Interesting feature at Science News about hummingbirds.

It seems "they pull more g’s than any known vertebrate stunt flier outside a cockpit."

And, "The stunt flier’s great swoop forms one of the centerpieces of his courtship display to win female attention. The bird orients his display dive in relation to the sun so that his female audience will get the brightest view."

"Clark took advantage of the males’ predictable dive orientation, setting out a caged female, or even a stuffed female on a stick, to inspire birds to dive right in front of his video cameras. Males flew up and plunged over the female typically 10 or 15 times in a row, but one enthusiastic stunt flier completed 75 consecutive dives with a break of only a few minutes."

Not much of a difference between the birds and most airplane pilots there, however.

The Inspector General for TSA issued a report in May about general aviation security and assessed the threat, if any, that GA poses. You can find the report (PDF) here.

It notes:

[T]his report addresses the current general aviation security requirements, the threat environment, and the steps the Transportation Security Administration has taken in the past 3 years to strengthen general aviation security. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents.

…We determined that general aviation presents only limited and mostly hypothetical threats to security. We also determined that the steps general aviation airport owners and managers have taken to enhance security are positive and effective. Transportation Security Administration guidelines, communication forums, and alert mechanisms, coupled with voluntary measures taken by the owners and operators of aircraft and facilities, provide baseline security for aircraft based at general aviation sites.

Houston in the Media

Following an investigative report aired by a Houston television station concerning security at three local airfields, Chairwoman Sheila Jackson Lee requested that we review general aviation security at these airfields, and also at others in several other metropolitan areas. We performed announced visits to the airports, interviewed owners, employees and stakeholders, and toured the facilities. In the investigative report “Is Houston a Sitting Duck for Terrorism?” reporters visited three GA airports near Houston, Texas: David Wayne Hooks Airport in Spring, Texas; Sugar Land Regional Airport in Sugar Land, Texas; and Lone Star Executive Airport in Conroe, Texas. The television reporters identified what they described as “security breaches” at all three airports. Specifically, the reporters were able to approach an airfield or aircraft without identifying themselves. At one airfield, the reporter noted that a fence enclosed only part of the airfield…

This review was initiated in part because of the television station’s allegations. We reviewed the allegations and determined that they were not compelling…

In each instance, the allegation of weak security was based on reporters gaining access to airfields or aircraft. However, the reporters were unaware of some passive security and monitoring measures. For example, the airports had instituted security procedures, including 24-hour video surveillance, locking or disabling grounded planes, and controlling fuel access, which the television reporters did not test.

Combined, these airports service more than 440,000 aircraft takeoffs and landings per year, and each routinely operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The volume of legitimate activity would appear to limit opportunities for unobserved loading or movement of aircraft. Moreover, the issues identified by the television reporters were not violations of GA guidelines or any federal aviation regulations.

The current status of GA operations does not present a serious homeland security vulnerability requiring TSA to increase regulatory oversight of the industry. According to OI, there is no specific, credible information of ongoing plots to use GA in an attack in the near future. Other government agencies, including GAO and the Congressional Research Service, have examined catastrophic scenarios and have concluded that the GA industry does not represent a serious vulnerability (see appendix D)…

Congressional Research Service

In its December 2005 report and most recently updated January 2008 report on Securing General Aviation, the Congressional Research Service stated that “the limited capabilities of the typical GA aircraft to carry conventional explosives, noting that even the 1,300-pound device involved in the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing would be beyond the carrying capability of a light GA aircraft. Thus, at least with regard to being used as a platform for conventional explosives, the threat posed by light GA aircraft is relatively small compared to trucks which have significantly larger payload capacities…. Executing an attack that involves loading a GA aircraft with a large quantity of explosives may be difficult without raising some suspicion at the airport, at least domestically where airport operators and pilots have been instructed to be vigilant for unusual activities.”

Sporty’s has released a new DVD-based training package, Garmin G1000 Checkout. It’s a great training tool for pilots and instructors who are working with what has become the standard glass cockpit for GA aircraft, because the two-disc set ($89.95) offers both a well-organized introduction to the system and the official Garmin G1000 PC Trainer (which Garmin sells separately for $25).

The program features Cessna airframes, but it describes all of the latest features offered with the G1000, including WAAS, Synthetic Vision Technology (SVT) and electronic charts. It also covers the GFC 700 autopilot. Pilots flying Bonanza, Mooney, Cirrus, and other aircraft obviously must follow up with additional study of system-specific items and options, but all of the fundamentals apply, and the program covers the core features well.

Garmin G1000 Checkout also improves upon Sporty’s earlier training products. The video program on the disc is divided into 16 chapters, making it easy to learn and review specific features. The crisp images and real-time video show off the G1000 displays and controls in action and in sharp detail.

Like most training products, Garmin G1000 Checkout begins with an overview of the system. It explains the two displays and the bezel controls, and it shows how to use common options to configure specific items such as the HSI (360-degree v. arc view). A section on errors, failures, and emergency items ably demonstrates what happens when things go wrong.

Perhaps most useful to pilots who want to brush up on the system are a couple of scenarios that demonstrate typical VFR and IFR flights in a logical sequence, including approaches. Pilots, especially renters, who may not fly often can refresh their skills and get back in the groove without having to repeat a complete dissection of the system.

Garmin G1000 Checkout is a welcome addition to the set of tools available for pilots and instructors who are learning and flying with the latest cockpit technology, and it’s an investment that will rapidly pay off in time and money saved in initial and recurrent training. I recommend it to my G1000 students and customers who fly the G1000.

I recently stumbled across a series of presentations from the recent Aviation Weather Community Forum.

I haven't read all the slides (available for download as PDFs), but they seem to have good information about several topics of interest to pilots and other users of the reports, forecasts, and other products issued by the National Weather Service.

Of particular interest to pilots:

• Aviation Weather Center Mission and Introduction
• Aviation Weather Testbed
• Improving Pilot Safety
• Aviation Weather Center Qualified Internet Certification Process and Consolidated Aviation Web Services
• Aviation Weather Research Program
• NextGen Weather Information
• NextGen Review

I flew the Extra 300L back to Seattle (KBFI) on May 22 from its winter home at Boulder City, NV (KBVU).

Given the excellent weather along the entire route, I took the shortest path feasible in the Extra, with fuel stops at Reno-Stead (4SD) and Bend, OR (KBDN). Total flying time was 5.0 hours at an average ground speed of about 170 knots (196 mph). The Google Earth (kmz) file of the flight track is here.

For more information about aerobatic rides and stall/spin/upset training, visit www.BruceAir.com.

Leg 1: KBVU-CRESO-CHICS-BTY-OAL-YERIN-FMG-4SD--348.6 nm in 2.1 hours; avg. ground speed 166 knots

Leg 2: 4SD-FITUN-SEDTO-LKV-URBIA-KBDN--277.7 nm in 1.6 hours; avg. ground speed 173 knots

Leg 3: KBDN-DSD-BTG-KBFI--221.3 nm in 1.3 hours; avg. ground speed 170 knots

Today’s Wall Street Journal includes a feature, “A New Route to Easing Air-Traffic Congestion,” by Scott McCartney. It’s a good account of the many advantages of RNP, technology that allows aircraft to fly precise paths that can replace conventional approaches, saving time, fuel, and money. Like many other stories on this topic, this report also suggests that RNP can substantially reduce the delays that plague the US air transportation system.

RNP can help with some of the causes of delays—it allows more efficient use of available airspace. But it can’t address the fundamental reason for most delays at hub airports: available runways.

No matter how well we use the en route and terminal airspace, airplanes must take off and land. Each takeoff or landing (in FAA-speak, an “operation”) requires about one minute. More-efficient approaches, more virtual lanes along the en route airways will make the flying part of a journey more efficient and give the airlines and ATC more options during bad weather, but RNP can’t change the fundamental fact that there are only so many minutes in the day and only so many runways (and, more importantly, only so many minutes and runways available during the busiest hours at a given airport).

This situation is familiar by analogy to anyone who cruises along a freeway only to creep at the exits, where traffic tries to flow onto surface streets.

Moreover, although the FAA certifies, supports, and regulates airports, it doesn’t develop, own, or operate them. Cities, counties, port authorities, and other local governmental entities handle those tasks. Those bodies must raise the money to expand existing airports or build new ones, and then they must work through the maze of regulations, zoning issues, and the like to see the projects through. The FAA has little, if anything, to do with that process, which is grounded in local politics, NIMBY, and all the rest. And new technologies like RNP, welcome as they are, can’t address those issues.

Several experts have weighed on this topic, viz., Patrick Smith, writer of the “Ask the Pilot” feature at Salon.com (see this entry). Don Brown, a retired air traffic controller, frequently addresses the issue in his blog, “Get the Flick”; see, for example, “NextGen vs. Nobody.”

You can now earn WINGS credit for reading my book, Microsoft Flight Simulator as a Training Aid, published by ASA. Details about the online “course” and quiz are available at this page of FAASafety.gov. You must register for the course.

The FAA publishes a tome called the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). It complements the regulations with practical information about real-world procedures for pilots and air traffic controllers.

Recently, as I worked on presentations about GPS and WAAS for the Northwest Aviation Expo, I found what appear to be references to my name in a Bible code of sorts in an obscure part of the AIM. I have no idea where this example came from, but it’s eerie.

Here’s the reference:

5-5-16. RNAV and RNP Operations
…
(b) Insert a waypoint along the published route to assist in complying with ATC instruction, example, “Descend via the WILMS arrival except cross 30 north of BRUCE at/or below FL 210.” This is limited only to systems that allow along-track waypoint construction.

Now, I suppose the reference could be (and probably is) to the other Bruce Williams, a late-night radio host who is also a pilot. But I won't that spoil the effect for me.

I've learned a little more about the aftermath of Microsoft's decision to close the Aces studio and end development of its longest-running title, Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The games group has formed a new team, apparently called something like "Flight/Live," which ties into the Games for Windows Live initiative. Details about the flight-related game that the group may produce are sketchy. Apparently it will be designed to have "broad appeal." At present, the flying game doesn't have a name.

Now, I don't know whether the new title will offer races, aerobatics, or other forms of competition in the world of civilian aviation, or whether it will feature an air-combat model--for example, dogfights from World War II or high-tech jet fighters launching missiles and zooming around the sky.

In the end, however, the setting probably won't be the new game's most salient departure from the old Flight Simulator model. The big difference is more likely to be one of perspective--from a detailed representation of an aircraft cockpit and a world based on real airports, air traffic control, weather, and the like to what I call an "out-of-cockpit experience." (Here's a example: Air Conflicts for the PSP, as previewed at PSP World.)

Note that in games like Air Conflicts, you, "the pilot," see the action from a hybrid third-person point of view. The bottom of your screen includes a few generic instruments (most of which have no real-world counterparts). Your "pilot seat" is a position in space, typically above and behind your aircraft or vehicle (see the screen shots of Air Conflicts here). This view, the standard for most console games regardless of genre, combines the perspective we all recognize from television with elements necessary for an interactive game.

That change in point of view is more than just cosmetics. It's a clear visual representation of the difference between a game and a simulation.

The essence of Flight Simulator was always putting you, the virtual aviator, in the pilot's seat, so that you could, as nearly as current PC technology allowed, experience what it's like to fly an aircraft in a detailed, realistic representation of the world. That Flight Simulator enjoyed such a long run is evidence that millions of people around the world found that experience challenging, compelling, and deeply satisfying.

Of course, Flight Simulator has long offered multiple views, including outside-the-cockpit perspectives (see Using Views and Windows [pdf] in the Flight Simulator Learning Center). Those outside views are popular with virtual aviators who enjoy replaying their aerial adventures in everything from aerobatic airplanes like the Extra 300 to airliners like the Boeing 747. But those outside views are"eye candy," special effects that ultimately are incidental to the core of the simulation.

The gamer's perspective, however, delivers an alternative, simplified world that cuts to the chase. Nothing wrong with that, to be sure. TV shows, movies, and novels all compress, distort, and play with reality, and they're wonderful forms of entertainment. It's just sad to see another equally engaging experience disappear.

Some popular movies are fast-paced, one-car-crash-after-another, explosion-laden extravaganzas. Others are funny buddy films or chic-flicks. But dramas also tell compelling stories and feature believable characters, and they endure, win critical acclaim, and earn their share of cash in at the box office, too.

The March 2009 issue of The Atlantic includes a feature titled “The Last Ace.” It’s a interesting read about modern air combat tactics and equipment and fighter pilots.

The Web page for the article includes a video, "The View from the Cockpit," that features interviews with pilots from Elmendorf AFB in Alaska.

Much speculation has followed the closing of the ACES studio at Microsoft and the end of development of the long-running Microsoft Flight Simulator series.

Several recent stories in the tech and gaming press (example here) have quoted a Microsoft representative's statement about what might happen to the product:

"We are committed to the Flight Simulator franchise, which has proven to be a successful PC-based game for the last 27 years," [Kelda] Rericha added. "You should expect us to continue to invest in enabling great Live experiences on Windows, including flying games, but we have nothing specific to announce at this time."

Like much corporate-speak, Rericha's statement is a read-into-it-what-you-will horoscope. It's too early to know if Microsoft will spin-off the code and other assets that it has owned and developed since Microsoft bought the Bruce Artwick Organization in 1996 and brought the product and its core team in-house. Whether another company could or would buy the IP in today's environment is another open question.

[Update: Microsoft has posted some additional information on the FSInsider Web site.]

We do, know, however, that the team that produced the product--many of whom had worked on the code, art, databases, and other components that comprise Flight Simulator for 10-15 years (some longer)--has been disbanded. They're all looking for jobs, and with each passing day it becomes harder to reconstitute that group.

In the meantime, what to make of the statement that Microsoft "will continue to invest in...flying games"?

Note the careful choice of words: "games," not "simulations."

I bet that what will emerge will look something like this, an ironic throwback to early versions of Flight Simulator that included a crop duster and dueling WWI biplanes. Whatever name Microsoft uses to brand any offerings, the company clearly has ended its commitment to rich, deep simulations that put virtual aviators in a realistic pilot seat.

Patrick Smith, who writes the "Ask the Pilot" column at Salon.com, has posted an excellent follow-up story about the ditching of the US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson last week. It's a refreshing review and analysis after the hyperventilating coverage that has dominated the news.

The cuts announced at Microsoft yesterday include closing the entire ACES studio, the group that produced Flight Simulator and related products.

I'm still trying to gather more details, but as of yesterday, it's the end of development for the venerable FS franchise (and probably the associated Microsoft ESP, the new commercial simulation platform based on FS), one of the longest-running titles in the history of the PC.

I don't know yet if there's any hope that the code could be spun off to a third party, but as of January 22, the most important asset--the team that has produced FS for so many years--has been disbanded.

In the meantime, you can find information about Flight Simulator, including links to the network of add-on developers and community Web sites, on a page at my Web site.

Update: PC Magazine posted a story today with a few more details, but not much hard news, about Microsoft's actions and plans.

I flew my Extra 300L as the photo ship for a formation clinic that my ex-military pals conducted for several Cirrus pilots recently. We based out of Boulder City, NV (61B). In addition to working on the basics of formation flying, we did a scenic tour around Hoover Dam, the Valley of Fire, and Lake Mead.

Pictures are in one of my Live Spaces photo albums. All of the photos (except those of my airplane) were taken from my airplane by Pat DuLaney, spouse of the formation lead, Mark "Dula" DuLaney, formerly an aggressor squadron commander at Nellis AFB, now a captain at Southwest.

And--spoiler alert--not all of the pictures are of Cirruses. We had a special guest on the flight this morning, and after I broke off from the 4-ship, I got to play alongside a rare bird....

The FAA recently issued a new edition of the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA-H-8083-25A). This is the "private pilot handbook," but it contains much useful information, including an overview of basic aerodynamics, and it's one of the core references for FAA knowledge and practical tests.

The link above takes you to the FAA Web site, where you can download the 19 PDF documents that comprise the book.

To make the volume a little easier to read and search, I've merged the files into three parts and posted them in one of my SkyDrive folders (alas, SkyDrive doesn't allow single files larger than 50MB; when combined, all of the new files total about 110MB).

William Langewiesche (son of Wolfgang of Stick-and-Rudder fame) has written a feature for the January 2009 issue of Vanity Fair about the mid-air collision between a Boeing 737 and a business jet over Brazil in December 2006.

The story of the mid-air is in the news again following the release of an official report (pdf) from the Brazilian air force and a rebuttal from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

Langewiesche has published a series of informative reports and books that touch on aviation, including his account of the Columbia Shuttle accident (for the Atlantic) and Inside the Sky: A Meditation on Flight, a book that includes his reflections on being a pilot and thoughts about other flyers.

Update: Joe Sharkey, a freelance travel writer and columnist for the NY Times, isn't happy with Langewiesche's account. Sharkey was on board the business jet involved in the collision, and Langewiesche describes him in unflattering terms in his Vanity Fair article. To read Sharkey's reactions to the magazine article and other events related to the accident, see his blog, High Anxiety.

I was reminded the other day that the Aviation Safety Reporting System run by NASA publishes an excellent free monthly online newsletter, Callback. I’ve put details about where to find current and back issues of this publication and information about ASRS on the Aviation Resources page of my Web site.

I joined some of my flying colleagues yesterday (December 2) for a four-ship formation practice flight in skies south of Boulder City, NV (61B), southeast of Las Vegas. Click the image to view the gallery of photos.

The photos were taken by Pat DuLaney, the wife of Mark DuLaney, our usual lead pilot, from their RV-6A. The airplanes visible in the photos are an RV-7A (Air Force markings), an RV-8 (red), and my Extra 300L (N105MM).

I don't usually post about politics. But yesterday's events recall a personal story that I'd like to pass along, not to argue or advocate, but simply to reflect.

In his speech last night, President-Elect Obama reminded us of the changes that have occurred in the 106-year life span of one woman who voted yesterday.

My mother was born and raised in a small town in Mississippi (my father was from upstate NY—they met when she was a librarian at an Air Force base; he was a pilot in training). I spent many summers in my youth visiting her side of the family. She was an only child, so I had only great aunts and uncles, all of whom had been born before or close to the turn of the 20^th century. (If I’d taken better notes, I might have taken a run at Faulkner or O’Conner—the stories they could tell!). I provide that information as background, given that I’m about as white-bread and WASPish as they come.

About 10 years ago, when I was working on the first WWII version of Microsoft Flight Simulator, Combat Flight Simulator, I helped bring several Tuskegee Airmen on board as consultants. At the product launch event, some of the famous fighter pilots joined the team for a dinner, and I sat next to an elegant man who still epitomized “officer and a gentlemen” long after he had retired from the Air Force.

As the evening went on, our conversation wandered to the South, and he told me a remarkable story about one of his visits home during (or maybe it was shortly after) the war. He was in his USAAF uniform, a captain, or perhaps a major, distinguished by the wings of a military pilot.

On the bus trip home to Alabama, he had to ride in the back. At the depot, he needed to call his family. But the clerk wouldn’t let him use the “whites-only” phone, and the one set aside for blacks was, of course, out of order. Now, he told me about those humiliations almost as matters of fact.

Then, as we spoke about the integration of schools, he said something astonishing. Recalling how in the 1950s and 1960s young men and women across the South had walked gauntlets of cursing, jeering, spitting segregationists on their way up schoolhouse steps, this man who had faced the Luftwaffe in the skies over Europe paused, and, in a quiet, firm voice, confided, “I don’t think I could have just walked past those people. I don’t think I could have looked straight ahead and just taken that.”

How far we’ve come.

Update: See this story from the Dec. 10, 2008 edition of the NY Times: Tuskegee Airmen Invited to Obama Inauguration.