in such a manner, and use materials of such quality, that the condition of the aircraft is at least equal to its original or properly altered condition.

That reference in the rule, "equal to," is very important. If a mechanic makes a repair "better than" the original, that mechanic made either a major or minor alteration to the aircraft's type design.

Paragraph (c) provides special provisions for air carriers. This paragraph basically states that an air carrier's manual and operating specifications constitute an acceptable means of compliance with Section 43.13, Performance Rules.

The last rule that we are going to talk about in Part 43 is another "new rule" because it has an even suffix number. Section 43.16 when you first read it seems like it is repeating the requirements in Sections 43.13 and 43.15, which is exactly right. This rule further nails down the requirements for air carriers inspections, plus it includes those requirements for operators of large, multi-engine turbine aircraft operated under $91.409(e), who were kind of misplaced in earlier versions of Part 43: Maintenance Requirements.

Part 91: General Operating and Flight Rules

The rules in Part 91 that mechanics concern themselves with are the general operating rules. These rules fall into two broad subparts in the rule. Subpart C refers to additional equipment that must be maintained and Subpart E is about maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations.

Subpart C refers to equipment that, for the most part, was never part of the aircraft's original type design. This additional equipment was added to the aircraft because it either enhances the aircraft's operating environment or because it was required by regulation. An example of equipment that enhances the aircraft's operating environment are transponders, supplemental oxygen, TCAS, GPS, and even aircraft lights. An example of equipment required by mandatory law passed by Congress is the ELT.

The one rule in Subpart C that mechanics should understand is Section 91.213. This section talks to inoperative instruments and equipment. It starts off with: no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed an approved minimum equipment list (MEL) exists for that aircraft or the conditions of $91.213(d) are met. This could mean a log book entry describing the inoperative equipment and that it does not constitutes a hazard to the aircraft: the equipment is not part of the day, VFRrequired equipment; it is not one of the aircraft's required equipment for the kind of flight being conducted; it is not required to be operational by an AD; and the inoperative equipment/control is placarded inoperative.

Granted, while this rule is not especially exciting to read, it can and will get a mechanic in trouble. How so? Because if you do not inspect each inoperative part under §91.213(d) in accordance with §91.405(c) at each 100 hour/annual/progressive inspection the FAA interprets this as not inspecting an "alteration."

This sounds like a wild bureaucratic numbskull notion, but legally a MEL is considered an STC (major alteration) as are the inoperative equipment the pilot signed off under §91.213(d). If you do not perform or record that you inspected the "major alteration" to the aircraft's type design you could be in violation of Sections 91.213 and 43.11 inspections.

Part 91 Subpart E is where we find the requirements for inspections, such as annuals, 100 hour, progressive, and the inspections for large and turbine aircraft under Section 91.409(e)(f). It is also the subpart in which we find the mechanic's favorite rule. Section 91.403 (a) is the rule that the FAA puts the primary responsibility for maintaining the aircraft in an airworthy condition right on the owner or operator.

I believe that 99% of the A&P mechanics have a good working knowledge of the types of inspections out there so I see no need to now go over Section 91.409 in a poor attempt to solidifying my reputation as a regula

tory pez dispenser. But I can offer a few words of advice that mechanics should pay attention to when performing an inspection.

1. If an AD does not apply, then say in the log book that it does not apply. It will save you the trouble and time the next time the aircraft is in for inspection.

2. When signing off an annual, only one entry is required in the airframe log book. Because when the term "aircraft" is used as in "this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with an annual inspection," it includes the entire aircraft and must be signed by one individual.

3. For 100 hour inspections, each log book (airframe/engine/ propeller) must be signed. However, as many as six different mechanics can sign off a twin engine aircraft's airframe, powerplant(s) and propeller(s) log books.

4. FAA allows an IA to supervise a progressive inspection. Sometimes the aircraft is at another location and an A&P signs off a phase inspection. This does not mean that the rule can be stretched until the only part of the aircraft the IA sees is the log books. Supervision includes inspecting the other guy's work and photos or videos of the inspection don't count.

5. Don't forget the new policy on instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA) for major alterations approved under field approvals. The ICA must be made part of the aircraft's inspection program just as if they were ICA that were part of an STC that you installed.

Well, that's your thumbnail sketch of the Federal Aviation Regulations pertaining to mechanics. As I said in the beginning of the article--good or bad, it is a fact that we live in a litigious society and someday the difference between spending a day in court or a day out fishing just might be a regulatory factoid that you pick up after spending nine minutes reading this article.

Bill O'Brien is a National Resource Specialist in Flight Standards' Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Division.

There is a question of whether the actual rate of incidents has increased in as dramatic a fashion as portrayed or whether there is now a greater likelihood that such incidents are reported. Whatever the reason, the number of incidents reported by all airlines attributable to "Air Rage" rose from 296 in 1994 to 921 in 1997. Congress will be debating a bill (S. 1139) introduced to deter "Air Rage" by increasing the civil penalty from $1,100 to $25,000 and helping the industry deter such dangerous behavior. -Editor

he first International Conference on Disruptive Airline Passengers was held in April 1997. From this conference, the airlines' experience with passenger violence aboard aircraft indicated an alarming pattern: From 1994 to 1995, American Airlines reported a three-fold increase (296 to 882) of inflight disruptive passenger incidents; similarly United Airlines noted an almost two-fold increase from 1995 to 1996 (226 to 404).

The diagnosis of "Disruptive Passenger Syndrome" [this term is more often used in England than the U.S.] has been established; therefore, it is incumbent upon the aviation medical examiner to understand the aeromedical basis for "Air Rage" and the legal measures available to aircrew members when these incidents occur.

A disruptive passenger is characterized as one who interferes with aircrew duties and/or the quiet enjoyment of fellow passengers or creates an unsafe flight environment. Disruptive Passenger Syndrome is multifaceted, combining antisocial behavior, the use of alcohol, and perceived loss of control.

Resulting disruptive passenger inci

dents may include assault, battery, and a wide spectrum of other behavior. Aviation medical examiners should understand that the physiological effects of alcohol, both prior to boarding and in-flight, are more profound in the air traveler. Passengers [affected by alcohol] usually have an empty stomach, are mildly dehydrated, and are exposed to the mild hypoxia of a pressurized cabin (at six to eight thousand feet). Alcohol, when combined with anxiety and a perceived loss of control, may turn the normal traveler into a disruptive passenger. This is not the only reason for disruptive behavior, but certainly one of the most common. A wide variety of motives and underlying pathology may exist for this condition. In 1997, for example, 23,000 illegal immigrants were deported by commercial airline with no escort for groups of less than 12. The majority of these deportations were uneventful; however, as one could imagine, several incidents were reported.

In another situation, passengers may resent authoritative airline figures (aircrew members). Passengers have experienced a decline in airline service. to "no frills" accommodations, flight over-booking, and increasingly crowded flights. The resulting stress and "loss of control" may contribute to antisocial behavior.

Disruptive passengers are legally bound by jurisdiction and by both international and U.S. federal law. The 1963 Tokyo Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed On-board Aircraft laid down the foundation for countries to prosecute arriving disruptive passengers. This international agreement was signed by 162 nations and was the basis for future International Civil Aviation Organization agreements (Montreal Conventions,

Aviation Security Act, etc.). Based upon this agreement, the United States prosecutes inbound offenses, regardless of the carrier's nationality. Unfortunately, authority to prosecute does not equate with an obligation to prosecute, and minor offenses committed upon aircraft landing in other nations may go without prosecution (the so-called "jurisdictional gap"). Furthermore, the individual aircrew member or passenger should understand that they have no "standing" before the International Court of Justice (The Hague, Netherlands).

Within the United States, passenger interference is a federal crime. Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulation 14 CFR. 91.11 (also known as FAR § 91.11), passengers may not interfere with aircrew. The statute (title 49 USC 46504) establishes punishment (less than 20 years, if unarmed; life, if armed). Interestingly, federal law applies only to a "closed door" aircraft. For example, if the walkway is still attached and the door open, then local police have jurisdiction.

At the 1997 Disruptive Airline Passenger Conference, airline representatives, law enforcement officials, and members of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants and Allied Pilots Association agreed that communication was the key to successful prosecution. The aircrew member must communicate (give notice) to the passenger that they are disruptive and in violation of a federal offense. American Airlines aircrew actually give a written notice (In-flight Disturbance Report), as do some other airlines. [Several airlines have or are developing guidelines for the management of unruly passengers, as well as training programs for the flight crew to defuse

ogfight

as alarming trend

situations before a crisis develops. If a passenger obeys the written warning, no further action is taken. If the passenger continues to be disruptive, the following steps are taken.] Next, dispatch and airline ground operations must be notified, so that federal authorities meet the aircraft. In order to increase the availability of "federal authorities," some airports have designated local police as "federal deputies" (through the Civil Aviation. Security Enhancement program). In addition, airlines are moving towards "zero tolerance" of disruptive passengers by initiating a Passenger Interference Database and facilitating the involvement of aircrew members with federal cases.

The AME should understand that "Air Rage" offenses are crimes against the individual, not the airline, and that prosecution rests with the U.S. Attorney's office. Alternatively, the individual aircrew member may file an action "in tort." (A tort is an intentional, noncriminal action against the aircrew member.)

Fortunately, "Air Rage" has not expanded to the cockpit; however, the AME should have a general knowledge about the problems faced by aircrew members and their modern-day dogfight with disruptive passengers.

+

Dr. Borrillo is a flight surgeon with the US Air Force's 48th Aerospace Medicine Squadron at Lakenheath Royal Air Force Base, England. He is an AME, Board certified in aerospace medicine, and is also an attorney with the designation of Visiting Scholar, Cambridge University, England.

This article originally appeared in the Summer 1999 The Federal Air Surgeon's Medical Bulletin.

ome of the most rewarding methods of increasing proficiency and enhancing flying safety may be found by challenging oneself to obtain experience in different categories and classes of aircraft. The acquisition of a tailwheel endorsement, a seaplane rating, or glider category add-on are some of the possibilities if you wish to tackle something new.

There are large numbers of glider pilots who fly powered aircraft or who are professional pilots. They enjoy the challenge of flying different aircraft requiring different skills, as well as the cognitive meteorological scheming involved to keep a sailplane aloft, thereby precluding a premature landing. Many power pilots have been known to be quite apprehensive about accepting a flight in a glider. You need not be so concerned. Flight instructors are well aware that very few pilots can transition into a new kind of aircraft and perform well on the first attempt. After a couple of flights in a sailplane your anxieties concerning the security of having a powerplant will subside. Hey, look at it this way: You won't have to be concerned about engine malfunctions or engine failure, and fuel exhaustion will not be of any concern!

Transitioning pilots should try to locate a glider instructor who is also an

instructor in airplanes or at least has rating in powered aircraft. The analo gies used by these types will greativ aid in minimizing some frustrations that present themselves when we become beginner students once again. You will discover that these new skills and habits to be developed will come rapidly. For transitioning power puois Part 61 of the Federal Aviation Reguia tions (FAR) specifies the aeronautical knowledge and experience require ments necessary to obtain a private commercial, or flight instructor certiticate add-on. If you're already power rated there is no written knowledge test required, and one must satisty only the oral and flight portions or he appropriate practical test standard with an examiner. However, a flight instructor glider add-on will entail a writ ten knowledge examination as we' is the requisite practical test.

A glider's overall appearance s very similar to the airplane. Like airplanes, gliders are designed and constructed by different manufacturers. and many distinct features may be found on the various types of designs. Most pilots would readily recognize he long slender wing planform associated with most gliders. This larger aspect ratio allows for greater wing efficiency by minimizing the amount of surface area that would be contaminated by the wing tip vortices. Wing tip vor

tices, of course, are the by-product of the pressure differential that exists between the upper and lower curvatures of a wing. Wingtip vortices are a source of induced drag. Unlike the docile Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 series aircraft, when a roll to a given bank angle is initiated in a glider, a larger excursion of the rudder pedal will need to be applied to counteract the effects of adverse yaw. Recall that the lowered aileron providing the source of lift to roll the glider is also now creating induced drag and form drag. This will serve to retard the forward progress of the raised wing and adversely yaw the aircraft to the outside of the turn. The aileron's greater distance from the longitudinal axis of the glider will now provide a greater yawing moment or adverse yaw effect about the vertical axis. Sailplanes will not tolerate the poor rudder technique allowed in most modern light airplanes. Moreover, gliders have a yaw string to measure the quality of rudder coordination as opposed to the inclinometer found in airplanes. The yaw string is simply one or more short lengths of yarn taped to the canopy. The idea is to keep the yaw string trailing in a straight line. However, unlike the airplane where one "steps on the ball," the glider pilot is required to apply rudder that is opposite the yaw string deflection. Apply the rudder that is opposite the yaw string or more simply "step on the tape." The yaw string indicates whether or not the sailplane is flying straight through the air. With respect to efficiency, the yaw string is the most important instrument on the glider, if one wishes to remain aloft as long as possible.

Many gliders are equipped with flaps like their airplane counterparts and may be used when thermaling aloft when a smaller radius of turn is desired. Moreover, many gliders, (but not all gliders) utilize flaps for departure or landing. More common to all sailplanes, however, are the spoilers or airbrakes. Spoilers are located at or near the center of pressure. Their function is to spoil lift and aid in dissipating altitude. Air brakes, (sometimes referred to as dive brakes) are posi

tioned farther aft on the wing and are usually much larger. "Balanced" spoilers or brakes extend from the top and bottom of each wing. This arrangement allows the brake on the underside of the wing to aid in deploying the brake on the upper surface. Both spoilers and airbrakes produce drag, retard performance, and allow the glider pilot to control the sink rate and steepness of descent. Transitioning pilots need to think of the air brakes on the glider in the same manner they would of the throttle in an airplane during the landing approach. Air brakes are essentially used in the traffic pattern to dissipate altitude and control the sink rate to the landing touchdown.

Glider cockpit instrumentation is not at all dissimilar from airplane instrumentation, with the exception of the variometer. Variometers are similar to vertical speed indicators and depict the glider's rate of climb or descent by detecting pressure changes. There are different types of variometers. Some have audio devices to supplement the visual cues, and others are designed to detect whether the airmass surrounding the sailplane is rising or descending. Most gliders have their variometers coupled to a Total Energy Compensator. This device cancels out false indications of lift and sink (termed "stick thermals") by measuring the summation of both potential (height) and kinetic (speed) energy. This assists the pilot in evaluating the strength of rising or descending air masses. The total energy probe is most likely found on the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer.

Occasionally one may notice gliders that sport small reciprocating engines which retract into the fuselage. These engines may be used to sustain flight when thermal or ridge lift ceases to exist. Other motorgliders are capable of departing or "self launching" completely unaided, contingent upon. weight and density altitude. Another somewhat uncommon launching method is when the glider is placed in motion by a ground launch device such as a powered winch. Gliders may also be towed by a vehicle accelerating down the runway. Winch

launches and auto tows are referred to as "ground tows." Most typically, however, sailplanes in the United States are towed aloft by an airplane. This is simply referred to as an "aerotow." Initially, the aerotow will prove to be most challenging, demanding a pilot's strict attention. To act as pilot in command of a glider executing a different type of launch procedure, the applicant requires training to proficiency and a logbook endorsement from an authorized flight instructor detailing the type of launch equipment used.

Many of the maneuvers practiced in a sailplane are similar to those executed in airplanes. Stalls, turning stalls (there are no power on stalls!), steep turns, slips, flight at minimum controllable airspeed, and spins are some of the most familiar. Glider pilots spend most of their time aloft flying near the critical angle of attack, usually while turning. Consequently, the glider pilot needs to become quite comfortable loitering near the edge of a stall. A sailplane pilot learns to "fly the wing" while managing energy and inertia. One interesting and challenging exercise performed during an aerotow is a maneuver termed "boxing the wake." Visualize flying in trail behind the towplane and then proceeding to maneuver in such a manner as to outline a rectangular-shaped box around the towplane's wingtip vortices and propeller slipstream only to complete the exercise at the same position at which the maneuver was initiated. Tow pilots love this one!

Hopefully, this very brief overview will encourage you to seek more information on the sport of soaring and hopefully treat yourself to a flight. A directory of soaring sites and learning centers may be obtained by calling the Soaring Society of America (SSA) in Hobbs, NM at (505) 392-1177 or by accessing the SSA website at <www.ssa.org>. Flying gliders is one of the most rewarding types of flying fun. Certainly, the best way to find out is to give it a try.

Bob Hill is an Aviation Safety Inspector at the Nashville (TN) Flight Standards District Office.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following story describes an aircraft rescue that involves two lucky pilots, the professionalism and dedication of the U.S. Coast Guard, and the world-wide search and rescue services of the volunteer Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue System (AMVER). The article discusses several important search and rescue decisions that the pilots had to make, decisions that all pilots with a known aircraft problem have to make as they decide to continue flying from daylight into darkness. The question is, is it safer to try to get to a safe haven--or in this case, to land--or is it safer to make a controlled precautionary emergency landing during daylight? Intuitively, most of us assume that making a night emergency landing off airport in the ocean or over hostile terrain increases the accident risk. What would you have done?

The article also highlights the need to make sure your emergency equipment works, the importance of having some type of light on your person in today's world of night vision devices, and the benefit of keeping your backup

emergency locator transmitter or radio out of your life raft. We are not making any judgements on these issues. We only want to give you something to think about. Would you have done anything differently?

side from the plane crash, the two men faced some significant problems. First of all, it was night, and the plane's electrical system was out of commission. They had no lights or electronic signals to guide rescuers to their position. Then the life raft failed to inflate, which hurt, because the plane was sinking quickly in the ten-foot seas. But things really started to look bad. when the men realized the Coast Guard plane was returning to Hawaii, leaving them alone, fighting for their lives against the Pacific Ocean, 300 miles from shore. However, Raymond Clamback, 63, and Dr. Shane Wiley, 50, both natives of Sydney, Australia, had no intentions of letting a few problems spoil their trip to Hawaii. And for that matter, neither did the United States Coast Guard.

Clamback runs an airplane ferrying and flight instruction business in Sydney. He and Wiley were on the second

leg of ferrying a brand-new, $170,000, single-engine Piper Archer III airplane from Vero Beach, FL to Hilo, HI. He's made more than 150 ocean crossings, and has 40 years of flight experience. Clamback's friend Wiley, a novice pilot, was along for the ride. They departed Santa Barbara, CA on November 20 and began the 2,400-mile trip to Hilo with blue skies, a slight headwind, and the morning sun over their left shoulders. Underneath the small plane, the Pacific Ocean waited patiently.

The trouble started 1,700 miles into the trip. At 3:00 p.m., the low engine oil pressure light alerted Clamback that he and Wiley might be going for a swim in the near future. "That's not a good sign. We didn't feel so good," Wiley said.

The nearest airplane mechanic was 700 miles away in Hawaii. Because engines don't work without oil, and airplanes don't fly 700 miles without engines, Clamback immediately contacted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Oakland, CA, to let them know he and Wiley were having problems.

The FAA notified the Joint Rescue Coordination Center (JRCC) in Honolulu. The JRCC is the only emer