Stefan Vorkoetter’s Blog

On Thursday’s AvWeb news there appeared an article about a proposed three-parachute recovery system for light aircraft. The concepts involves jettisoning the wings which then each descend on their own ‘chutes, while the fuselage descends on a larger main parachute. Aviation Safety Resources, the company proposing to build this product, has produced an animated video showing it in action (you can see it on their web site).

I watched this video, and couldn’t believe what they were proposing! In the video, a plane carrying a family of four suffers an engine failure while cruising above the clouds. A gliding descent ensues, and once below the clouds, the pilot decides that he can’t make it to the runway. He decides to activate the parachute system, at which point the wings separate from the aircraft (!) via explosive bolts (!!), and then the aircraft’s main parachute opens, bringing the fuselage to a reasonably soft landing in a field.

This is ludicrous! First of all, if I suffered an engine failure and glided to a situation where I could see the ground, and there were fields around (as there are in the video), I think my course of action would be a forced approach and power-off landing. If conditions were slightly less favourable (e.g. forests, water, or rugged terrain), I might consider pulling the ‘chute if my plane had one.

Second of all, the situation would have to be extremely dire before I’d consider activating a recovery system that ejected the wings from the plane. What if the parachute failed to leave the aircraft? Even in rugged terrain, it would be nice to still have the option of attempting a forced landing. With the three ‘chute system, the wings are now gone, and I would be the pilot of a giant lawn dart.

This just seems like a really dumb idea! ASR claims that the descent is more stable without the wings still attached, but who cares! As long as it’s slow enough, I don’t really care if it’s a wild ride on the way down. The three ‘chute system also violates the keep-it-simple principle. There are far more things that can go wrong (such as one wing failing to separate, in which case you’re going down sideways).

Sorry, not for me. If you think it’s a good idea, they’re looking for investors.

Canadian aviation regulations require that a pilot take steps to maintain recency, and one of the ways to do this is to attend a Transport Canada approved seminar at least once every two years. It had been almost two years since my last seminar, so I decided to attend the one held on March 21 in Toronto. The posted topics looked interesting: Weather and Pre-flight Inspection.

I found the weather part of the seminar somewhat disappointing, since it consisted solely of a screening of AOPA’s “Weather Wise” DVD. Although this is a fine DVD, many of the regulatory details it refers to are specific to American aviators. A brief discussion of the differences would have been valuable. Some of the “incorrect” information I noticed were the flight service frequency, the interpretation of temperature gradients on weather maps (the rules of thumb given were for temperatures in Fahrenheit, which you won’t find on a Canadian weather map), and the option to climb above clouds to remain VFR.

The Pre-flight Inspection presentation was both interesting and entertaining. The presenter had taken photos of a variety of planes exhibiting conditions that would render them unairworthy. These ranged from the subtle (like loose rivets) to the blatantly obvious (such as an engine compartment full of straw). It would have been nice to have seen some issues specific to composite airframes though.

Although attending this seminar keeps me legal for another two years, I think it’s in my best interest to do more on my own as well. By their very nature, these seminars can only touch on one or two topics, so there’s still plenty of opportunity to forget other important stuff from ground school. One way I do this is by reading as much aviation material as I can get my hands on, such as EAA’s Sport Aviation, and AOPA’s Flight Training. Another way is through various projects which require some research, such as my custom checklist and aviation survival kit.

Another year has gone by, and with it, more hours in the logbook. I flew about 36 hours in 2006, all of it in the Diamond DA20-A1 “Katana”. That’s less than I would have liked (my goal is 50 hours per year), but not too bad considering all the other things I had on the go (like overhauling my website and starting this blog).

Most of my flights were routine, although I did make an effort to land at a few places other than my home airport (CYKF). The most interesting flight was the all-day excursion to the Canadian Aviation Expo at Oshawa (CYOO). I flew there with a detour to Barrie-Simcoe airport (CNB9) to pick up my friend. Three things made that flight interesting:

• Flying with my friend, who I only get to see about once or twice a year.
• The fact that the Canadian Forces Snowbirds were stationed at CNB9, so I got a few nice photos unimpeded by the airport fence.
• Dealing with the rather complex VFR arrival and departure procedures at CYOO set up specifically for the event. When I arrived, ATC was landing aircraft every 21 seconds. Preparation was the key.

I also flew my first Young Eagle in 2006 and took several of my co-workers for sightseeing flights.

I’m looking forward to more flying this year. To help me achieve 50 hours, I’ve set aside one evening in the week for flying (weather permitting). Hopefully I’ll have time for a longer excursion as well. I’ll continue to log all my flights here in my blog, in the Logbook category.