I Really Tried Hard to Avoid This Story

Those who read this blog regularly know I like any story that is out there a bit – I like topics that are off the beaten path of the usual aviation stories we read daily.

Recently, a story broke that was so far out there, I knew I'd have to chain myself to the wall to avoid blogging about it. Well, turns out I couldn't resist...in a nutshell, it goes something like this:

A woman in Texas was trying to board an airplane in Lubbock when her nipple rings lit off the TSA's scanning equipment, and she was pulled from the line. While she says male TSA agents snickered from the other side of the curtain that hid her from view, the woman was forced to use pliers to remove one of the rings, an experience she called "a nightmare." After removal of the metal rings, she was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she is reported to still have been wearing a belly button ring. The TSA is investigating the incident, and the woman has retained California power attorney Gloria Allred to pursue possible legal action.

According to the TSA web site, they do make it pretty clear that body piercings are not allowed:

"Hidden items such as body piercings may result in your being directed to additional screening for a pat-down inspection. If selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to the pat-down search."

But let's be real here. There is a place for hard and fast rules, and a place for common sense and reality:

All that needed to happen here was for the woman to go behind a curtain with a female TSA agent, show the agent her non-lethal nipple rings, and be done with it. I can get on the plane with a key ring after the jagged metal keys have gone through the scanner in the tray, and we all know KEYS can be used as weapons if held between your fingers in just the right way...so says a million self-defense sites like this one. So what did the TSA think this woman was going to do with her firmly-implanted nipple rings anyway? Any speculation here would ruin my blog's PG rating.

Airport security remains a very good idea, but the implementation of it by the notoriously inept TSA keeps shooting the idea in the foot. Our U.S. air travel system has become a laughing stock around the world, and the TSA keeps working overtime to keep that reputation alive. When you look around the Internets at last week's headlines about Nipple Ring-Gate, it is hard not to just see how stupid this incident makes the TSA seem to the public:

It starts with a nice, simple and straight-forward head from the Student Operated Press, via AP:

TSA 'agents' force Woman to Remove Nipple Rings with Pliers

But Wonkette gets a little more in your face:

Run for your life
Terrorists Make Lady Rip Off Nipple Piercings to Board Plane

A Political blog in the L.A. Times asks:

The politics of nipple rings: Where do Clinton and Obama really stand?

CNN heads their story with the obvious:

Nipple ring search procedures faulty, TSA admits

The New York Post SHOUTS this:

'NIP' SNIP AIR TRAUMA

And a site called the LAist, posted an alert more dangerous then the rings themselves:

Alert: Nipple Rings a Danger at Airports

I could go on all night, the heads just get more outrageous with each scroll down The Google's news results page.

Bottom line: This incident was uncalled for, it was shameful, and the TSA needs to be trained to not let this happen again. Because while they were distracted by wasting time embarrassing this poor woman to tears, can they really be absolutely sure someone that actually posed a legitimate threat to the passengers didn't slip by under their snickering noses?

No, they can't.

Gulfstream G650:
[Almost] Faster Then
a Speeding Bullet

To the non-aviator eye, it might be true that most bizjets look alike. But for those who troll the tarmac appreciating expensive flying hardware, there's Gulfstream, and then there's everything else. In the world of the uber-elite, nothing shouts "bucks up" quite like an arrival in a Gulfstream.

And in a market sector that is so wildly competitive despite a slumping world economy, the fight for performance supremacy keeps creeping up to higher levels. Recently, Gulfstream announced their latest attempt to raise that bar to scary new heights:

"Gulfstream Aerospace has announced the introduction of an all-new business jet: the Gulfstream G650. The G650 offers the longest range, fastest speed, largest cabin and the most-advanced cockpit in the Gulfstream fleet. It is capable of traveling 7,000 nautical miles at 0.85 Mach or 5,000 nautical miles at 0.90 Mach. Using an advanced aerodynamic design, the G650 has a maximum operating speed of 0.925 Mach, which will make it the fastest civil aircraft flying. It can climb to a maximum altitude of 51,000 feet, allowing it to avoid airline-traffic congestion and adverse weather."

For those of you without a calculator handy, that Maximum Operating Speed of 0.925 Mach works out to be 704.116 MPH, just shy of that magic threshold of 770 MPH, which we know to be the speed of sound. Yes, friends, with a slight tailwind up there at FL510 – and with the throttles firewalled – it is conceivable that a bizjet full of CEOs returning from a golf vacation on Maui might actually POP THE SOUND BARRIER as they blast eastbound over California.

The G650 is some kind of ride, and is priced just north of $58.5 million. That's a lot of cash, but you get a seriously fast machine:

"The G650 is powered by the new Rolls-Royce BR725 engine, which produces 16,100 pounds of thrust at take-off. The BR725, in combination with the new, high-efficiency thrust-reverser system and an all-new aerodynamically optimized wing, means the G650 can meet the latest take-off certification requirements, has excellent “hot and high” performance and offers outstanding intercontinental range. For example, the G650 can travel the 6,370 nautical miles from Dubai to Chicago 88 minutes faster than existing long-range jets. It shaves 31 minutes off the 4,788-nautical-mile trip from Los Angeles to London and 50 minutes off the 5,932-mile trip from New York to Tokyo."

One of the best things I can say about the G650 is that this wonderful jet will have "Made in the USA" stamped on it's data plate:

The G650 will be produced in the recently completed 308,000-square-foot manufacturing facility at Gulfstream in Savannah.

I believe that is reason enough to buy a G650...U.S. jobs. Not that any other major players in the bizjet game are offshoring their jet manufacturing yet...they are not. But in these tricky economic times, it is always reason to celebrate any time a big corporation announces a hefty new project that will be built in the USA.

So now, the only questions remains: How the hell can I convince the CFO that our aviation ad agency can indeed afford $58.5 million? Only two words can get me the G650 of my dreams...

Power. Ball.

A New Skymaster
in Our Future?

I know I'm not the only one on this bus that really wanted Adam Aircraft to succeed. Maybe it was my long-time admiration for the "push me-pull you" concept of the Cessna 337, a great idea with what many feel was a flawed design.

So when Adam Aircraft came along touting their A500, I believed the curse of the 337 had been lifted forever. Then, I watch in horror as they rushed the A700 jet through development, even before their piston model was on store shelves, so to speak. In their haste, I pondered out loud whether Adam Aircraft was biting off more then they could chew...or in this case, finance.

Well, we all know where this story ended...in Chapter 7 bankruptcy court. But if you were one of the few that have been keeping fingers crossed that Adam will somehow scrape theirselves off the court floor and come back to life, then the following is sure going to pop that balloon:

General Capital Partners, LLC (GCP) has been retained as the marketing agent for the trustee for Adam Aircraft Industries, Inc. in its Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation. As a result of the bankruptcy filing, all assets of the Company will be sold at auction on April 4th 2008 at 1:30 PM in Denver, CO. Qualified bidders are required to submit an "asset purchase agreement" with a minimum bid of $10 million, along with a $250,000 deposit of earnest-money into an escrow account.

I couldn't find any information anywhere that tells us if the liquidators are looking to sell the entire lot as one large chunk, or piece-meal the sale to several high bidders. If one Sugar Daddy comes forward and snatches this deal up, from the sound of the GCP "deal summary" below, we might conceivably see the A500 and A700 resurrected.

A look on the GCP site reveals just what assets (pdf) are on sale:

"Customer and vendor contracts, Leases, Intellectual property licenses, patents and agreements, A500 Type Certifications, A700 certification information and flight test progress, Manufacturing equipment including curing ovens, 2 motion masters, laser guidance systems, bonding jigs and self contained carbon-fiber tooling capabilities, a "Significant" order backlog, Four operational A500 aircraft; two additional production A500 aircraft significantly complete, Three operational A700 aircraft (one prototype, two conforming); one additional A700 jet (conforming) significantly complete, Four full-size mock-ups for customer center and trade show display, Five U.S. patents, two for “hybrid composite-metal energy absorbing seats,” two for the twin-boom design of the A500/A700 and one for a “modular spar tunnel”

That sure sounds like lock, stock and barrel to me. So I guess the obvious question has to be this: Since Cessna just picked up Columbia at such "fire sale" prices, they surely must have an extra $10 MIL under the cushions of their sofa, and can now pick up Adam as well?

Then, with the A500 certified and ready for the production line, Cessna could change the name to the A500 Skymaster and finally get that bird right once and for all.

Great idea, or nutzo speculation? You decide...

Kudos Must be
Handed Out for This

The other day, right out of left field, I received a call from a reporter who writes for Eugene's local daily, the Register Guard, with a story idea. I love the paper and scour it daily, so I listened to what he had to say. Anyone who knows me knows that I will put down what I am doing to help the media get a story right about general aviation. Every pilot in the land should do likewise, to offset those many times when they get it wrong.

The reporter, Lewis Taylor, had called to ask what I knew about this:

His editor had heard from the grapevine that a major movie star's Gulfstream was spotted sitting at EUG by someone who called themselves a "planespotter". In trying to determine (a) if the rumor of the star's plane being here was true, and (b) what the heck was a planespotter, Lewis called to ask me what I knew about this "planespotting" stuff. I told him it boiled down to people who are known to hang out by airport fences and snap photos of incoming and departing traffic. You can view many of these photos on sites like airliners.net. But I told him it was a non-story because there were not going to be more then a small handful of true planespotters in the EUG area. Besides, the LAST thing his newspaper needed to do in this post-9/11 world was to encourage strangers to park their cars just off the approach end of 16R and aim a big, black telephoto lens at jetliners.

He took my advice, and called back to tell me he found nothing on the story, and it was indeed dead. In conversation though, I told the reporter that the really big GA story these days was Sport Pilot, which was growing more relevant each year. I told him the public would LOVE to read about this new class of ticket that could be earned for about half of a private ticket. I passed along the name of a CFI I knew who was arranging to put two new Cessna Model 162 Skycatchers on her flight line, and am very happy to report that Lewis followed through and wrote a long and very good story on the topic in this Sunday's RG:

Lewis Taylor's look at Light Sport Aircraft and the pilots who fly them was spot on in almost every detail. He captured the true essence of why people fly, and made it crystal clear that this was a new license that was easily attainable by all. He interviewed the contact I sent him, and she proved to be the reliable source I suspected she'd be. Between Taylor's accuracy and Dorothy Schick's enthusiasm for flying, I believe this article cannot help but inspire someone to get out to the airfield and learn to fly. If that one pilot earns his/her ticket because I hooked Taylor up with Schick, then I will be a very happy pilot.

If you want to see how a mainstream media reporter can research a story on GA and then deliver a well-written piece, go here. But me being me, I would be remiss if I didn't give him a good-natured jab for one little error in the story:

In describing Schick's current Sport Pilot teaching platform, a "curvaceous" German-made Comco Icarus C42, Taylor wrote that the Icarus "weighs just 715 pounds and can hold 1,200 pounds of cargo. It runs on aircraft fuel or premium auto gas and burns four gallons an hour." I can just imagine the elation FedEx's bean counters must be feeling tonight knowing they can now move well over half a ton of cargo on just a 4 GPH fuel burn! This revelation could lead to a future when in place of 767s full of overnight packages, we might see whole fleets of Icarus' inbound to Memphis instead. But at just over 100 KIAS, don't expect that package to "absolutely, positively" get anywhere before, oh, I don't know...next month.

Sorry Lewis, if you know many pilots, then you'd know we have to poke each other in the funny bone once in a while, it's hard-wired into our DNA. Major hat-tip to you...and if you are ever in the vicinity of EUG on a sunny afternoon, ask anyone where to find Katy's hangar...she wants to take you for a ride to thank you for casting such a positive light on general aviation.

Now Anyone Can Travel
Like a Rock Star

A while back, I wrote on this blog about being No. 11 on the overbooked list for my flight from SFO back to EUG. As I fumed about this bizarro system of commercial air travel we have to endure, I began to think of a better way to get around by air.

Of course, the easy answer to this riddle is to just jump in Katy, our 235 and go. But not everyone has a Katy waiting in a hangar just seven short miles from their doorstep. So as I sat at SFO fuming, I thought about all the people out there who must be wanting something better then what we are getting from the airlines.

I began to think about the Hollywood producers and CEOs who blast off midweek to ski in Aspen, before jaunting to Fiji for a weekend of sunbathing and Coladas. With increasing regularity, we see the numbers of these high-end charter customers growing as people get fed up with what the airlines call "service". And on ramps across America, their chartered mega-million-dollar bizjets will soon be joined by "very light" and "personal" jets that are now entering into service as this exodus from the Big Airlines continues.

But realistically, we all cannot afford to fly by expensive aircraft charter. As I sat at SFO waiting for United to figure out how to stuff 11 more humans then there were seats into a Regional Jet, I pondered what would happen if the cost of real private air charter ever dropped to a price point that was affordable to all of us. Crazy concept to be sure...air charter has always been wildly spendy...or so I thought:

Stratus Alliance is a network of independent, FAA-certified charter operators strategically placed around the country that all fly new Cirrus SR-22 GTS aircraft. By capitalizing on the efficiency of the SR-22, Stratus Alliance is able to book what they call "destination direct®" charter flights for up to three passengers per flight to nearly all of the small municipal airports within their service area. Now it is possible to charter an entire airplane flown by a professional pilot for well under $500 per flight hour for up to three passengers.

Whoa. Just think what you could do if you had a slick new Cirrus available with just a click of the mouse:

The use of the smaller airfields surrounding every city in the land is the new secret weapon of Stratus Alliance's business travelers. When the competition is stuck at the gate while the airline tries to decide if they should cancel their flight, the savvy Stratus network traveler will have already launched for a flight to a small airport just a few miles from where they need to be. When the other guys are trapped on the tarmac awaiting push back, the people who arrived via chartered SR-22 will have already closed a couple of morning deals and are making plans to celebrate over lunch. This, my friends, is what productivity is all about!

As more and more people discover the ease and affordability that comes from flying single-engine air charter, I fully expect the Stratus Alliance network to blossom into a nationwide powerhouse. Right now, medium-sized corporations can only afford to fly their upper management via private air charter, while their sales, technical, engineering and support personnel must roll the dice and put up with the undependable schedules that comes with flying commercial. As more of these companies realize they can now get their key personnel on site quickly with a "moment's notice" flight booked through Stratus, we'll begin to see a whole new level of competitiveness evolve.

Believe me, this is the future of air charter. Visit the Stratus Alliance website here or call their 24/7 Call Center at 866.366.0819 to learn more.

Smoke and Mirrors
Will Not Make You
Any Safer

Hallelujah choruses were rising up from the flying public this day as they read in the MSM that your FAA is responding to the Southwest Airlines inspection oversight debacle by ordering a boatload of new Airworthiness Directive inspections for all U.S. carriers.

Generally, the news out today reads much like this story from Reuters:

"U.S. aviation inspectors were ordered on Tuesday to review maintenance records at all domestic airlines to ensure carriers have complied with safety orders and other directives. The unprecedented but one-time step by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stems from alleged oversight lapses at Southwest Airlines that led the agency to propose a record fine of $10.2 million on March 6. Over the next three months, the FAA wants a snapshot of safety compliance with an array of safety directives issued over the years that required inspections or other maintenance work. Regulators do not suspect there are problems at other carriers similar to the ones uncovered at Southwest, but believe a broader review is merited as a precaution."

Great you say...it's about time. But remember, this is Bushie's FAA, so all bets are off as to whether they'll handle these new inspections with a high level of accuracy, or tell the media one thing while doing quite another:

This is what is being widely reported: "The agency wants an initial report from the field by the end of the month and a more complete set of findings by the end of June. The goal is for inspectors to eventually cover compliance rates for 10 percent of the U.S. fleet."

But in an email letter from FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Nicholas Sabatini – found here on FAA's own web site – this is actually what the FAA has told the carriers:

"To validate the effectiveness of your system, inspectors will audit a sample of AD's that applies to your fleet. By March 28, 2008, they will complete review of 10 AD's per fleet. In total, they will complete a review of 10% of the AD's applicable to your fleet."

Yes, you read that correctly...ten percent. Now I can easily admit to not being a algebra ace, but even I can count these beans. Doesn't 10 percent of ADs inspected mean that ninety percent of the carrier's ADs won't be inspected? Do you feel safer knowing that NINE out of every ten ADs that a carrier might be slipping under the rug is not important enough to actually get inspected by the FAA?

I sure don't.

Again and again, we see this kind of thing out of present-day Washington, D.C. An administration so full of themselves, they think they can blow this kind of hogwash by us. It's the same sort of "heckuva job" Good 'Ol Boy mentality that has ruined their GOP brand, and it is why no matter what comes out of their mouths, it is not to be believed.

So when the FAA says publically "we have asked our Principal Maintenance Inspectors to begin an in-depth review of [air carriers] program for compliance with airworthiness directives (AD's)", their definition of "in depth review" is...

Ten percent.

One Mind Opened Up

Last week, I got to enjoy one of the best thrills a general aviation pilot can have when I introduced someone to the wonderful world of GA flying. These days are few and far between unless you're a Young Eagles pilot, but each time they come around, it is golden.

The subject of this "discovery" flight was my lovely daughter-in-law JJ, who was in town for a trade show. She has never flown in a small private airplane, and had built up the usual laundry list of fears about what would happen to her when my flying machine carried her skyward. It was my job on this flight to prove those fears baseless.

Not that JJ is fearful, she is not. She's just a normal girl that had assumed that small planes fall from the sky with increased frequency when compared with the commercial airliners she had flown in before. I don't think she's all that fond of flying the Bigs either, so when you're a little sketchy about blasting through the sky in a gigantic pressurized tube, it stands to reason one might be able to assume that because a Piper Cherokee 235 is smaller, there must be a better chance of it causing your demise.

Here is a summation of what I did to change one mind about GA safety:

JJ did not act outwardly scared as I invited her to accompany me on the pre-flight inspection. I explained that Katy has four gas tanks, and let her look inside to physically SEE the fuel for herself. I told her about the landing gear struts, and how they were sort of like the shocks on her car. And I carefully explained that for the last 44 years, Katy had undergone – and passed – extensive FAA inspections annually, and anything that was not airworthy HAD to be repaired.

Walkaround complete, I pulled Katy from her house and both she and JJ looked ready to rock and roll. I put her hubby Michael in the back seat, and let JJ experience the right seat. I explained that the BAS twin restraint shoulder harness system is one of the finest made for a private plane, and the way the BAS system snuggled her to the lambskin seat cover made her feel a little safer, I am sure.

I could see out of the corner of my eye that she was a bit wide-eyed staring at the many new and complex things on the panel before her. So I choose to do a full-boat checklist for engine start-up and run-up, and explained everything to her as I went. I explained that GA planes have many redundant systems, like two communications radios, two VORs, in my case two GPSs, two magnetos, two fuel pumps, two spark plugs per cylinder, etc. With strength attained by numbers, I believed the jitters were leaving her body, if only for a moment:

As I ran up, my first "first-timer" in Katy watched my every move. She is a very smart woman, and she does not miss much. As the engine cranked away at 1,800 RPMs, the spinning prop wants as always to pull Katy away from her position locked to the tarmac by the handbrake. The physicality of the argument between the prop and the brakes always makes quite a shudder quake through the airframe, and a quick glance over to the right seat confirmed my suspicions that this powered-up conflict of thrust versus brake lining was again raising her internal threat level to red. But JJ calmed herself when she heard what she called "a nice and friendly" female EUG tower controller clear us to taxi direct to 16L.

The rest of the takeoff, scenic flight, approach and landing was uneventful, JJ handled it with a cool sort of flair only she can pull off. Except for a little bit of stomach jumpiness during a brief patch of light turbs, she really enjoyed the flight, and commented that the Cherokee was far smoother then she had expected.

"Welcome to Katyland," I replied.

As I headed back to the field, I asked JJ if she would go up again. Since this trip was a prelude to longer family flights to come, she confirmed that yes, she's up for trips to California, maybe Canada, maybe the San Juans, or anywhere we may choose.

Yes, two-seven whiskey passed the test, showing off a bit as we returned to EUG. She performed a greased 9.5 landing (O.K., I might have helped a little on that), and in the process she and I changed one mind about general aviation aircraft. My first-timer didn't come away from the experience wanting to get her pilot's license, but she now knows how GA airplanes fly, why they don't fall from the sky, and that even a 44-year-old gal like Katy can still deliver a smooth, safe ride.

But the final outcome I was looking for came after JJ had 24 hours to think about the flight. She told me a day after we flew that "it was like I was out of my body, just floating along up there. I had to tell myself I was in a small plane."

Yes, dear, flying the "flagship" of Dano Airlines is certainly an out of body experience. Welcome to my world!

Flying Lawnchairs
and the Eugene
Theater Scene

People who have visited my hometown of Eugene, Oregon know it is a politically progressive enclave of creative thinkers. We welcome open minds from around the country to join the high number of real live hippies left over from the colorful '60s. If you remember anything about the late Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters – their psychedelic 1964 jaunt around the country in a Day-glo painted school bus named "Furthur" being the subject of Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" – then you will understand why we have a statue of Kesey (a longtime Eugene area resident) downtown on a very prominent corner.

Eugene is known for its lively arts community, which was reason #1 for Julie and I to move our business and life to this peaceful place. But while we have an over abundance of highly talented musicians, and visual artists, there is also no shortage of stage talent. Because of this, I would bet we have per capita the highest number of small, non-profit theaters and large organized thespian groups anywhere.

So about now, I'm sure you are asking what the heck this has to do with flying and aviation. Stay with me here...

This weekend, we enjoyed a performance of "Flight Of The Lawnchair Man" at a small but very cool dinner/show venue downtown called Actors Cabaret. The play was the Northwestern premiere of the story of Jerry Gorman, a dyslexic regular guy from Passaic, New Jersey who just wants to fly. His neighbors and mother thinks he's nuts, but with support from his wife, he straps 400 helium balloons to a Wal-Mart lawn chair and soars to FL160 out over the Atlantic. With the FAA/FBI/TSA guy on the ground ready to shoot Gorman down, Jerry and his chair go off to fly with Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart and Leonardo da Vinci, who all become integral parts of the second act when Jerry suffers hypoxia while drifting aimlessly along at 16,000 feet.

The play is based rather loosely on the 1982 "flight" of truck driver Larry Walters, who tied 45 weather balloons to a lawn chair and took a 45-min. ride over Los Angeles. There are plenty of similarities between the play and Walter's story, and overall we enjoyed the Actor's Cabaret performance. I found it authentic from an aviation standpoint, and it was highly entertaining. The main point – that some of us long to fly but cannot – was handled perfectly, right down to the 34-year-old Gorman still wanting to play with his toy airplane collection. What, I ask, is wrong with THAT?

There was no mention of another Oregon cluster balloon (the official name of flying via lawn chair) flight last year:

On Saturday, July 7, 2007, Kent Couch, of Bend, attached 105 large helium-filled balloons to a lawn chair, and departed on an unauthorized eastbound flight in an attempt to reach Idaho. Couch carried a global positioning system device, instruments to measure his altitude and speed, four plastic bags holding five gallons of water as a ballast, a two-way radio, a digital camcorder and a cell phone. After nearly nine hours, Couch had covered 193 miles at FL110 or higher, but was short of Idaho. He landed in a farmer's field near Union, OR. This flight went better then Couch's previous attempt when he took a six-hour flying lawn chair ride to FL150. Like Walters, he used a BB gun to shoot the balloons and initiate a smooth descent, but instead went into a rapid descent. After jettisoning his goods, including food, drink and the BB gun, he eventually parachuted to safety.

Yes, Virginia, there are a handful of actual people who are licensed balloonists and regularly fly lawn chairs...or more accurately, just hang from a harness. One of them is John Ninomiya, who has an online logbook available here.

Strange but true, this flying of lawn chairs. But in pondering this topic, I wondered if it wouldn't be slight more practical to launch a La-Z-Boy instead? Sure you would need more balloons to heft the additional weight, but the feel of riding atop the sumptuous leather would be like riding in those precious first-cabin seats most of us always have to walk past when we board a commercial airliner.

Or you can just get your FAA Sport Pilot ticket and do it the legal way. More fun, and you don't need a gun to initiate a descent.

Thanks to Bush's Pals,
"off the truck" 100LL
Tops Eight Bucks!

Back in 2000 – before Bushie and his Big Oil cartel buddies pludgeoned their way into our White House – had someone told you a gallon of highly-refined dead dinosaurs would someday cost over EIGHT BUCKS, you surely would have told them to pound sand. You would have told them there was literally NO WAY a gallon of AvGas could EVER climb that high.

No. Way.

Well, back then, before the oil companies ruled our country, nobody could have predicted this...from Bloomberg:

"Crude oil rose to a record $111 a barrel in New York as the sinking value of the dollar attracted investors to commodity markets. The dollar dropped below 100 yen earlier today for the first time since 1995 and declined to a record low against the euro. Oil surged 90 percent over the past year as the Standard & Poor's 500 Index dropped 5.5 percent."

If you fly your own plane, then you already know that the price of fuel is rising. But there isn't a pilot out there who saw this coming:

A recent fuel price search on AirNav for a collection of major metro areas revealed that as of early March, a gallon of 100LL at Teterboro, New Jersey was $8.12 full serve off the truck. Other unbelievable 100LL prices around the country include $6.21 in Santa Monica, $6.45 in Dallas and $6.97 in Miami. But with a little shopping around, you can still find 100LL for under four bucks, that is, if you stop by Thomaston-Upson County Airport (KOPN) in Thomaston, GA where self-serve was listed at $3.95.

So what can be made of such a disparity in pricing for the same product? Sure, I get it that in certain upscale regions like the NYC metro area, there will be a slight premium, but DOUBLE THE PRICE of the lowest fuel in the nation? I am just guessing here, but I believe it did not cost the guy who brewed up that $8.12 gallon of 100LL in New Jersey any more then the guy who distilled the fossils into flammable blue liquid sold in Georgia. The aviation fuel game has few players, it is highly competitive, and their cost of doing business is pretty much the same across the board.

The only word I can come up with to justify raising your full-service prices over eight bucks in this market is greed. There is plenty of blame to go around here, but what it really comes down to is this: The Big Oil companies are raking in record profits as we pay more and more at the pump, doing so as BushCo and the Justice Department, um, look the other way (wink, wink).

This means there are only two distinct groups of people now...those who are doing the screwing and those who are getting screwed. So as you head into the voting booth next November, ask yourself which group you belong to. If you like what is going on regarding the price of gasoline and home heating oil, please vote republican. Because if John McCain gets the nod, you can be guaranteed that this deplorable price gouging will continue unabated through at least January 20th, 2013.

Have You Nixxed Today?

There is no disputing the fact that NASA produces the finest space imagery on the planet...or should I say...above the planet? We've all seen their work, it is sheer photographic beauty, captured by the finest equipment out there, from a vantage point only NASA's astronauts can occupy.

With just a few clicks, these wonderful NASA images are everywhere on the Internets. But if you think even a few clicks is too much work accessing these brilliant images, NASA now has you hooked up.

NIX.

In case you – like me until tonight – have never heard of the NASA Image eXchange, or NIX, here are the details:

NIX is a web-based search engine for searching one or more of NASA's many online multimedia collections. NIX searches return thumbnail sized images, textual descriptions, image numbers, links to higher resolution images, and links to the organization that stores each image. The NIX service is an initiative sponsored by the NASA STI Program, meant to link the many existing photo databases in NASA.

A few of the endless categories of images available include Aeronautics, Aircraft, Devices, Education, Facilities, People, Projects, Solar System and beyond, Space Flights and Wind Tunnels. Not much more can be said on this topic, so just go wade through the NIX database yourself. If you see something you'd like to keep for personal use, it is cool, just don't use the images commercially, so suggests the NASA copyright police:

NASA still images, audio files and video generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages. If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes, especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services.

So go NIX yourself, download some of the coolest desktop images ever, just be smart and don't EVER misuse the photos, period. Stealing photos for commercial use is, well, stealing. 'Nuf said on that.

White Knuckle
"E-Ticket" Approaches

I get lots of story suggestions here at World of Flying, some worth a look, some worthy of routing direct to the round file. And once in a while, one comes in that simply rocks my world. Yes, it seems some of my readers know me too well, and can predict whan Av8rdan thinks will be seriously great blog fodder.

Last week, Dee Barizo, from a site called ProTraveller, sent me a page on their site that lists the "Top 10 Most Dangerous Aircraft Landings in the World" and when I visited, it turned out to be a must read. I will excerpt some of it below, but you HAVE to go there and watch the many videos that accompany the descriptions:

Kai Tak Airport (China): The Kai Tak Airport served as Hong Kong's international airport from 1925 to 1998, and was notoriously hard to land at because of the maze of skyscrapers and mountains in the vicinity. The approach to the world-famous runway 13 at Kai Tak involved grazing skyscrapers and then making a sharp right-handed turn immediately before the runway. The crosswinds made it even more difficult to keep the plane steady during, and after, the final 47° right-handed turn towards the runway.

Funchal Airport (Portugal): This small island was once infamous for the short runway at Madeira Airport, which was surrounded by the ocean and mountains, making it difficult to land a plane. In November, 1977, TAP Portugal Flight 425 – a Boeing 727 – was landing on the relatively short 4,593 ft long airstrip during a heavy rain storm, skidded onto the beach, and burst into flames. The runway was eventually almost doubled in length, and 180 columns, each about 210 feet high, were added to support the runway over the ocean. Today, the runway is still one of the more difficult airstrips to land in the world.

Gustaf III Airport (St, Barts): This small airport on the island of St. Barts is only accessible by small planes because of the short 2,100ft long and narrow landing strip. There is no room for error when landing a plane at this beautiful island. The pilot must navigate a very steep approach down a hill, grazing cars and people at the top, while making sure to get the plane down in time so that it doesn't end-up in the ocean at the end of runway. There are signs posted on the beach at the end of the runway warning people not to lie directly at the end of the runway.

Courchevel Airport (France): This small airport is located high in the French Alps, and thus the runway sits 6,588ft above sea level. It features an extremely short 1,722ft long uphill runway. Not only is the runway short, but you also have to navigate through mountains to get to it. If you're brave enough to actually fly into this airport, you can take advantage of the awesome skiing and snowboarding that the French Alps has to offer.

Princess Juliana International Airport (St. Maarten): This airport features a world-famous landing strip that leads airplanes directly over Maho Beach and all of its sun-bathing tourists. Some planes fly as low as 30-60ft above the beach on their approach! The landing strip is relatively short for larger airplanes at 7,152ft long, so planes must approach the runway at a low angle to compensate.

Wellington International Airport (New Zealand): This airport in the capital of New Zealand can be dangerous for two reasons: a short runway and constant windy conditions. The runway at Wellington is relatively short at 6,647ft, which means that there is little room for error for larger planes. Also a problem are the strong crosswinds caused by nearby Cook Strait.

Paro Airport (Bhutan): Flying through the Himalayan valley to get to the landing strip can be a bit hair-raising, and the airplane's final hard-banking turn to get to the runway is very reminiscent of Kai Tak's approach. It is rather like flying into Happy Valley as far as the foot of Blue Pool Road, doing a u-turn, and then landing on Queen's Road East using a runway about one-quarter as wide as Kai Tak's was." The video shows a view from the cockpit of a plane making its descent into Paro – the last hill that they fly over to get to the landing strip is quite a maneuver to behold!

Narsarsuaq Airport (Greenland): The approach to Narsarsuaq Airport is no easy task to navigate – even for expert pilots. To land a plane at Narsarsuaq you must navigate a 90 degree turn through a U-shaped fjord and land on the 6,004ft long runway. This landing has been described as similar to flying down a city street with high rises on both sides with severe turbulence at all times except on the brightest of days; down-drafts are everywhere. There's even the real risk of icebergs drifting into the flight path.

Saba Island Airport: This small Caribbean island is a somewhat popular honeymoon destination, but flying into the beautiful Island isn't a vacation – to say the least. Landing an aircraft on one of the world's shortest landing strips (1,300ft long), on a peninsula surrounded by 200ft tall sheer cliffs that fall into the ocean, is easier said than done. Needless to say, larger planes aren't able to fly into Saba Island Airport because of the short runway.

Lugano Airport (Switzerland): The landing strip isn't necessarily the toughest part about landing a plane at Lugano Airport. The approach of the landing is what makes landing a plane here so difficult and potentially dangerous. This area of Switzerland is very mountainous, and there's always strong alpine crosswinds for pilots to deal with. On top of that, the approach to Lugano Airport is steeper than it is at most airports. Lugano's approach is 6.65°, whereas most airport approaches are at angles of about 3° over a flat area.

Jeez Louise, when you watch these videos end-to-end, it makes one's heart rate climb like doing the Jitterbug on a Pilates machine! So go over to their site and enjoy.

Christopher Would be
Blown Away

You just HAVE to wonder what one of our most legendary explorers – Christopher Columbus – would think about a flying living room that could cross an ocean in a few hours instead of a few months. He might be equally baffled how this craft could be only two feet longer then his Santa Maria, but not hold ANY "on the hoof" livestock for the crew to devour enroute. And of course, the Sea Captain would want to know how on Earth ANY pilot could control a vehicle that traveled faster then his ship's maxxed out, pedal-to-the-metal speed of...eight knots.

Ol' Chris would have loved the March 2008 issue of Aviation International News. This issue was special because tacked inside was a gorgeous eight-page double gatefold insert advertising Cessna's latest creation, the Citation Columbus. It is being called "The biggest jet news in the history of the world's biggest business jet company," by Cessna, and I dare anyone to dispute that tagline.

The new USD $27M large-cabin class jet is proof positive that the business jet market is as hot as it's ever been. From the smallest PJs like the Piperjet and Cirrus The-Jet, to the Boeing Business Jet, pre-orders and sales are off the charts. So Cessna's entry into the super-huge bizjet market is of no surprise, and they appear to be aiming their sights directly at Gulfstream's G450.

There can be no doubt that Cessna has always built some of the finest bizjets in the air. Most of the early Citations are still out there flying, and their last "big thing", the Citation Mustang, could not be any more popular. So let's sit back and take a quick look at the biggest, baddest Citation on the planet:

The Columbus will carry two crew + 10 pax in supreme luxury about 4,000 nm (w/NBAA IFR reserves) if the pilots maintain somewhere in the neighborhood of 459 KTAS. It can depart from a field as short as 5,400 feet, and will be certified to fly as high as FL450 [full specs here as PDF]. At 77 feet long and 80 feet wingtip to wingtip, this is a big Citation. But you will really feel that size when you step into the 36.3-foot-long cabin, one that has enough headroom to let a fully-evolved six-foot human finally walk upright.

The flight deck of the Columbus ought to be a quite a special place, decked out in the very latest of whiz and bang, so says the Columbus web site:

"Columbus flight crews will be among the most informed in the sky. The new Pro Line Fusion™ system from Rockwell Collins combines the proven success of Pro Line 21® with significant new technological advancements. This fully integrated flight deck will feature four landscape high-resolution LCD displays working in concert with an available Head-up Guidance System (HGS™), graphical flight planning, synthetic and the available enhanced vision, and Rockwell Collins´ award-winning MultiScan™ Hazard Detection system. Pilots can operate the system conventionally or by using the latest voice-recognition technology. The 15-inch (38-centimeter) displays are the largest high-resolution displays available in the industry and allow for high-speed display interfaces that facilitate point-and-click access to flight planning, aircraft performance monitoring and hazard avoidance. The cursor control panel helps reduce pilot workload while increasing flight deck operational efficiency."

Wow. You get lost in this thing, and you don't deserve to fly. And what's up with the voice recognition technology? Man-oh-man, that kind of stuff sure makes my mind race with possibilities!

AIN is reporting that the development program for the Columbis will cost Cessna $775 million, but what is important to note about that figure is this:

"None of the suppliers are risk-sharing partners, said Cessna president and CEO Jack Pelton. “Cessna’s paying all of the development costs, and it gives us the ability to decide what is best for us to build versus what is best for someone else.”

So with the Columbus, it will be Kansas calling the shots, period. AIN reports 70 signed letters of intent which Cessna expects those letters to be converted into firm orders in 2008. It appears the first flight of a prototype will be in 2011, with FAA certification in 2013 and entry-into-service in 2014.

Good work Cessna. Now, how about a nice, modern, all-glass, composite, turbodiesel-powered version of the 310 as next year's "wow" moment? At some point, someone in the small airplane game will need to step up and build a new, state-of-the-art light twin to compete with Diamond Aircraft's DA-42 Twin Star, and as far as I see it, there are only two players in this game who can pull that off. And if Kansas doesn't want that action, I'm sure Duluth will be happy to deliver the Next Generation of light twins.

Please, Alan, please?

One Seriously Ugly Mess

Today, CNN broke a story that could end up being one of the major aviation stories of 2008. You know it isn't going to be good when you see this kind of headline:

Records: Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes

Without putting any more thought into the matter, Average Joe and Jane could easily assume the wings are about to fall off all those SWA 737s we see at every major regional hub. That presumption isn't terribly off the mark, according to CNN's web site:

"Discount air carrier Southwest Airlines flew thousands of passengers on aircraft that federal inspectors said were "unsafe" as recently as last March, according to detailed congressional documents obtained by CNN. Documents submitted by FAA inspectors to congressional investigators allege the airline flew at least 117 of its planes in violation of mandatory safety checks. In some cases, the documents say, the planes flew for 30 months after government inspection deadlines had passed and should have been grounded until the inspections could be completed. The planes were "not airworthy," according to congressional air safety investigators."

O.K., we get it that SWA flew the planes "in violation of mandatory safety checks", but does anyone else but me wonder how the FAA's inspectors missed this...FOR 30 MONTHS! That, my friends, is George Bush's FAA at work...or not. Two words immediately jump up shouting:

Annual. Inspection.

What is wrong with a system that makes humble little GA planes go through all the inspections needed to chase $100 hamburgers, but misses the really big stuff on commercial airlners? Ponder that while you read what CNN also reported about who knew what and when they knew it:

"The documents were prepared by two FAA safety inspectors who have requested whistle-blower status from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The two inspectors have been subpoenaed to testify before the committee. The whistle-blowers say FAA managers knew about the lapse in safety at Southwest, but decided to allow the airline to conduct the safety checks on a slower schedule because taking aircraft out of service would have disrupted Southwest Airlines' flight schedule."

CNN has posted some really great comments from some of their readers, which I believe really tells it like it is:

From "Toby": "As a 25-year veteran in aircraft maintenance I can tell you that far more than just the SWA planes that are out of compliance. Does this mean they are actually unsafe to fly? No, it does not. I can tell you that many other airlines are now scrambling to get their paperwork in order. It is too bad that SWA will take an unjust hit for this. They are one of the few that actually make money and spend heavily on maintenance equipment and I would not hesitate to put my own family on their planes. Many carriers outsource their maintenance to other airlines and even to other countries. Although I work for a major carrier, I do not work and have never worked for SWA."

And this from "Diane": "Hey, what about the FAA inspectors?? Don't they need to shoulder some of this? They allowed SWA to fly unsafe planes."

And this from "GLC": "I find it interesting that after all these years of Southwest doing business and not having any crashes, that this article pops up? Or is it a plot by other airlines that aren't as successful to get a piece of the pie by scaring people off Southwest. I would venture to say that this is not the only airline company that has these "statistics" but this is the only one they [CNN] chose to write about."

As is the case in today's Washington – and particularly inside the FAA – we will never, ever know what is really the truth here. The whole affair begs this question: Is this an isolated SWA situation, or are other airlines slipping way past FAA deadlines and missing crucial safety inspections? Again, we will never know, but I can easily see a rough patch ahead for the airlines until we can somehow convince the paying passengers that the planes they are boarding are safe. And this we will never really know for certain, because in today's ethically-void Corporate world, stretching the truth so you can bend the rules is completely accepted...as long as it's done as a means to generate a phat profit.

I guess the only real way I'm going to feel safe flying is on Dano Airlines, because at DanoAir, our Cherokee 235's logs are current, our plane has been meticulously inspected for the last 44 years, and our maintenance is only outsourced as far as Creswell, Oregon.

Mitsu Yearns for Toyota's Yen

Ever since I earned my first driver's license, I've driven a Toyota pick-up as my primary vehicle. Yes, I have also owned a number of other cars and trucks along the way, but none have been able to compare head-to-head to the dependable Hi-Lux and it's newer variants like my current T-100.

So as a Toyota guy, I was overjoyed back in the early part of this century when the Japanese automaker "toyed" with us about the possibility of bringing a general aviation airplane to market. Here is a pull from Aero-News Network to provide a little "color" on that project:

"In the early 1990s, the company experimented with an aviation-tuned version of the 4.0-liter V-8 engine from its Lexus luxury automobile division. Toyota nixed the idea, though, realizing there was more money to be made in putting those engines in LS400s and SC400s. Then, about seven years ago, Toyota made a lot of noise on the general aviation scene about bringing a new, composite-bodied, four-place, single-engine aircraft to market. The company contracted with Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites to assemble a demonstration aircraft, dubbed the TAA-1, which first flew in May 2002. Little became of the program, however, following that first flight. The aircraft was rumored to be significantly overweight, and Toyota soon lost interest in the idea."

Well, it now appears they are again interested in the flying machine game, only not with a GA craft, but a commercial one. Reports out of Japan this week show that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. is planning to build a 70-to-90 seat regional jet that will compete directly against RJs manufactured by Bombardier and Embraer. To put that project together financially, Mitsubishi has approached Toyota to invest as much as 10 billion yen, or about USD $97 million in the joint venture.

And if you like Mitsu's cars but still have lingering questions about their MU-2, maybe you should have as much confidence in the company as Boeing does:

Mitsubishi Heavy has been chosen as the supplier of the carbon-fiber wings for Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner, and has expressed interest in using that same technology on their new RJ, which is reportedly being designed to be as much as 30 percent more fuel efficient than existing regional jets on the market.

I am honestly a little saddened by this news. With Honda due to start delivering their beautiful HondaJet in 2010, I was hoping Toyota would jump into the GA market with something I might one day actually be able to afford. And if they [Toyota] can build such a great car as the Lexus and sell them all day long for about sixty large, is it such a stretch to have them build airplanes?

My nagging question has always been this: If you take the basic cabin/engine layout of your box stock LS or GS model Lexus, weld wings under the doors, hang a three-blade composite prop off the hood and a tail off the trunk, and swap out the panel with a G1000 set-up, wouldn't you have a damned nice AIRPLANE?

Sure, there would be significant certification costs, and yes, the market for Lexus airplanes would not be as high as their automobile line. So let's say they QUADRUPLE the asking price of a LS Hybrid Prestige Luxury Hybrid Sedan, which now commands $104,000 [ouch!] according to lexus.com. That means they rake in $416,000 for the LS/A (for airplane), which is more then enough feta to cover the airworthiness certificate, the wings, the tail and make a serious profit even after giving a chunk to Garmin for the glass cockpit.

And you can almost guarantee that at just over four hundred grand for a Lexus-quality aircraft, they could not make them fast enough. But will it ever happen? Not in a million years.

Why should the Japanese carmakers bother with the start-up costs of making a GA plane when they are having such an easy time beating up on the American companies like GM and Ford? As long as Detroit still thinks gargantuan SUVs and 4x4 Pick-ups are what Average Joe and Jane want to buy and drive, Tokyo is going to keep piling on big time, giving the out-of-touch U.S. makers a lesson in how to keep up with a changing market.

Oh, Those CRAZI Fix Names

I have always heard that the FAA has a bit of a sense of humor when it comes to naming fixes and intersections, so I wasn't all that surprised tonight when I traveled down the "information superhighway" and looked up some of the more colorful ones. Here are a few ripped from a number of forums and discussion groups – mixed with a few of my own, just to keep you on your toes:

There used to be a SEXXY near ORD, but you might think it would be better suited for somewhere just east of Reno, near the Mustang VOR. There, you might fly direct HOOKR before being routed across VIXEN to a hold at DONGS. If you fly over MILLR or LYYTE near Houston, you might get thirsty, and may need some ADVLL in the morning because you flew too long over DRUNK which is located near BOS for obvious reasons. And if you are nearing ITAWT, ITAWA, PUDDY, TAATT, you are nearing Pease International Tradeport in New Hampshire.

The more you dig, the more you find...that, my friends, is how the Internets work:

You might get a hold at SATAN before getting cleared direct via OSAMA. Back inbound to New Jersey, you will fly over HOWYA or DOOIN...a couple of final approach fixes near EWR. Of course, you would expect TWAIN to be near Hannibal Missouri and PICKN, GRNIN and HEHAW to be near Nashville International Airport. You might not know where FUBAR is, but it is a pretty sure bet RIBBS is near Kansas City.

And if you think the FAA has the franchise on these humorous fix identifiers, you'd be wrong. Around the world, there are plenty of ones worthy of note:

It must have been a couple of stooges that named CURLY, LARRY and MOOWE just west of Perth, Australia. And the aeronautical chaps over in Brisbane must have a thing for the sea, clearing their pilots direct to LEAKY, BOATS and SINNK. Oh those Brits, they like their pints, and will fly over GINIS or LAGER outbound towards Scotland where they fly inbound over TARTN or TWEED. And those jolly lads in Gatwick have made their charts look like a forest, with fixes named ACORN, ASPEN, BEECH, CEDAR, ELDER, HOLLY, MAPLE. OLIVE, SHRUB and WILLO.

Yes, my flying friends, this fix naming stuff is mighty fun. Of course, I can almost guarantee that even without spying a chart, you can expect to find BRATS and BEERS near at least one very important Wisconsin city. Betcha can't guess which one...

The Most Insane System Ever Devised

I am sitting tonight not in my home in beautiful Eugene, Oregon, but in a hotel in Millbrae, California. You see, United Express sold 81 seats in their 70-passenger Regional Jet, and yours truly – despite having a bought-and-paid-for seat – was #11 on the flight's "your screwed" list. Yes, my friends, United Express overbooked my flight big time.

I had been in Oakland to judge the Greater San Francisco Ad Club's ADDY Awards competition, and despite riding BART to and from downtown Oakland from SFO, I am still alive to tell this tale. I am not going to mince words...Oakland is a downright scary place. When your hosts tell you "do not walk two blocks from your hotel or you WILL get shot to death," it is best to believe them.

My gracious hosts bought my ticket via Travelocity, using a perfectly good credit card..so I can only assume United Express will be charging that card for the $408 round-trip fare EUG-SFO and back again. Southbound on that trip, it was a sweet flight, but tonight when I tried to get that ticket home, their completely insane system went quickly to hell:

I immediately smelled a rat when the "Easy Check-in" kiosk spit out not a boarding pass, but a boarding pass-like document that did nothing but tell their system that the eleventh sucker to fall into their evil overbooking trap had arrived at the airport. I ran TSA's gauntlet and breezed through security, and hoofed it for gate 77 Alpha. There, I was told I was not on the last flight home to EUG, despite my holding a PAID Travelocity itinerary and a boarding pass-like document spit out from the kiosk. The gate agent tried really hard to piss me off by having absolutely no concern for my situation. I did not have a seat, period, and she wouldn't tell me why...end of conversation. Well...we'll see about THAT!

So off I bolt to the United Customer Service Counter, and explained my situation to a woman who basically told me it was United Express's problem and not United's. When I began to raise my voice a bit, a supervisor-ish woman showed up to help me. She tapped on her keyboard and found the problem...in 10 seconds. The system didn't have my United Frequent Flyer number...a problem easily fixed, she said. She pulled up my profile, tapped again, and BANG, moved me all the way up to No. 8 on the list of customers who will get screwed this night.

She explained to me that yes, United Express had sold eleven more seats on the flight then they could provide. In the real world, one might call this failure to provide a paid service deplorable, but in the bizarro world of Big Airlines, it is called overbooking. So the Customer Service Agentress tells me that – you know what is coming – if I were willing to give up my seat, they would only have to find ten other fools to do the same, and then the full flight would no longer be overbooked. If I could return to EUG Sunday AM, United Express would spot me dinner ($15), breakfast ($10), a ride in a nice shiny shuttle bus to a swank hotel ($60) and a free round-trip ticket anywhere United flies in the lower 48 states (somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 - $2,000 depending on destination).

As if Howie Mandel was looking me in the eyes and asking "Deal, or NO Deal?"...back at gate seventy-seven alpha, I tell the gate agent DEAL, and take the airline's offer. So instead of simply flying me home on the purchased ticket so they could make a few bucks profit, United will now cough up as much as $2,085! And, if the other 10 bumped pax also take the deal, that's 11 passengers who have been screwed out of their seat, costing the airline as much as $22,935! That is if they – like me – choose to retaliate against this ridiculous overbooking garbage by using their "free round-trip voucher" to book a seat on the most expensive R/T that United flies. Someone PLEASE explain to me how this makes ANY business sense whatsoever!

Bottom line: Tonight I am still a VFR private pilot, with a perfect good cross-country airplane sitting home in Eugene that could have easily carried me to San Francisco for this trip. But the WX was slightly below VFR minimums, so I choose to play airline roulette and attempt to fly commercial, which will not happen once I earn my IFR ticket. Then, Dano Airlines will carry me around the West, and I can guarantee you that Dano Airlines will never EVER promise nine people a seat in my four passenger Cherokee 235.

UPDATE 03.02.08 @ 620A: Now that I've had a few hours to think about it while lounging in my free hotel room, I have devised a plan to take this lemon United handed me last night and make some lemonade. That's because I will need something to wash down all those grilled BRATS I will eat this coming summer when United flies me absolutely FREE to Oshkosh for EAA Airventure 2008. Wow, what a deal, a free ticket to airplane heaven....my cup indeedth is half full after all.

UPDATE 03.02.08 @ 1148A: I have finally made it home, even though United Express tried really hard to prevent such a thing from happening. After a push-back delay at SFO this AM, we were told that because of low ceilings and fog, we might be making an unscheduled diversion to Bend/Redmond if we couldn't get into EUG. But I have to give kudos to the pilots for making the ILS 16R approach look like child's play as they snuck in just about an inch above the 200 ft./one-half mile minimums. The ramp guys also tried to lose my carry-on luggage – which would have been a first, even though it was gate checked. But they couldn't pull that ruse off, and I rushed to the carousel to see my gate checked bag going for a ride in circles.