The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP.

Uh huh. That probably tells you about all you really need to know, right there. It's not high quality, as the source of it, doesn't want it to be.

Well, let's take a look at the rest of the non tome.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP. The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) considered a range of information on UAP described in U.S. military and IC (Intelligence Community) reporting, but because the reporting lacked sufficient specificity, ultimately recognized that a unique, tailored reporting process was required to provide sufficient data for analysis of UAP events.

•As a result, the UAPTF concentrated its review on reports that occurred between 2004 and 2021, the majority of which are a result of this new tailored process to better capture UAP events through formalized reporting.
•Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.

In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis. There are probably multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting. Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin.

UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security. Safety concerns primarily center on aviators contending with an increasingly cluttered air domain. UAP would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology.

Consistent consolidation of reports from across the federal government, standardized reporting, increased collection and analysis, and a streamlined process for screening all such reports against a broad range of relevant USG data will allow for a more sophisticated analysis of UAP that is likely to deepen our understanding. Some of these steps are resource-intensive and would require additional investment.

AVAILABLE REPORTING LARGELY INCONCLUSIVE

Limited Data Leaves Most UAP Unexplained… Limited data and inconsistency in reporting are key challenges to evaluating UAP. No standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy established one in March 2019. The Air Force subsequently adopted that mechanism in November 2020, but it remains limited to USG reporting. The UAPTF regularly heard anecdotally during its research about other observations that occurred but which were never captured in formal or informal reporting by those observers.

After carefully considering this information, the UAPTF focused on reports that involved UAP largely witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable. These reports describe incidents that occurred between 2004 and 2021, with the majority coming in the last two years as the new reporting mechanism became better known to the military aviation community. We were able to identify one reported UAP with high confidence. In that case, we identified the object as a large, deflating balloon. The others remain unexplained.

144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors.
Most reports described UAP as objects that interrupted pre-planned training or other military activity.

UAP Collection Challenges

Sociocultural stigmas and sensor limitations remain obstacles to collecting data on UAP. Although some technical challenges—such as how to appropriately filter out radar clutter to ensure safety of flight for military and civilian aircraft—are longstanding in the aviation community, while others are unique to the UAP problem set.

Narratives from aviators in the operational community and analysts from the military and IC describe disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it, or attempting to discuss it with colleagues. Although the effects of these stigmas have lessened as senior members of the scientific, policy, military, and intelligence communities engage on the topic seriously n public, reputational risk may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the topic.
The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.
Sensor vantage points and the numbers of sensors concurrently observing an object play substantial roles in distinguishing UAP from known objects and determining whether a UAP demonstrates breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Optical sensors have the benefit of providing some insight into relative size, shape, and structure. Radiofrequency sensors provide more accurate velocity and range information

But Some Potential Patterns Do Emerge

Although there was wide variability in the reports and the dataset is currently too limited to allow for detailed trend or pattern analysis, there was some clustering of UAP observations regarding shape, size, and, particularly, propulsion. UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing grounds, but we assess that this may result from a collection bias as a result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest-generation sensors operating in those areas, unit expectations, and guidance to report anomalies.

And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings.

The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.

UAP PROBABLY LACK A SINGLE EXPLANATION

The UAP documented in this limited dataset demonstrate an array of aerial behaviors, reinforcing the possibility there are multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations. Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin. With the exception of the one instance where we determined with high confidence that the reported UAP was airborne clutter, specifically a deflating balloon, we currently lack sufficient information in our dataset to attribute incidents to specific explanations.

Airborne Clutter: These objects include birds, balloons, recreational unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), or airborne debris like plastic bags that muddle a scene and affect an operator’s ability to identify true targets, such as enemy aircraft.

Natural Atmospheric Phenomena: Natural atmospheric phenomena includes ice crystals, moisture, and thermal fluctuations that may register on some infrared and radar systems.

USG or Industry Developmental Programs: Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected.

Foreign Adversary Systems: Some UAP may be technologies deployed by China, Russia, another nation, or a non-governmental entity.

Other: Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them. The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management.

UAP THREATEN FLIGHT SAFETY AND, POSSIBLY, NATIONAL SECURITY

UAP pose a hazard to safety of flight and could pose a broader danger if some instances represent sophisticated collection against U.S. military activities by a foreign government or demonstrate a breakthrough aerospace technology by a potential adversary.

Ongoing Airspace Concerns

When aviators encounter safety hazards, they are required to report these concerns. Depending on the location, volume, and behavior of hazards during incursions on ranges, pilots may cease their tests and/or training and land their aircraft, which has a deterrent effect on reporting.

The UAPTF has 11 reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP.

Potential National Security Challenges

We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary. We continue to monitor for evidence of such programs given the counter intelligence challenge they would pose, particularly as some UAP have been detected near military facilities or by aircraft carrying the USG’s most advanced sensor systems.

EXPLAINING UAP WILL REQUIRE ANALYTIC, COLLECTION AND RESOURCE INVESTMENT

Standardize the Reporting, Consolidate the Data, and Deepen the Analysis

In line with the provisions of Senate Report 116-233, accompanying the IAA for FY 2021, the UAPTF’s long-term goal is to widen the scope of its work to include additional UAP events documented by a broader swath of USG personnel and technical systems in its analysis. As the dataset increases, the UAPTF’s ability to employ data analytics to detect trends will also improve. The initial focus will be to employ artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms to cluster and recognize similarities and patterns in features of the data points. As the database accumulates information from known aerial objects such as weather balloons, high-altitude or super-pressure balloons, and wildlife, machine learning can add efficiency by pre-assessing UAP reports to see if those records match similar events already in the database.

The UAPTF has begun to develop interagency analytical and processing workflows to ensure both collection and analysis will be well informed and coordinated.

The majority of UAP data is from U.S. Navy reporting, but efforts are underway to standardize incident reporting across U.S. military services and other government agencies to ensure all relevant data is captured with respect to particular incidents and any U.S. activities that might be relevant. The UAPTF is currently working to acquire additional reporting, including from the U.S. Air Force (USAF), and has begun receiving data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Although USAF data collection has been limited historically the USAF began a sixmonth pilot program in November 2020 to collect in the most likely areas to encounter UAP and is evaluating how to normalize future collection, reporting, and analysis across the entire Air Force. •
The FAA captures data related to UAP during the normal course of managing air traffic operations. The FAA generally ingests this data when pilots and other airspace users report unusual or unexpected events to the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization. •
In addition, the FAA continuously monitors its systems for anomalies, generating additional information that may be of use to the UAPTF. The FAA is able to isolate data of interest to the UAPTF and make it available. The FAA has a robust and effective outreach program that can help the UAPTF reach members of the aviation community to highlight the importance of reporting UAP.

Expand Collection

The UAPTF is looking for novel ways to increase collection of UAP cluster areas when U.S. forces are not present as a way to baseline “standard” UAP activity and mitigate the collection bias in the dataset. One proposal is to use advanced algorithms to search historical data captured and stored by radars. The UAPTF also plans to update its current interagency UAP collection strategy in order bring to bear relevant collection platforms and methods from the DoD and the IC.

Increase Investment in Research and Development

The UAPTF has indicated that additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report. Such investments should be guided by a UAP Collection Strategy, UAP R&D Technical Roadmap, and a UAP Program Plan.

APPENDIX A - Definition of Key Terms

This report and UAPTF databases use the following defining terms:

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP): Airborne objects not immediately identifiable. The acronym UAP represents the broadest category of airborne objects reviewed for analysis.

UAP Event: A holistic description of an occurrence during which a pilot or aircrew witnessed (or detected) a UAP.

UAP Incident: A specific part of the event.

UAP Report: Documentation of a UAP event, to include verified chains of custody and basic information such as the time, date, location, and description of the UAP. UAP reports include Range Fouler1 reports and other reporting

Okay, what can we take away from all of that?

Well, most of these UAP events are explainable. Some aren't, but its very few, and they're not telling you what they are. and they need more money.

In short, they don't want to panic people that they're "aliens" from outer space, and they don't want to reveal what they really are. And the reason for the latter, as we've said before, is that these almost certainly represent a U.S. government program of some sort, and its a military one. Either we have a high tech technology that we want to leak just a little, or we want our adversaries to believe we do.

Does that mean that the military is lying to Congress? Not necessarily. The report says so little, it likely contains no real lies, just no real information.

Sunday, May 30, 2021

United Airlines and Southwest cut the booze

The mental image some passengers have of flight attendants.

Problems with passengers have become so prevalent since air travel started to resume as the pandemic eases the US due to the increase in vaccination that United Airlines and Southwest Airlines have banned the serving of alcohol on their flights.

I've frankly always thought this a bit odd in the first place. Most modern airline flights are comparatively short and I don't know why you'd want to drink. . . anything. I've actually posted about this on one of our companion blogs, but what I've learned over the years is that if you offer people something, for the most part people will take it.

"Would you like a big steaming bowl of walrus blubber?"

"Yes, please".

What some folks seemingly see when getting on an airplane.

I've been on flights so short that there would be really no way to consume any beverage without a dedicated effort. None the less, I've seen, even on those, and even if they're in the morning, people take a drink. One one memorable flight a gentleman in his late 60s or 70s took a beer and immediately needed to go to the restroom, which he couldn't as the flight was too short and there wasn't time. Why do that to yourself?

Alcoholism may be one reason. I once was on a flight that took off and the shaky man next to me ordered a beer as soon as he could. This was no later than 10:00 a.m. Either he was scared to death or he had dependency on alcohol that was pronounced. Indeed, serving customers in that condition may be the one thing that justified booze on flights.

I should note that I don't even take water, soda or coffee on flights. They're not that long. The current American "I must constantly be drinking" cultural trait that causes people to pack around 55 gallon drums of water all the time predates me, and I don't need to be constantly sucking down fluids and I don't want to on something that can be pretty bouncy. Indeed, its inevitably the case that if I'm on a flight with mild turbulence the passenger next to me will order coffee and sit it on the seat tray, so I can then watch it bounce around and threaten to drench me.

Maybe there's still international flights. . . .

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Why Unidentified Aerial Phenomena are almost certainly not aliens.

Allow me to have a large element of skepticism.

If you follow the news at all, you've been reading of "leaked" Navy videos of UFOs, followed by official confirmation from Navy pilots along the lines "gosh, we don't know what the heck those things are".

Yeah. . . well. . .

What we know for sure is that in recent years, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena have been interacting with ships of the U.S. Navy as well as Navy aircraft. Video of them has been steadily "leaked" for several years, and the service, which normally likes to keep the most mundane things secret, has been pretty active in babbling about it.

Oh. . . and not just that.

The Navy also has applied for a patent for technology that appears to offer impossible high speed drives for aircraft, and acting to force through the patents when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office looked like it was going to say "oh bull". The patenting Navy agent, moreover, a mysteriously named and mysterious scientist, has written babbly papers that are out there, but not well circulated.

So, what's going on?

Gaslighting, most likely.

To those who follow international developments, the US and the Peoples Republic of China are, quite frankly, sliding towards war in a way that reminiscent of Imperial Japan and the US in the late 1930s and early 1940s. China acts like a late 19th Century imperial power and is building up its naval forces in an alarming way. China is a land power and has no real need whatsoever for a defensive navy. The only real use of a navy for China is offensive, or to pose a threat as it could be offensive.

And China has been busy posing a threat. It's using its navy to muscle in on anything it can in the region. It's constantly at odds with Vietnam off the latter's coast. It's threatening the Philippines, whose erratic president shows no signs of backing down to China, and its been so concerning to Japan that Japan is now revising its defense posture. Most of all, it's been threatening to Taiwan, which it regards as a breakaway province which it sort of is.

The problem with a nation flexing its naval muscle is that sooner or later, it goes from flexing to "I wonder how this stuff really works?" Almost all totalitarian powers with big navies get to that point and there's no reason to believe that China won't. Given that, the US (and as noted Japan) have been planning to fight China.

This has resulted in a plan to overhaul the Marine Corps with a Chinese war specifically in mind, and the Navy, upon whom the brunt of any Chinese action would fall, at least initially, has been planning for that as well. And the Navy is worried.

As it should be.

The United States Navy has been a aircraft carrier centric navy ever since December 7, 1941 when it became one by default. And its been the world's most power navy as a carrier based navy. Carries have allowed the United States to project power around the world in a way that no other country can. But in the age of missiles, a real question now exists and is being debated on whether the age of carriers is ending.

Plenty of defense analysts say no, but plenty say yes. Truth is, we just don't know, and absent a major naval contest with a major naval power, which right now there isn't, we won't know. But China is attempting to become that power and it has the ability to act pretty stoutly in its own region right now.

So how does this relate to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena?

The U.S. military has a long history of using the UFO phenomena/fandom for disinformation. It notoriously did this in a pretty cruel way in at least one instance in the 60s/70s in which it completely wrecked the psychological health of a victim of a disinformation campaign that it got rolling, even planting a bogus crashed UFO to keep it rolling. Beyond that, it's been pretty willing to use the stories of "weird alien craft" to cover its own developments, with plenty of the weird alien craft simply being developments in the US aerospace industry.

Given that, and the fact that at the same time the service purports to be taking this really seriously, it continually leaks information about it, and it doesn't seem really all that bothered, the best evidence here is something else is going on, of which there are a lot of possibilities. These range from the service developing some really high tech drones and testing them against the same Navy units (they're usually the same ones) again and again to just having the ability to make this stuff all up.

So why the leaks?

If the service is experimenting with high tech drones, and if the experiment is going well, leaking the information may serve as a warning to potential enemies, notably the PRC, that "look, we have something so nifty our own Navy can't do squat about it. . .let alone yours". Being vague about it probably serves the US interest better than simply coming out with "Nanner, nanner. . surface fleets are obsolete . . .". After all, once we admit we have them, at that point the race to figure them out is really on.

On the other hand, maybe we're just making the whole thing up. We have been worried in the past about other nations development super high tech aircraft, notably the Soviet Union, then Russia post USSR, and now China. Running around patenting mysterious things and having weird things going on may be a disinformation campaign designed to make a potential enemy a little hesitant. And they'd hesitate, because. . . .

Maybe we really have developed some super high tech craft, either manned or unmanned, that are now so advanced that we feel pretty comfortable testing them against a control set, that being, at first, the same U.S. Navy units again and again. A recent report indicates that other navies are now experiencing the same thing, and we might frankly be doing the same thing with them. There's no reason to believe that a nation that would do U2 overflights over hostile nations in the 60s, and then SR71 flights the same way, which tested the spread of biological weapons by actually spreading biological agents off of the coast of California, and which tested the intelligence use of LSD by giving it to unsuspecting CIA employees, might not do this.

Indeed, it'd make for a pretty good test.

Saturday, April 3, 2021

United Airlines puts out the "Help Wanted" sign.

United Airlines, looking at rebounding air travel, has put out the news that it's hiring hundreds of pilots.

That's good news for everyone.

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Air Force Goes Low And Slow With XCub (Corrected)

Saturday, January 23, 2021

Green Aviation

Boeing announced that it's aircraft will be 100% capable of flying on biofuel by the end of the decade. For reasons that I don't grasp, biofuel would reduce aviation's carbon emissions.

This follows Airbus announcing some months ago that it intends to be 100% emission free by 2035, with hydrogen as the eyed fuel.

Sunday, January 17, 2021

Lex Anteinternet: Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally

Lex Anteinternet: Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less lo...:

Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally.

Recent scene in Laramie Wyoming during the Mullen Fire.

* * *

January 17, 2021

Flights from the Natrona County International Airport are down 50% compared to a year ago.

Tuesday, December 8, 2020

Chuck Yeager passes at age 97.

Brigadier General Charles Elwood Yeager died yesterday at age 97.

Yeager entered the United States Army Air Force in 1941 as a private. He was an aircraft mechanic at first but volunteered for flight training and was promoted to Flight Officer, a rank more or less equivalent to warrant officer. He flew P51s during World War Two and was stationed in the ETO. He became a test pilot following World War Two and famously broke the sound barrier in that role flying the X1 "Glamourous Glennis", which was named after his wife.

Yeager had a long Air Force career which was likely somewhat arrested, as famous as he was, by the fact that he was not a college graduate, having entered the Air Force at a time in which it was still possible to become a pilot without a college degree. The movie The Right Stuff, in which Yeager was played by Sam Shepard (and in which Yeager had a cameo role as a bar tender), based on the book by Tom Wolfe, asserted that he was ineligible to become an astronaut for that reason. Whether or not that is true, he certainly was a justifiably famous character and in some ways his passing on December 7 was oddly symbolic.

Monday, November 23, 2020

Lex Anteinternet: Dueling Agendas

Lex Anteinternet: Dueling Agendas:

Dueling Agendas

November 23, 2020

The United States has withdrawn from the Open Skies Treaty. The 2002 treaty allows for unmanned areal flights over member nations territories, a concept first proposed by Dwight Eisenhower in 1955. The treaty allows such flights under controlled conditions. Interestingly member nations avail themselves of them much less than might be supposed, and each flight is extremely expensive. Both the US and the USSR have accused each other of cheating on the treaty.

As a practical matter, the treaty matters less and less every year as intelligence satellites get better and better. Indeed, it's notable that it was drafted in 2002 at which point intelligence satellites were already excellent. Therefore the treaty is really of more value to the less advanced nations that are part of it.

Saturday, July 25, 2020

The F15 is back in production and so is the Mig 31.

The F15 is the F15EX variant, a brand new version of the old F15, which first went into production in 1976. The planes history dates back to tests that go as far back as 1972.

The enormous Mig 31 first went into production in 1981 and has a history that goes back to 1975.

Why are they back?

Missiles.

The F15EX can carry a seven foot long missiles that can reach deep into China, should the need arise, and its external hard points can carry more missiles than the F35.

The Mig 31, which might simply be getting an overhaul rather than new editions, can carry missiles that can reach into low orbit and hit satellites.

And so the Cold War sort of returns, in a way.

Monday, May 25, 2020

Must be some unofficial arrangments going on. . .

now that flights are less common, due to cancellations during the pandemic.

FAA Informational Letter to Pilots

The FAA recognizes that there is a trend in the industry towards using computer and cell phone applications to facilitate air transportation by connecting potential passengers to aircraft owners and pilots willing to provide professional services. Some of these applications enable the provision – directly or indirectly – of both an aircraft and one or more crewmembers to customers seeking air transportation.

This letter serves as a reminder to all pilots that, as a general rule, pursuant to 14 CFR (commonly known by industry as the Federal Aviation Regulations FARs) private pilots may neither act as pilot-in-command (PIC) of an aircraft for compensation or hire nor act as a PIC of an aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. Furthermore, to engage in air transportation a pilot must hold a commercial or airline transport pilot license and must operate the flights in accordance with the requirements that apply to the specific operation conducted (e.g., Part 135). To meet the operational requirements, the pilots must be employed (as a direct employee or agent) by the certificate holder with operational control of the flight (e.g., a Part 135 certificate holder) or must herself or himself hold a certificate issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 119.

Another common pitfall to be aware of is the “sham dry lease” or the “wet lease in disguise.” This situation occurs when one or more parties act in concert to provide an aircraft and at least one crewmember to a potential passenger. One could see this, for example, when the passenger enters into two independent contracts with the party that provides the aircraft and the pilot. One could also see this when two or more parties agree to provide a bundle (e.g., when the lessor of the aircraft conditions the lease – whether directly or indirectly – to entering into a professional services agreement with a specific pilot or group of pilots. This type of scenario is further discussed in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-37B, Truth in Leasing.

Whenever you pilot an aircraft subject to a dry-lease agreement (a dry lease is an aircraft leased with no crew), you should consider the following: Is it truly a dry-lease agreement whereby the lessee, in practice and agreement, has operational control in accordance with AC 91-37B and the FARs? If not, then flights operated under this agreement may be illegal charters and you, the pilot, may be in violation of the FARs for those flight operations.
Are you as the pilot also providing the aircraft involved in the dry-lease? If so, you may be in violation of the FARs for those flight operations if you do not have the appropriate operational authority to conduct the flights (e.g., a Part 135 certificate.)

An additional caution to consider is flight-sharing. Section 61.113(c) of Title 14 of the CFR allows for private pilots to share certain expenses. Pilots may share operating expenses with passengers on a pro rata basis when those expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees. To properly conduct an expense sharing flight under 61.113(c), the pilot and passengers must have a common purpose and the pilot cannot hold out as offering services to the public. The “common-purpose test” anticipates that the pilot and expense-sharing passengers share a “bona fide common purpose” for their travel and the pilot has chosen the destination.

Communications with passengers for a common-purpose flight are restricted to a defined and limited audience to avoid the “holding out” element of common carriage. For example, advertising in any form (word of mouth, website, reputation, etc.) raises the question of “holding-out.” Note that, while a pilot exercising private pilot privileges may share expenses with passengers within the constraints of § 61.113(c), the pilot cannot conduct any commercial operation under Part 119 or the less stringent operating rules of Part 91 (e.g., aerial work operations, crop dusting, banner towing, ferry or training flights, or other commercial operations excluded from the certification requirements of Part 119).

For more information on sharing flight expenses, common purpose, and holding out see:

Unauthorized 135 operations continue to be a problem nationwide, putting the flying public in danger, diluting safety in the national airspace system, and undercutting the business of legitimate operators. If you have questions regarding dry-lease agreements or sharing expenses, please review the FARs and ACs. Additionally, you may contact your local Flight Standards District Office for assistance or seek the advice of a qualified aviation attorney.

Thursday, May 14, 2020

Lex Anteinternet: Pandemic. May 14, 2020

Lex Anteinternet: Pandemic: The Wyoming Air National Guard will be doing a fly over of regional hospitals throughout the state on Friday to honor health care workers. At the same time, some of the emergency centers set up for the Pandemic are standing down. They'll remain ready as a reserve, should the virus revive, but they are not going to be maintained on a standing basis.

Tuesday, April 28, 2020

Due to a large drop in flights the FAA has announced that it's cutting Tower hours by 50% at the Natrona County International Airport . . .

which means that the tower will now be manned for 8 hours rather than 16.

P51 in foreground, NIA Tower in background.

The airport is open 24 hours a day, but it only has tower personnel now for 16 of those hours. While this is due to the drop in flights caused by the Coronavirus Pandemic, there's concern that the 8 hour subtraction will become permanent as that's the history of such things.

The Natrona County International Airport is the largest airport in Wyoming and has major infrastructure. Indeed its so large that, sadly, some of its original runways are closed. They unnecessary but they've also fallen into disrepair. Something like this doesn't help keep the airport be what it is, let alone help it obtain what it should be.

Additionally, while the news article I read didn't go into it, this seems odd as the only major cost savings associated with reducing hours by 50% would be to reduce tower personnel by 50% as well. But didn't the government want employers to keep everyone on the payroll that they could?

Lex Anteinternet: Trains, Planes and Automobiles. . . and the Coronavirus

Lex Anteinternet: Trains, Planes and Automobiles. . . and the Corona...:

Trains, Planes and Automobiles. . . and the Coronavirus Pandemic

Unless you have a special interest in them, you probably haven't been thinking much about means of transportation lately.

Indeed, you probably haven't been going anywhere much, for that matter.

But because we have a special interest in the topic, and have dedicated blogs on two of the three title items here, we've been thinking about them a little, and we're seeing some interesting things going on.

Burlington Northern Train in Wyoming.

Let's take the oldest topic first, trains. We have a companion blog that's just dedicated to that topic. Have the railroad been impacted by the COVID 19 Pandemic? We'll, here's a recent industry magazine headline on what's going on.

US rail traffic falls off a cliff

AAR information shows Intermodal traffic dropped 20% and carloads plunged more than 23% for the week ended April 11

So indeed, it would appear so.

Regionally, at least one of the railroads has been furloughing employees. Coal is collapsing, there isn't really anywhere near as much oil shipped by rail as there once was and oil is down anyway, and we're entering what appears to be a pretty deep recession.

Not a cheery scenario for the railroads right now at all.

So what about air then?

Denver International Airport B Concourse.

Not looking super either.

Air travel has decreased 96% due to COVID 19. That's a whopping huge decrease to say the least.

96%.

Flights locally have been reduced 50%. No need for all of the old ones, and it's not like they were flying out of here every few minutes as it was. Cheyenne cancelled a run to Dallas it had (until they cancelled it, I didn't know that they even had one).

As a minor plus, Cody's airport is going to receive $18,000,000 in the form of a grant, which was a surprise to them, but that is fairly minor in comparison to what's otherwise going on.

Well, all this shouldn't impact automobiles, that old standby, right?

Pontiac Super Chief

Well there'd certainly be good reason to suspect it wouldn't. Oil is below $20bbl and now at an all time historic low. Prices at the pump have been dropping. Should be great for cars, right?

Nope. Sales of automobiles have crashed. People just aren't going out and buying, and in a lot of places, of course, they can't. And they likely don't want to either.

Hired automobile rides, such as Uber, are also down, not surprisingly.

Interesting times.

Friday, April 17, 2020

In surprise, Cody airport awarded $18 million by federal government

In surprise, Cody airport awarded $18 million by federal government: Yellowstone Regional Airport officials knew they’d be getting a financial boost from the federal government’s new Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. But they were …

Saturday, March 28, 2020

The FAA rescinds the Collings Foundations Exemption allowing for carrying passengers.

The Nine O Nine, the Collings Foundation B-17 that crashed with fatal results in October, 2019.

The FAA has barred the Collings Foundation from carrying passengers, finding that its approach to maintenance was poor, which it also found contributed to the October 2019 crash of its B-17, Nine O Nine.

The entire decision is as follows:

RESCISSION OF EXISTING EXEMPTION AND DENIAL OF PETITION TO EXTEND EXEMPTION

This decision rescinds the relief that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) previously granted to The Collings Foundation (Collings) from §§ 91.9(a), 91.315, 91.319(a), 119.5(g), and 119.21(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), which allows Collings to operate certain aircraft for the purpose of carrying passengers for compensation or hire for living history flight experiences (LHFE). The FAA had granted such relief in Exemption No. 6540 and extended this relief for successive two year periods. The most recent exemption the FAA issued was Exemption No. 6540P, on March 22, 2018. This decision also denies the petitioner’s request for extension and amendment, submitted on August 29, 2019, and supplemented on November 8, 2019.

Rescission of Exemption

Exemption No. 6540P authorizes Collings to use ten aircraft to conduct LHFE operations in various locations across the country. Specifically, the relief contained in Exemption No. 6540P allows Collings to conduct operations with civil aircraft that either have experimental or limited category airworthiness certificates for the purpose of carrying passengers for flight in historical aircraft. This relief was granted in conjunction with specific conditions and limitations with which Collings was required to comply. Further information about the FAA’s policy for Living History Flight Exemptions can be found in the FAA’s 2015 policy statement (the “FAA Policy”).

On October 2, 2019, Collings operated a Boeing B-17G (registration number N93012, serial number 32264) under Exemption 6540P in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, during which it undertook an emergency landing and crashed, causing a fire and resulting in fatal injuries to five passengers and two crewmembers onboard the aircraft.2 Findings from the accident investigation establish that 13 persons were onboard the aircraft at the time of the accident. No seat with a seatbelt on the aircraft existed for the Collings Foundation Crew Chief.

Based on a review of the relevant records and other evidence, the FAA has determined Collings was not fulfilling several requirements of the exemption. Condition and Limitation No. 4 of the exemption states, “[i]n order to participate in Collings’s program and operations, persons must initially, and on an ongoing annual basis, receive training appropriate to their position on the contents and application of Collings’s manual system, safety and risk management program, and the conditions and limitations set forth in this exemption.” Similarly, Condition and Limitation No. 7 provides as follows:

Collings must document and record all ground and flight training and testing. The documentation and records must contain, at minimum, the following information:
a. Date of each training or testing session;
b. The amount of time spent for each session of training given;
c. Location where each session of training was given;
d. The airplane identification number(s) in which training was received;
e. The name and certificate number (when applicable) of the instructor who provided each session of training;
f. The name and certificate number of the pilot who provided each session of testing; and g. For verification purposes, the signature and printed name of the person who received the training or testing.

While Collings produced some training records for maintenance personnel and pilots, the evidence indicates that Collings did not train the crew chief who was onboard the B-17G that was involved in the accident on October 2, 2019. The applicable General Operations Manual states that crew chiefs are assigned to every passenger flight aboard the B-17, B-25, and B-24. Crew chiefs must assist the flightcrew with duties as assigned during each flight. Such duties include, but are not limited to, assisting flightcrew with checklists and handling emergencies,as well as assisting flightcrew and maintenance personnel in preparation for each flight and helping with ground operations and ramp safety. See Collings Foundation LHFE General Operations Manual at 15 (rev. 1.2, Sept. 10, 2017). Crew chiefs are required to be familiar with all documents that must be on board the aircraft and must be “trained by the [pilot in command], [second in command], another Crew Chief or the [Director of Maintenance].” Id. In an interview with the FAA on March 2, 2020, the crew chief verified that he received no initial training and was unaware of basic information concerning operations under the exemption. Instead, he only received on-the-job training. This lack of training indicates Collings failed to fulfill the terms of Condition and Limitation Nos. 4 and 7.

Condition and Limitation No. 5 states, “Collings must maintain and apply on a continuous basis its safety and risk management program that meets or exceeds the criteria specified in the FAA Policy for all operations subject to this exemption. This includes, at a minimum, the Collings SMS Manual, used as a basis for an equivalent level of safety.”

The evidence establishes Collings did not comply with its Safety Management System (SMS) program. First, the crew chief Collings employed stated he was unaware that a safety and risk management program existed. This absence of awareness and lack of training establishes that Collings failed to maintain and apply on a continuous basis a safety and risk management program that met or exceeded the criteria specified in the FAA Policy. Moreover, the Collings Safety Management System Manual states that hazards should be identified and corrected as a matter of daily routine because identifying and eliminating or mitigating hazards is essential to preventing accidents, incidents, and injuries. See SMS Manual at 10, ¶ 6.1 (rev. 1.2, Sept. 10, 2017). The SMS Manual also emphasizes the performance of audits that cover, in part, “general operations, aircraft maintenance, record keeping, operational procedures, [and] observation of flight operations.” Id. at 15, ¶ 6.5. The SMS Manual further requires a culture of safety exist at Collings Foundation. See id. at 6, ¶ 4. As described below, notable maintenance discrepancies existed with the B-17G, yet the Collings Director of Maintenance signed inspection records—dated as recently as September 23, 2019—indicating no findings of discrepancies. No records or evidence of the completion of periodic audits exist with regard to this aircraft. In addition, the pilot in command of the B-17G was also the Director of Maintenance; as a result, Collings did not have a structure to ensure adequate oversight of his decisions to conduct passenger-carrying operations such as the October 2 flight. This indicates Collings lacked a safety culture when operating the B-17G. As a result, Collings did not fulfill the requirements of Condition and Limitation No. 5.

Condition and Limitation No. 6 states as follows: Collings must maintain all aircraft subject to this exemption in accordance with the— a. Collings General Maintenance Manual; b. Maintenance requirements as specified in the appropriate type specification sheet, as amended; c. FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that meets the requirements of § 91.409(e), (f)(4), and (g); and d. Appropriate military technical manuals.

Inspection of the engines on the B-17G N93012 established magneto and ignition failures existed. Regarding engine 4, to prevent the magneto “P” leads from separating from the magnetos, someone had attempted to rig the magneto leads in place with safety wire. Inspection and testing of engine 4 left magneto revealed the movement of the safety-wired lead caused grounding to the case, which rendered the magneto lead inoperative. In addition, the right magneto of engine 4 was found unserviceable. The cam follower was worn beyond limits and the point gap was less than half the measurement required by service documents. When tested, the magneto produced weak or no spark to four of the nine cylinders. All spark plugs were inspected and required cleaning and all electrode gaps were out of tolerance; therefore, further engine inspection indicated signs of detonation and associated damage. An inspection of engine 3 showed all spark plugs electrode gaps were out of tolerance, fouled, and revealed various signs of detonation. Further inspection of this engine revealed problems with the cylinders. As a result of these findings and other information, the FAA questions whether the engines were inspected adequately and in accordance with the applicable maintenance requirements.

The discrepancies noted above indicate maintenance, or lack thereof, occurred in a manner contrary to maintaining aircraft in accordance with the General Maintenance Manual (GMM). The GMM incorporates by reference inspection procedures for individual aircraft, as described the Aircraft Maintenance Manuals. See General Maintenance Manual Rev. 1.1 at 19 (Sept. 10, 2017). Moreover, the records memorializing the inspections and maintenance performed on the B-17G lack key information and, in some cases, indicate maintenance was either not performed at all or was performed in a manner contrary to the applicable requirements. See Ground Check Inspection Form #15: Accessory Inspection, Engine Number Four Fourth (25 Hour) (Sept. 23, 2019); Ground Check Inspection Form #17: Ignition System Inspection, Engine Number Four Fourth (25 Hour) at ¶¶ 11-13 (Sept. 29, 2019). In addition, maintenance records indicate the removal of wires and no further repairs or adjustments, even though a wire was burned and arcing. See NL93012 B-17G Flying Fortress Flight Report (May 11, 2019). The same record, as well as a record from the following day, indicates flights with passengers occurred in the aircraft. See id.; NL93012 B17G Flying Fortress Flight Report (May 12, 2019). As a result, Collings did not fulfill the requirements of Condition and Limitation No. 6.

In addition, Condition and Limitation No. 22 requires compliance with all conditions and limitations set forth in FAA Exemption No. 6540P. The lack of compliance discussed above serves as a basis for the FAA to rescind the exemption.

Under Exemption No. 6540P, Collings received relief from the following regulations:

Section 91.9, which prohibits operations of a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

Section 91.315, which prescribes, in pertinent part, “No person may operate a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.”

Section 91.319(a)(1) and (2), which state, “(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate— (1) for other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.”

Section 119.5(g), which prescribes, in pertinent part, “(g) No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator in violation of any deviation or exemption authority, if issued to that person or that person’s representative.”

Section 119.21(a), which prescribes, in pertinent part, “(a) Each person who conducts airplane operations as a commercial operator engaged in intrastate common carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire in air commerce, or as a direct air carrier, shall comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of this part....”

The FAA’s Decision:

The undersigned finds that allowing Exemption No. 6540P to continue in effect until its previously established March 31, 2020, expiration date would not be in the public interest and would adversely affect safety. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and (g), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Exemption No. 6540P is rescinded in full, effective immediately

Decision on Petition to Extend Existing Exemption

This decision also responds to the petitioner’s request, dated August 22, 2019, to amend and extend Exemption No. 6540P. The relief provided by Exemption No. 6540P is described above. The petitioner requests to extend this relief and to add an additional B-25 aircraft to the exemption for operations beginning in January 2020. Moreover, on November 8, 2019, Collings submitted an additional request to the FAA, in which Collings sought to add another B-17 to exemption 6540P.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

In its petition to extend Exemption No. 6540P, the petitioner states that all of the aircraft requested are either limited or experimental category and that none of them has a standard category equivalent. Petitioner also states that all of the aircraft have been U.S. operated, none of the aircraft are currently in U.S. military service, and all of the aircraft meet the criteria of being “fragile” as there are less than 1% of each type still in service.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has determined good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent.

Although the FAA did not seek comment on this extension, the FAA received over 1,500 comments supporting the renewal of Exemption No. 6540P. Most of these comments were from individuals who cited the historical and sentimental value of allowing living history flights to continue. Some individual commenters strongly urged the FAA to not renew Exemption No. 6540P because of safety concerns regarding the operations Collings has conducted.

In considering the request for further extension of Exemption No. 6540P, the FAA assessed the current risk to the safety of U.S. registered aircraft, FAA-certificated airmen, persons paying for carriage, and the public at large in determining whether granting relief to Collings would be in the public interest. See 49 U.S.C. 44701(f). As noted in the previous section regarding rescission of Exemption No. 6540P, the FAA has determined through ongoing investigation that Collings has not been operating in compliance with the conditions and limitations of the 6540P exemption issued to Collings. In addition, the FAA continues to gather facts that indicate Collings lacked a commitment to safety, insofar as Collings did not take seriously its safety management system program. Based on the totality of facts the FAA has gathered, granting an extension to Collings’s current authority to operate and permitting Collings to add an aircraft to its exemption would adversely affect safety.

The FAA is mindful that flight in these historic aircraft is meaningful to some members of the public; however, the FAA is required by statute to ensure that any exemption the FAA grants would be in the public interest. See 49 U.S.C. 44701(f). Given the facts of the accident on Oct. 2, 2019, and the subsequent evidence of Collings’s lack of compliance summarized in the Rescission section of this document, the FAA has determined that granting the exemption from §§ 91.9(a), 91.315, 91.319(a), 119.5(g), and 119.21(a) would not be in the public interest because of the adverse effect on safety.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is not in the public interest because it would adversely affect the safety of Collings Foundation’s U.S.-registered aircraft, the FAA-certificated airmen that would be participating in the operations, the passengers on board the aircraft, and others involved in or affected by the operations. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition for renewal of Exemption No. 6540P issued to The Collings Foundation is denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 25, 2020

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Shifting to GPS Guided Landings In Wyoming.

A recent headline in the Tribune read:

Local pilots decry federal changes to flight routes

The article went on to note:

A cost-saving shift by the Federal Aeronautics Commission to GPS-guided landings at airports around the Mountain West has elicited the concern of a number of airplane pilots based in Casper, who fear the proposed elimination of more than a dozen analog routes could cause significant problems for air transportation around the state.

Eh, what's that mean? Well, I wasn't too sure either. The paper then went on to state:

Long guided by a network of extremely high-frequency, short-range ground-based systems known as VORs, pilots in the Rocky Mountains will soon go the way of the rest of the country and come to rely heavily on the same GPS-guided navigation systems promoted by the FAA since the technology’s introduction in the early ‘90s.

It’s a significant step for pilots in the region, who have long relied on the older, more inexpensive systems already in place for navigating the mountainous terrain, and one long pursued by a bureaucracy seeking ways to make air travel as streamlined, efficient and responsive as possible.

“It’s been a quantum leap forward,” said Joe MacGuire, a local airline pilot and a Republican member of the Wyoming House of Representatives.

Well, I'm still not really following, but I sort of grasp it. But why wouldn't this be a good change?

Well, I'm not really sure, but apparently it has to do with weather and costs. Having said that, I think that aircraft have all been shifting over to GPS by Federal mandate for some time.

The paper went on to include this comment:

This change, Casper-based corporate pilot and 45-year flight veteran Dallas Chopping said, could also be a potentially dangerous one: though the number of VOR approaches proposed for elimination by the FAA – at just over two dozen statewide – seems small, they could present a significant liability for pilots in a rare event when the GPS systems fail or are disrupted, potentially creating risks for commercial pilots, emergency responders and even the National Guard, who often provide a critical role in search-and-rescue operations around the state.

Hmmm. . . . I'm not a pilot, but I'm skeptical. That's the argument anyway.

And its mobilized, apparently at least one community group.

Already, the Casper Chamber of Commerce is mobilizing its membership to respond out of concerns the changes could impact commercial air traffic. In a message to its membership on Wednesday, the Chamber urged its members to weigh in on the potential decommissioning prior to the Jan. 15 deadline set by the FAA, highlighting a number of examples where the decommissioning of the route could impact the local economy.
* * *
“The FAA will argue that it is a cost savings,” she added. “However, for Casper, there is no advantage to losing the approach!”

Well, the 15th is today. We'll see if the FAA was convinced.

Friday, December 6, 2019

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 2020 Fly Ins include Casper, Wyoming

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the non profit body that represents private aircraft owners, announced its 2020 Fly Ins and included the Natrona County International Airport among them.

For those not familiar with private aviation, that's a big deal. It'll bring at least 500 small aircraft to the Natrona County International Airport on June 19-20.

The AOPA has stated about the event:

Cowboy up!

Casper, WyomingJune 19 and 20, 2020
Dust off your boots and hitch up your chaps. The historic city of Casper, Wyoming, will host an AOPA Fly-In on June 19 and 20. This is a Western town, with roots in the era when pioneers came west to search for gold and when the horse was essential transportation. It’s also the crossroads of the Oregon, California, Mormon, and Pony Express trails. We’ve saddled up with the city of Casper to hold our fly-in the same weekend as the College National Finals Rodeo. The fly-out opportunities are as wide as the state: Yellowstone, the Bighorn Mountains, Devils Tower, and the Grand Tetons are nearby.

The weekend of the College National Finals Rodeo is already a big one in Casper, and this promises to make the weekend a bigger one yet, given the influx of small aircraft. For aircraft spotters in the area, like every AOPA Fly In, it'll provide a real entertaining weekend, rodeo aside.