Status – Page 7

Bombardier CL-600 Challenger

January 23, 2025 by Bob Stoney Leave a Comment

Aircraft Information
> Aircraft Make: Bombardier. Model: CL-600. Nickname: Challenger
> Aircraft Mil Civ Description: Business Jet
> FAA Category and Class: Airplane Multi-engine Land
> Engine Description: Twin Jet

Aircraft Experience
> As of: 9/2/2021
> Number of Hours Flown: 3
> Number of Times Flown: 1
> Other Aircraft Models Associated: none

First Flown Information
> Sequence First Flown: 124
> Date First Flown: 5/23/2002
> Location First Flown: St Louis Downtown Airport, MO (KCPS)
> Who and/or What Organization First Flown With: Don’t remember, don’t WANT to remember. 🙂

Recollections: I have (so far) only flown the CL-600 once. But, I’ve never done a takeoff or landing in one…let me explain.

The purpose of the flight was to certify a Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS). The “applicant” was a company located in the St Louis area, but the test aircraft was a privately-owned airplane that had come from somewhere else (owners who allow their airplanes to be put into “experimental show compliance” airworthiness category presumably get a cut on the cost of the installed system). TAWS testing involves a few tests conducted near an airport and then multiple runs on a surveyed ridge/mountain to trip off the terrain warnings in a predictable manner. We were operating out of the “St Louis Downtown” airport, KCPS, located southeast of the main airport in St Louis, Lambert Field, KSTL (see chart in the figures). Our “target mountain” was located about 30 minutes south of St Louis, in Arkansas. Owing to the maneuvers that were planned and the fact that the weather was very good, the flight was planned to be conducted under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Well, the operator of the airplane “required” that–to do the takeoff or landing–that I be type-rated in the airplane. Never flown one and, of course, I wasn’t rated. This “requirement”, by the way, was the owner’s own policy and/or their insurance company policy…NOT any real regulatory requirement. I was very new to the FAA and had not encountered this situation before so, I begrudgingly agreed to wait until we were on our way to the test area and then I’d get in to do the “runs on the mountain”.

Bombardier CL-600 N187AP (Stock photo of the one I flew)
(c) airliners.net

So, after takeoff and departure from the STL area, I got in the left seat, did the tests over the next 2+ hours. Heading back to St Louis I got out of the seat and sat in the (very nice) VIP-interior cabin.

After landing, we headed back into a conference room to debrief. Walking in, the airplane’s Pilot in Command handed me his cell phone, mumbling something about the FAA. Well, on the other end of the line was a very angry FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) controller from St Louis TRACON. Turns out the airplane had been flown VFR without authorization right into the STL Class B airspace, right thru the final approach corridor to nearby Lambert Field. I guess the PIC thought, because I was FAA, that he had a “get out of jail free” card with ATC. I paused momentarily to consider letting this crew just get hammered by ATC. Frankly, they deserved to get hammered…after not letting me fly and then expecting me–without exlanation–to fix their screw-up. However, I decided to handle this with the controller…explaining the purpose of the flight (clearly noting that I was NOT IN THE SEAT during the infraction!!), that the pilots weren’t familiar with the area, that they were operating VFR (not very usual for most Bizjet operators), and that I would sternly debrief them. This placated the controller and we hung up the phone. I could tell by the pilots sheepish behavior that they knew they’d really messed up (starting with not letting me in the seat), we agreed that an IFR departure and recovery would’ve been smarter and we proceeded to debrief the flight.

St Louis, MO area shown on VFR Sectional
(c) Foreflight.com

So, while this flight isn’t remembered for the flying qualities of the Challenger, it was a good lesson in FAA Flight Test processes and authority. By the way, after that, my response to “you have to be type rated (to do something in a test airplane)” was (essentially and politely) “No I don’t. Let me know when you figure out how to get me in the seat and I’ll be back.”

British Aircraft Corporation 1-11

January 23, 2025 by Bob Stoney Leave a Comment

Aircraft Information
> Aircraft Make: British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) Model: 1-11. Nickname: One Eleven
> Aircraft Mil Civ Description: Large Jet
> FAA Category and Class: Airplane Multi-engine land
> Engine Description: Twin jet

Aircraft Experience
> As of: 9/2/2021
> Number of Hours Flown: 4
> Number of Times Flown: 3
> Other Aircraft Models Associated: BAC 1-11, BAC-111

First Flown Information
> Sequence First Flown: 62
> Date First Flown: 10/13/1989
> Location First Flown: Baltimore Washington International Airport (KBWI)
> Who and/or What Organization First Flown With: Westinghouse (Northrop Grumman) Flight Test

Recollections: The BAC 1-11 was the British airplane designed to compete with the Douglas DC-9 and the Boeing 737. My three flights (once per year, 1989, 1990, 1991) in this design were all flown on an Experimental version which was an avionics test bed operated by Westinghouse (later Northrup Grumman) at their facility at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport. Over the years, the Navy Test Pilot School has contracted with a variety of companies who operate “systems test bed” or “systems training” aircraft, to enable teaching the discipline of testing radars, FLIRS, and the like. NG was used for many years, until replaced by an organic asset (a P-3 “flying systems classroom”).

The airplane, pretty much like all British Airplanes (and, for that matter, cars) handled very nicely.

Northop Grumman BAC 1-11, N164W (Stock Photo)
(c) Jetphotos.com

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

January 23, 2025 by Bob Stoney Leave a Comment

Aircraft Information
> Aircraft Make: Boeing. Model: B-52. Nickname: Stratofortress
> Aircraft Mil Civ Description: Large Jet
> FAA Category and Class: Airplane Multi-engine Land
> Engine Description: 8 engines (!)

Aircraft Experience
> As of: 9/2/2021
> Number of Hours Flown: 4
> Number of Times Flown: 1
> Other Aircraft Models Associated: none

First Flown Information
> Sequence First Flown: 41
> Date First Flown: 5/6/1988
> Location First Flown: Westover ARB, MA
> Who and/or What Organization First Flown With: USAF Squadron (TBV)

Recollections: Another DT-II exercise as an Instructor at USNTPS (you can see why being an instructor there is one of the best jobs in aviation!). I remember three things about my flight in the “Buff” (Big Ugly Fat F-er):

1) We got to inflight refuel off of a USAF KC-135 tanker. I pulled in and fought hard to stay in position, moving the yoke in roll fairly frequently and aggressively, along with frequent inputs on the throttles (eight of them!). I was working pretty hard. The IP in the right seat says to me “Bob, you’re staying in contact but you’re working too hard…mind if I show you how to do it?” I relinquished the controls and watched him show me how. He pulled in, moving the controls what appeared to me–as a trained test pilot–to be exactly the compensation I’d been using…relatively large/frequent lateral inputs, throttle inputs. And he says “See? It’s not that hard.” I chuckled to myself and took it as a lesson concerning compensation and Cooper Harper ratings.

2) I shot an instrument approach during my “qual eval” and, while on the approach, I got about 3 knots below the target speed. Over the intercom, I heard “you’re 3 slow”. I looked at the IP sitting next to me and his lips weren’t moving. I also didn’t recognize the voice. So, I said “who’s talking?” and the response came “RADAR NAV”. The Radar Navigator on the B-52 is located “downstairs”, on a lower deck below the cockpit, in a window-less area of the airplane. I learned during the debrief that USAF Tech Order so-and-so requires that the Radar Nav verbally report any speed deviation on approach slower than 2 knots. Good job Radar Nav! (though what I was really thinking was “I KNOW I’m slow….I’m working it…YOU come up here and try to fly this thing!”)

3) On my flight, I lucked out and had about a 15-20 knot crosswind on landing. The B-52 is unique in that crosswinds are handled by landing wings level in a “crab”…but the landing gear itself is aligned with the runway by a hydraulically powered system which rotates the landing gear…there’s a control on the aft portion of the center aisle stand where you set the angle/speed of the wind and the rest is automatic (see figure). It worked like a champ! Easiest crosswind landing ever.

B-52 Crosswind landing gear control (stock photo)
(c) aopa.org

Cessna Citation X

January 23, 2025 by Bob Stoney Leave a Comment

Aircraft Information
> Aircraft Make: Cessna Model: 750. Nickname: Citation X
> Aircraft Mil Civ Description: Business Jet
> FAA Category and Class: Airplane Multi-engine land
> Engine Description: Twin jet

Aircraft Experience
> As of: 9/2/2021
> Number of Hours Flown: 8
> Number of Times Flown: 5
> Other Aircraft Models Associated: none

First Flown Information
> Sequence First Flown: 132
> Date First Flown: 10/29/2002
> Location First Flown: Mid-continent airport, Wichita, KS (KICT)
> Who and/or What Organization First Flown With: Cessna Flight Test

Recollections: When describing another Citation (the V), I made the statement “a Citation is a Citation”. When one looks at the Citation X and its extremely complex and highly swept wing, it puts this statement to the test. However, somehow, Cessna managed to design an airplane that–at the time–was the fastest production airplane (with a Max Mach of 0.92) that really flew and operated like all the straight-wind Cessnas that preceded it.

The Citation 750 (“X”) stock photo
(c) Wikipedia

With two GIANT engines in pods near the tail, this airplane set the standard for speed and looks when it came out, and spurred a competition with Gulfstream to make “the fastest bizjet”.

Even though I’m type-rated in the X, my experience level in the actual aircraft is low…consisting of a few avionics projects and production audits.

DeHavilland DHC-2/U-6 Beaver

January 10, 2025 by Bob Stoney Leave a Comment

Aircraft Information
> Aircraft Make: DeHavilland of Canada. Model: DHC-2 (Military: U-6). Nickname: Beaver
> Aircraft Mil Civ Description: Airplane SE Piston
> FAA Category and Class: airplane Single Engine Land
> Engine Description: Single Engine

Aircraft Experience
> As of: 11/4/2024
> Number of Hours Flown: 631
> Number of Times Flown: 368
> Other Aircraft Models Associated: U-6

First Flown Information
> Sequence First Flown: 22
> Date First Flown: 3/20/1986
> Location First Flown: NAS Patuxent River, MD (KNHK)
> Who and/or What Organization First Flown With: US Naval Test Pilot School, Baldwin

The original “Teakettle 31”, USNTPS U-6
(c) US Navy

Recollections: People often ask me “What’s your favorite aircraft?” I usually answer with some variation of “Can’t pick just one”. But, the short list ALWAYS includes the Beaver. Why? Because it’s a joy to fly but, beyond that, it is one of the best airplanes that the US Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS) has in its curricula. Period. This statement often elicits skepticism. I usually address this skepticism with the statement “The U-6 Beaver, as it’s used at TPS, is the perfect F-35 simulator.” This generally confuses and/or adds to the skepticism. I always go on to explain it this way:

One of the missions of USNTPS is to begin to instill in its students “adaptability”. The ability to adapt to new and foreign situations in the conduct of flight test. Ultimately that’s what a tester does….adapts to a new aircraft, a new aerodynamic modification or engine, a new system installed in the aircraft. They must PLAN for their test, CONDUCT the test, and REPORT on the test, all on something that may be very foreign to them. They must adapt, and overcome–to one degree or another–that destabilizing feeling when you’re presented with something new or, to you, unusual. The USNTPS curricula bakes this into their students by repetitive exposure to a huge variety of aircraft. The students test plan, fly, and report on perhaps 20-25 different aircraft during the one year course. And, perhaps the BEST at this role of teaching “adaptability” (at least for the Fixed Wing students) is the U-6 Beaver. Think about it. Most pilots and engineers/NFO’s come to USNTPS (even 30 years ago, and certainly today) without ever having flown a reciprocating-engined airplane. Without operating an engine with 3 levers, just for one engine. Certainly without ever having flown a tailwheel aircraft. In that way, the “newness” of this admittedly 77 year old design is as foreign to a USNTPS student as the prototype F-35 was to the first cadre of its testers.

“Tester 34”, USNTPS U-6 (stock photo)
(c) US Navy

I always loved flying the Beaver, watching the students slowly learn how to fly it. Thinking back on it, it’s amazing that the Navy let me do this because I wasn’t a “taildragger guy”. It’s a testament to how forgiving the Beaver is and to the strength of the USNTPS Instructor checkout program.

Flying the Beaver was also a lesson in variety. My first flight in the Beaver (while a student) was with a Royal Navy helicopter pilot. I flew it twice more as a student with an ex-Brit fighter pilot. When I came back as an instructor, I was trained by Chris Wheal, Tom Russell, Jay Elliott, Mike Carriker and others. I went on to fly it hundreds of times more, on Qual Eval 1 (the first chance for a student to evaluation how an airplane flies…it’s “handling qualities” and to communicate their perspective), Lateral-Directional intro and checkride flights (the U-6 has some interesting Lat-Dir characteristics) and on glider tow flights (the Beaver is a wonderful, if uneconomical, tow plane).

When my family asks me what I want for Christmas present, my answer is always “A DHC-2 Beaver on floats”. I watch them fly by my house in the Seattle area almost daily and the sound is wonderful. I’ve flown a Beaver on floats twice, both at the behest of the Navy. USNTPS often hires a Beaver on floats for a Qual Eval (more of that “adaptability training”) and, in 1988, I flew one at Lake Tahoe to evaluate the idea of TPS buying their own set of floats and doing an exercise using our own floatplane (we already did our own float helicopter using an OH-58 equipped with floats). I discovered that–as good as the Beaver is on wheels–it’s AMAZING on floats. Almost bullet proof. But, the CO decided against getting our own floatplane, concerned about currency and safety. Rumor has it that TPS is modifying their U-1 to turbine power and purchasing floats. Perhaps I’ll get recalled to be an instructor!

DHC-2 N9279Z (stock photo)
(c) Flickr.com