airplanes and you wouldn’t even know it. Unless you see the smiles on their faces (and the smears of hamburger grease on their chins). Most people who fly do it because they love it. These are the people who fly for the fun of it. I love it. And I can’t wait to be right into the middle of it.

And for the record, I actually had a $100 pizza. The gorgonzola pizza at the Primo Barone’s Restaurant & Lounge at Venango Airport in Franklin County, PA, is very nearly worth that much.

My CFI to CFI Article: Mars Teaching Venus

"Mars teaching Venus," my article published in the CFI to CFI Newsletter
Reprinted with permission from AOPA Air Safety Foundation copyright CFI to CFI Newsletter.

Aviation has always been a male dominated industry, and although women have played important roles within aviation, they have had to adapt to a man's world.  Women have been a minority in all aviation fields except flight attendant, according to FAA statistics.

The oft-quoted statistic that 6 percent of certificated pilots are women has not changed in the past 100 years, so we have to ask ourselves why? Why has this number not increased, since in the past 10 years the ratio of female to male flight students has been at 11 percent? Why are we not turning these female flight students into pilots?

I believe that women and men are equally able to be successful pilots. But with a caveat: they learn differently. There are 5,500 women ground instructors compared to 75,000 overall, so let's address the more common male instructor-female student scenario.

Many women feel a need to understand everything before they feel comfortable doing it. A male flight instructor should allow a female student pilot the chance to ask questions, be prepared to try a couple different methods of explaining it to her, and say, “You don’t need to understand that quite yet,” if she doesn’t. Feeling like she’s missing a crucial nugget of information will cause your student to be distracted and lose confidence in her ability to successfully complete her training.

I remember when I went off to the U.S. Army’s Initial Entry Rotary Wing Training. On about day two of our helicopter training the instructor read through the Huey's start up checklist: Generator - On.

It could have been so much easier if I would have just flipped the switch on. But, no, I had to ask what a generator was. “It’s just like the alternator in your car,” the instructor says. Perhaps it was my blank stare that gave me away.

I am nothing if not tenacious though, and that was just the first of many episodes throughout flight school of me seeking to get the minimal amount of knowledge to comprehend the subject at hand. "Why does this happen? Why do we have to do it this way? Why am I just not getting this? What happens if - gasp - I do it wrong?"

My first few months in flight school were a struggle. I had a flight instructor who would bark orders and scream at me when I couldn’t do something right. In the midst of yet another episode crying on the shoulder of a friend who also happened to be an Army flight instructor, he confided, “You don’t have to understand it all now, just memorize what you need to in order to get through training.” "Really? I said. "You mean all of the guys in my class don’t understand it either? They’re just acting like they do?" So as hard as this was, I follwed his advice.

One of the things I didn’t understand (and was too afraid to ask about) was crucial to consistently flying stabilized visual approaches. Even to this day I can't remember what the name is for this technique, but it was some kind of "cone of action."  You were supposed to look at your intended landing point and see no movement at that point. However, everything around the point should be moving.Things in front would move forward, things to the side should move farther out, and things behind would move backward. If you got this concept, which I hadn't, you would be able to maintain a constant descent angle throughout your approach and landing, preventing you from under- or over-arcing from the straight line that could ideally be drawn from your point of initial descent to your touchdown point (add power for under arcing, subtract power for over arcing). Of course, this concept was never explained to me this way.

These gaps in my knowledge bothered me. I was obviously missing out on a good technique to fly a consistent approach, so my landings were continuously criticized for being imperfect. I wanted to understand, and not understanding made me lose confidence. Eventually, concepts I didn’t completely “get” at first started to fall into place. However, this learning process was a whole lot more stressful than it needed to be.

My experience is that men are less discomfited with gaps in their knowledge. They are more comfortable with figuring it out as they go along, jumping in feet first, hoping they keep it greasy side down. In all my training over the years I have had male instructors, and I have learned not to ask questions in class. Why? Because too many instructors read into my asking that that I can’t understand.

I remember in my initial Beechjet training discussing the electrical system. At some point I looked around and saw the same blank stare on every guy in the class. I whispered to the guy on my right, “Do you understand what he’s saying?” “Nope.” Same answer from the guy on my left. So I asked the instructor to clarify, which he did, albeit unsuccessfully. The worst part was the whole rest of the training he kept stopping after every block of instruction to ask me, “Did you get that, Lynda?” He was certainly just trying to be helpful, but man, was I embarrassed by the extra attention.

Eventually I realized that the guys in class weren’t worried. They were able to memorize what would be asked of them to pass their checkride, they were OK with knowing that, with time, they would come to understand through osmosis.

I have only had one simulator session with a female instructor. During the prebrief she mentioned a system on the Cessna Citation X that I was having the hardest time memorizing the limitations for because I didn’t understand the system. What did she do? She opened the systems manual to a picture of the system and said about 10 words on the subject and my understanding just fell into place. I think she was able to explain the matter so that I understood because as women we spoke the same language.

In my training to become a CFI while on furlough from my fractional airline job I hope to put my theories into practice and share with you the insight I gain.

--Lynda Meeks, a former U.S. Army helicopter and fixed-wing pilot, has also flown for regional and fractional airlines. She has more than 5,000 hours and is the founder of the nonprofit organization Girls With Wings, Inc. (www.girlswithwings.org).

Amelia Earhart Book Review

You can't say that you don't get a wide variety of topics covered in this blog. I'm going to change things up a bit with a book review featuring Amelia Earhart: The Sky’s no Limit, by Lori Van Pelt. A Young Adult Novel in the American Heroes series.

Often when I am speaking to an audience, I joke about how people respond when I say that I’m a pilot. Sometimes, but thankfully not too often, someone will remark, “Huh. I didn’t know there were any girl pilots.” To which I respond, sometimes out loud, “Well, surely you’ve heard of Amelia Earhart. There’s one.”

The problem is that Amelia Earhart has become so well known for her tragic end instead of her many accomplishments. Not only was she the 16th woman to earn her pilot’s license, she was also instrumental in forming the Ninety-nines, the Organization of Women Pilots and served as its first president. This book chronicles her many feats of “firsts” (most of which I was completely unaware) without sounding like a textbook making it appropriate for pre-teens on up and I heartily recommend it.

Lori Van Pelt’s retelling of the challenges the racers endured during first Women’s Air Derby is riveting, as well as her other flights in sometimes minimally engineered or maintained airplanes long before the technological advances that have made pilot tasks today center around an autopilot and a flight management system. In my earliest days of flying, I remember hearing, and much to my great chagrin, repeating, that Amelia was not “a very good pilot.” This book relates those retold incidents that might have led to this criticism, and explains the certainly justifiable and understandable circumstances of many of them. As accounts from that time relate, in the early days of aviation the odds against the pilots and the risks of catastrophic outcomes were much greater. These were the days were not too far away from the old adage of “a good landing is one you walk away from, a great landing is one after which you can use the airplane again.”

So what I love about this book is that it is such a warm, affectionate biography of who Amelia was and how it formed her personality and led her to achieve so many things in a flying career cut much too short. The story begins during her tomboy childhood and youth, relating a less than stellar family life that caused her to become more independent than the other women of her day. Though trained in nursing and social work, she was determined to become a pilot and was fortunate to be launched into the public eye by riding, not flying, as the first woman on a transatlantic flight (later successfully piloting herself I might add – and setting a speed record). As Van Pelt relates, for this girl who was captioned in her yearbook as “the girl in brown who walks alone,” her determination in getting her license strengthened her for the notoriety she was about to endure.

This book brings a depth to the legend that is Amelia Earhart. Although written for a young adult audience, I found it completely enjoyable as a light and informative read. Amelia was a tireless advocate for women in aviation, devoting every spare minute to speeches, lectures, and articles, all the while flying test and demonstration flights, breaking speed records, promoting women’s interest in aviation, becoming a VP for a commuter airline, advocating women’s rights, etc. And to be able to give her the respect she deserves as a pilot as well, you need the ability to see her at work in the cockpit that Van Pelt provides in her narratives.

The drama which unfolds during the preparations for her round the world record setting flight would have broken a weaker constitution. I was humbled by her seemingly inexhaustible energy. As Van Pelt describes, “…she continued her lecture schedule, took on additional work helping [her husband and manager] with preflight tour details, studied geography and weather throughout the world to better acquaint herself with the countries she would fly to, and even made time to engage in some campaigning for the Democrats during the presidential election year.” I doubt most people would have remained as poised and composed under the multitude of delays and mechanical difficulties.

Though there are more in-depth, comprehensive biographies of Amelia, this provides a well balanced overview of her life and her accomplishments. And is much more informative than the movie, “Amelia,” which scarcely touched on the numerous aspects to her life. Really, to understand Amelia, you have to read more about her and I suggest you start with reading this book. She gained the admiration of many with her flying skills, of the world with her feats, but remained modest and privately conscious of the limitations of her abilities and worked to overcome them. As she herself said, “Please know that I am aware of the hazards. I want to do it because I want to do it. Women must try to do things as men have tried. When they fail, their failure must be but a challenge to others.” Amelia did in fact achieve what most of us can only wish to do, to serve as a role model and inspire countless of pilots in the eighty three years since her brave attempt to do no less than circumnavigate the entire world.

 Please visit Lori Van Pelt's website to order the book. Other photos from Wikipedia.

The Final Episode of AcroCamp

May 17th. The last day of AcroCamp. Thinking about going home, I posted, It's the last day of AcroCamp. NOW what will I do?

To continue the solo discussion from the last post: I also achieved a measure of proficiency in the Citabria, and so I tweeted, “If the winds cooperate I may get to solo the Citabria at #AcroCamp too.” Like the other campers, I spent a session doing some traffic patterns and getting comfortable landing the taildragger. Barry and I decided to take a break and get back in the air – at which time he hoped to get out and let me go it alone. I even wore my AcroCamp polo for the occasion, excited because technically I had never actually had a solo ride that would qualify me for the shirt ceremony.

Good news: I got the skills and the confidence to solo the Citabria. Bad news: Mother Nature decided to kick up the wind.

Well, the second flight was a mess. First, I guess I was back to being a bit nervous. As I taxied up and held short of the runway, I attempted to call tower and state my intentions to do closed traffic. I keyed the mike to identify myself (with my type airplane and the tail number) and said, “Sigh-, Sigh-Sigh…” I was literally staring at the placard in the airplane that said Citabria and tried to get out “Sit” for “Si-Tah-Bree-Ah.” No, instead all I could do was start to say, “Sigh-Tay-Shun” my most recent airplane. Of course everything we said was being recorded because of the documentary, but all transmissions with ATC are not only recorded, they are broadcast. So Kent, or @ flyingcheezhead tweeted, “Funny moment departing #AcroCamp: listening to @GirlsWithWings call tower and not be able to say "Citabria" instead of "Citation." ;-) ROFL”

Alas, now the winds were picking up and were not right down the runway, much less light and variable. No, they were pretty much kicking the left side of my butt. This was fine under normal circumstances, since you need to be able to land the airplane no matter what the weather, but we were short on time and I was not going to get proficient in the time left. “Completely bummed. The wind has cursed my plans for soloing the Citabria.”

So I got the spin endorsement, but not the tailwheel endorsement. There was one more thing I had to do. My two Pitts rides were less than spectacular. I wanted to have at least one amazing ride in this thing. Don talked to me a bit about recognizing what I needed in my instruction, “Tell, Show, DO” and so we went up to finish AcroCamp with a bang. As a future flight instructor, I need to learn from Don and Barry and be able also to recognize how best to instruct each student – because not everyone learns the same way. I finally learned my lesson about getting situated in the front seat, too. I not only was sitting on about a foot and a half of cushions (so I could see) I was also wearing some Nike sneakers Ben had outfitted with lifts. They're on my feet, but I'm kind of hiding them. Surprisingly, they're not that hard to walk in. One just feels a bit like Lady Gaga. Or Lady LaLa, as it were.

Here’s a list of what we did on that last flight (in no particular order, for those of you who are checking for “energy management” compliance):
Half Cubans
Reverse Half Cubans
Immelmans
Hammerheads with roll spins (at least I think this is what Don wrote in my logbook) such as the one shown here:

Flat Spins and recovery
Wingovers
Aileron rolls
Barrel rolls
Rolls
Loops
Inverted flight and turns
Point rolls
Outside ½ loop and tail slides
Torque rolls
Pull Pull Pull and a Pull Push Pull Humpty.

 

See it under the wing in this picture?

Obviously a couple of those require explanation. First, a tail slide. No, first let me tell you about something on the Pitts (and most other aerobatic airplanes). On the left wing (remember how I mentioned you look at the relationship of the left wing to the horizon to level the airplane?) there is a protrusion designed to allow the pilot to recognize what angle to the horizon they’re in. For example, a Cuban requires to be 5/8ths into a loop. How are you gonna know that? The Citabria’s indicator was pretty simple, just a rod with the end bent a bit. The Pitt’s one had probably 6 or 8 spokes on it. The Pitts one also had a 6 inch length of string tied on it. This was so (I can’t imagine any aerodynamic need for it) the pilots could go vertical and see the string streamlining straight down. I suppose there was an instant at the top of the vertical climb when the airplane was just hanging there that the string stayed straight down because of gravity. But then, the string bent. And then folded back on itself. And then, as the airplane descended vertically backwards, the string completely reversed directions!

Finally, a picture of my G Meter Hair!

And the humpties. You can refer to http://www.iac.org/begin/figures.html for a description of all of these maneuvers, but I’ll try my best to explain. The Pull Pull Pull means you pull back on the stick to go straight up. Pull again, to go over the top and straight down, then pull back to level flight. The Pull Push Pull means you pull back on the stick to go vertical, then PUSH to come over the top and head straight down toward the ground – kind of like being in a roller coaster. This was a great way to conclude this camp, because this was my nightmare scenario. I couldn’t imagine having that view – but again, by the end of training, it was a BLAST. (Note: I’m definitely not saying I’d ever go rent an airplane and do this myself – my confidence came from knowing Don OWNED the Pitts, if you know what I mean.)

After the flight, I was wrung out. But because I skipped out on an earlier dinner, I stuck around to have dinner with #AcroCamp crew before I had to drive back to CLE.  I wasn’t much fun, I admit. I ordered a huge steak to celebrate my huge achievements, then got in the car to return home. It was definitely time to wake up in my own bed. My next tweet: "CLE arrival 2am post #AcroCamp. Despite my best efforts on trip home, the Honda couldn't execute maneuvers nearly as well as the Pitts.”

Well, that's my adventures at AcroCamp. I hope you enjoyed reading about them as much as I enjoyed having them (fat chance!). Please stay tuned to the AcroCamp blog to find out when the documentary will be released.  Check out more pictures at http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2084204&id=1453705023&l=21a8ea98e1