ABNA – The Pitch

I would rather hit myself in the thumb with a hammer than try to write a compelling, evocative  blurb about my novel. I realize saying that sets me up for a reader to reply, “That would require your novel to be compelling and evocative,” but I’ll ignore the possibility to speculate on why something that looks so easy can be so hard.

Walk into any bookstore and randomly consider any dust jacket description. It either captures your interest so you’ll plop down the bucks and take it home, or it doesn’t. The difference between the two probably has more to do with what the blurb says than how it says it. That’s because there’s a proven structural “formula” for success, certain key elements that create effective advertising.

One of the “how to write a pitch” suggestions is to spend time reading a bunch of them. I’ve done that, ended up excited about trying it for my novel, sat down at the computer and stared at a blank screen for an hour before deciding to try again another day. What’s up with that?

The only answer I can come up with is that it requires a totally different set of skills than those required to create the novel. That’s not to say I can’t learn how to do it, but that writing the novel hasn’t prepared me in advance.

I’m just speculating, but excessive familiarity might have something to do with it. If we assume that whoever writes jacket copy for a novel has read it, it’s reasonable to assume the person has read it only once. Maybe that facilitates being able to step back far enough to condense the story idea into a relatively few number of sentences.

And maybe one of the reasons I can’t do that easily is that I’ve spent so much time with it, enough to complete over 13 drafts as I struggle to improve both the story and my ability to tell it effectively. I’ve nearly memorized every word, and to condense 100,000 of them into 300 or less is like slaughtering the other 97,700. Did I mention how hard that’s been?

In my first post on this topic, I compared the pitch for the ABNA contest to a query letter for submitting to agents. Since then, I’ve confirmed that round one does in fact narrow the field based upon the pitch alone, from a maximum of 5000 entries in each of the two categories to a maximum of 1000 in each.

I have no illusions about my chances of making the cut by being in the top 20% in my category, which includes everything except young adult. That bundles a wide variety of fiction together into a boxing match refereed by what has to be a similarly wide variety of individual judges. I can only hope that Amazon has avoided selecting evaluators with personal bias, such as that based upon mainstream literary versus commercial genre fiction. Unless, of course, the first-round judge I draw loves to read mysteries and is fascinated with aviation topics.

I may, however, have found within the multiple pages of contest information something to ease my concerns in this regard. The first-round selection criteria based on the pitch are: originality of idea, overall strength of pitch, and the quality of the writing. That seems fair enough, and hopefully the judges are tuned in to only those three evaluation factors.

It’s also informative to note that comments on the ABNA forum point out the role of pure luck. Contestants have said that the same pitch that passed muster on the first round one year resulted in a knockout the next year, and vice versa. It appears that all I can do is enter the ring with my best punch.

Which brings me back to putting on the gloves, and I need to get back to work on my latest version to see if it still carries the power as well as I thought it did last night.

I’m not optimistic, however. I’ve written five versions so far, and each time it’s like another round with a heavyweight.

Before the contest entry deadline, I’m hoping to have written the pitch with a punch.

Odds, anyone?

Posted in Writing | 1 Comment

ABNA

I love acronyms. Especially pronounceable ones. The attachment probably began when I entered the military, and primarily because I became an aviator.

Those of us who fly use discipline-specific acronyms as shortcuts for the same reason any other group does. They serve as convenient shorthand to streamline communication. But pilots have another objective, which is to confuse any non-flyers who might happen to overhear our conversations. That lends a degree of mystery to what we do. It’s all a smokescreen, of course. Almost anyone can learn to fly an airplane, but we’d prefer keeping that to ourselves. Please forget you read that.

The title of this post refers to the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award. Strangely enough, it could serve as something other than an acronym and sound like the way a Southerner might address the hero of a satirical American comic strip: “Howdy, theah, Li’l Abnah. How ya’ doin?”

A friend and fellow writer mentioned the contest or I wouldn’t have known about it. He entered (last year, I think), and made the quarter finals. Considering the contest accepts up to 5000 entries, that’s quite an achievement. One really cool benefit was a critique of the manuscript by none other than Publisher’s Weekly. He told me that the comments he received really helped him see areas in the novel that could be improved. He’s entering again this year, which probably means I’m at least one step further down from where I’d like to be, but that’s the way the brownie breaks.

I’ve got a novel ready to begin submitting to agents if I can jettison (that’s a fighter pilot term) my apprehension long enough to click on SEND. I’ll do that tomorrow . . . or maybe after I get my contest entry ready. Once I send it off, I’ll need to forget about it. Charging back into what I refer to as the “query wars” is as good a way as any . . . but on second thought . . . maybe not quite as good as some small batch bourbon, but close.

The contest rules specify that entries must consist of three items: a pitch (300-word maximum), an excerpt (3000-5000 words), and the complete manuscript (50,000-150,000 words).

I’ve been unable to confirm the specifics of this, but I think round one consists of judging only the pitch. If that’s true, then it effectively serves the same function as a query-letter-only submission to an agent. Any speed bumps will probably send me to the reject pile and my contestant days are over. And even if the first round includes the excerpt, a less-than-effective pitch may leave the writing sample unread.

With the novel in good shape, much improved from the last time I submitted to agents, I’m not planning on trying to complete another edit before the entry deadline. I’ll spend my time on the pitch and use my latest query letter as a starting point.

ABNA includes a forum with threads on writing the pitch. It’s interesting to compare what the contest information says and the consensus on the forum.

ABNA: A cover letter or “pitch” which explains your novel’s concept is required. This must be 300 words or less. The Pitch is more than just a summary; it needs to be a well-written explanation of what the book is about. Talk about your novel’s strengths with respect to how it is being evaluated. Think about the elements chosen on which to judge your novel for the purpose of this contest: its overall strength, plot development, character development, originality of idea, and writing style or prose. Take the time to study your intended market and make sure your Pitch demonstrates that you understand how your book fits within this market and how it will identify with your audience. Remember, the book should resonate with who your readers are. The Pitch should be a concise explanation of your book and why the reader would want to read your novel.

This description reads to me as if it recommends a business approach rather than an evocative one. I’ve seen the former mentioned by agents as “always appropriate” for a query letter, but also noted that many of the query letters agents share with us as examples of what works don’t talk about the novel, but about the story in a concise, clear narrative that reflects the tone of the work and the voice of the author. Here are some thread comments that sounded pretty good to me:

The only things you need to know are that your pitch must be three hundred words or less, or it will not load. If your pitch sucks, it will be rejected. The rest are details. Do not worry about following every rule. There are no rules to writing. There are no rules to pitch writing. Be brilliant or die. That’s it. Why should I spend twenty bucks to buy your book? Sell me. There are however, guidelines. Do mention your genre, and put your novel title in all caps. Do make your pitch interesting. Do give a flavor to your story.

I realize that to ignore official advice in favor of that posted by someone on a forum may seem idiotic, but I also think there’s a difference between what an “official” might think and how a writer approaches the problem of generating interest in a novel on the basis of 300 words or less.

That’s just tough. For me, there’s no easy way to go about it, but I’ve concluded that the pitch should begin with the story and leave the title, genre, word count, and other “business” matters to the last paragraph. Here’s to wishing myself a little luck to go along with the effort.

Now, where’s that bourbon?

Posted in Writing | Leave a comment

C-130 v F-16 Dogfight

It probably goes without saying that fighter pilots can be obnoxious. This is especially true when they make it a point to illustrate the superiority of their aircraft over those they deem flown by less worthy pilots. The following example adds the component of competition between youth and maturity, vitality and cunning.

A C-130 lumbers along minding its own business when an F-16 flashes by close aboard. The C-130 pilot says, “Is that all you’ve got?”

“Not hardly,” replies the jet jockey. “Watch this!” He makes another pass right by the C-130, performs a barrel roll and hauls the F-16 into a steep climb doing aileron rolls.

After a pause, the C-130 pilot asks, “How fast will that thing go?”

The jet jockey laughs and says, “Watch this, and don’t blink or you’ll miss it.” Then he lights the afterburner, accelerates to supersonic speed, and buzzes the C-130 one more time. “What do you think of that?”

“Pretty impressive. Wanna see what I can do?”

“I can’t wait.”

“Okay. Watch this!” The C-130 drones along for about five minutes before the pilot asks, “What did you think of that?”

Puzzled, the fighter pilot says, “I didn’t see a thing. What the heck did you do?”

“I stood up, stretched my legs, walked to the back, took a leak, got a cup of coffee and a cinnamon roll.”

The F-16 pilot scoffs. “Is that all?”

“No, actually. I let your wing commander, who just happens to be on board, use the radio to call the command post and report your unauthorized supersonic flight.”

The moral of this story is:

When you’re young and foolish, speed and flash may seem like a good thing.

But when you get older and smarter, comfort and dull is not such a bad thing.

They can also keep you out of trouble, and us older folks have learned that lesson well.

Posted in Single Ship | 1 Comment

Fastest Tricycle Update

According to National Transportation Safety Board investigators, the American Airlines Boeing 757-200 that ran off Runway 19 while landing at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on November 19,  2010, was missing a bushing, indicating that “the linear actuator in the automatic speed brake mechanism had been improperly installed.” Without the bushing, a cam and switch could have become misaligned and caused a malfunction. Investigators found no discrepancies in the aircraft’s air/ground, autobrake, and thrust reverser systems.

If you haven’t read my earlier post “Fastest Tricycle in the West,” I recommend you do before continuing here as I take a look at what this finding means, which is that investigative attention is now focused on the speed brake/spoiler system on the 757.

First, the terms “speed brakes” and “spoilers” both refer to hydraulically actuated panels on the upper (sometimes lower) wing surface that remain flush (“stowed”) with the surface unless the pilot automatically or manually extends (“deploys”) them. The diagram below shows the location of the 757’s various speed brake/spoiler panels.

In flight, the “air/ground” switch prevents some of these panels from extending and limits the amount of extension on others. This is an important safety feature. If every one of the panels deployed while airborne, the increase in drag and loss of lift would seriously degrade (or possibly destroy) the ability of the airplane to maintain flight. Many normal flight conditions, however, benefit from selective use of speed brakes to control airspeed and increase rate of descent.

Full extension of all panels is highly desirable in two situations on the ground: during an aborted takeoff, or on either a normal or emergency landing. In all cases, reducing airspeed (inertia) quickly is the objective to prevent overrunning the departure end of the runway.

Cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) and digital flight data recorders (DFDRs) capture information essential to the investigation of any inflight or ground incident or accident. A CVR does exactly what you would expect by recording the voices of the cockpit crew. A DFDR monitors multiple aircraft systems and flight/ground parameters, and this inforamation can be “mined” during the investigation.

This 757’s DFDR showed that the speed brakes were manually extended by the flight crew during the approach. While this is probably not a routine procedural action for the 757 (I’ve never flown one), it is perfectly reasonable for the pilot to use speed brakes to help shed excess speed if necessary when on the approach.

The speed brakes were in the armed position for landing. Again, this is a normal action, especially when considering that although braking action was reported as good, the crew would have assumed that the runway was to some degree contaminated with snow. To manually deploy the speed brakes on a 757, the pilot might pull aft on the control handle. To arm them, the pilot might lift the handle up, where it locks into place.

Automatic speed brake deployment occurs when the air/ground switch (typically fastened to the main landing gear, shown at right on a well-worn Cessna Citation) detects compression of the landing gear strut(s). The handle in the cockpit physically moves when this occurs, and normal procedures call for the crew to confirm that the automatic system does in fact deploy the speed brakes and be prepared to deploy them manually should they malfunction.

Although the DFDR does not monitor the position of individual spoiler panels, it provides a time-sequenced record of events. In this case, the air/ground system registered that the aircraft touched down, but then for about one-half second switched back to the air mode before registering ground for the remainder of the rollout. This is not normal (unless the aircraft bounced, but there’s no indication that this was a hard landing). Nor is the fact that during that half second, the speed brake handle momentarily moved toward the down position and then returned to armed.

The thrust reversers, strictly under manual control by the pilot, began to deploy during that half second and remained in the “in-transit” position for about 10 seconds. They then moved to stowed and back again to in-transit, this time for six seconds, before becoming deployed. It took 18 seconds from the time the reversers began moving until they were fully deployed.

This makes no sense. I can’t believe the pilot intentionally did anything with the thrust reverser controls to cause this sequence, and it indicates to me that they malfunctioned. What follows is speculation, but it’s not unfounded.

As noted in my previous post on this incident, the 757 has a reputation for thrust reversers “refusing to engage” and problems with the air/ground logic system. I think these two are not only inter-related, but demonstrate cause and effect.

To say that a thrust reverser deployment inflight is a serious emergency would be an understatement in the extreme. To help prevent that from occurring, when the air/ground logic system “tells” the airplane that it’s airborne, the thrust reverser controls are physically locked in the stowed position. They become unlocked only when the aircraft is on the ground and the air/ground logic system accurately communicates that to all the other related systems.

When I consider the evidence available, I’m dubious about the NTSB’s finding that nothing was wrong with the air/ground logic system.

If the air/ground switch malfunctioned on touchdown and didn’t transfer to ground mode, that could explain why the thrust reversers didn’t operate as designed. And although the passenger video mentioned in my previous post doesn’t provide a view of the 757’s spoilers, they might have malfunctioned for the same reason.

In that event, not all the spoiler panels would have deployed, nor would those that did have extended to their maximum designed angle relative to the upper wing surface. Under this scenario, the inertia-depleting effects of thrust reversers and speed brakes/spoilers would have been severely hampered.

That said, and to reiterate an important point from my previous post on this topic, by regulation the landing data used to determine if the 757 could land safely on the available runway length with the existing aircraft gross weight, weather, and runway surface conditions cannot include the beneficial effects of using those two systems.

I’ll be watching for further information and follow up as necessary to put a period at the end of this story.

Posted in Single Ship | Leave a comment

Advice from the Tractor Seat

I received this from Bill Schwoeble, friend and fellow veteran aviator, who received it from a classmate in United States Air Force Undergraduate Pilot Training. Along with the humor, a wonderful dose of logic underlies these words. My thanks to Bill for sharing.

AN OLD FARMER’S REFLECTIONS ON LIFE

“Your fences need to be horse-high, pig-tight and bull-strong.”
“Keep skunks and bankers at a distance.”
“Life is simpler when you plow around the stump.”
“A bumble bee is considerably faster than a John Deere tractor.”
“Words that soak into your ears are whispered . . .  not yelled.”
“Meanness don’t just happen overnight.”
“Forgive your enemies; it messes up their heads.”

“Do not corner something that you know is meaner than you.”
“It don’t take a very big person to carry a grudge.”
“You cannot unsay a cruel word.”
“Every path has a few puddles.”
“When you wallow with pigs, expect to get dirty.”
“The best sermons are lived, not preached.”
“Most of the stuff people worry about ain’t never gonna happen anyway.”

“Don’t judge folks by their relatives.”
“Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.”
“Live a good and honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you’ll enjoy it a second time.”
“Don’t interfere with somethin’ that ain’t bothering you none.”
“Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.”
“If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin’.”
“Sometimes you get, and sometimes you get got.

“The biggest troublemaker you’ll ever have to deal with watches you from the mirror every mornin’.”
“Always drink upstream from the herd.”
“Good judgment comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgment.”
“Lettin’ the cat outta the bag is a whole lot easier than puttin’ it back in.”
“If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around.”
“Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly, and leave the rest to God.”
“Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.”

And . . .

Posted in Single Ship | Leave a comment

Airport Security Addendum

If you have visited this site in the past and spent any time in the Rants and Raves Logbook, you probably know that I am an opponent of the current TSA security measures at US airports because they: violate our Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure under the mantle of an all-too-convenient principle known as “administrative search; subject innocent travelers who present zero threat to radiation that has not been proven to be safe; require travelers to submit to demeaning, intrusive groping of private parts, and; ignore the potential for a terrorist attack through un-scanned, un-probed access to airliners by thousands of ground crews.

I probably don’t need to repeat that I don’t like TSA. To compare it to the Gestapo is outrageous, but so is their abuse of hastily acquired power.

Based on a recent article in AVweb, last Thursday, security expert Edward Luttwak, a senior associate at the Center for International and Strategic Studies, joined by other critical voices in Washington, said that Constitutional rights issues are not the only problem with current TSA procedures.

According to Luttwak, a test conducted in Europe asked German prison guards to try to sneak explosives past three different backscatter X-ray machines now used at U.S. airports, and they “did so with ease.”

Based on that test, Luttwak says the International Air Travel Association (IATA) believes there is no case for the devices in airport security. Ralph Nader, Congressman Rush Hold and professional pilot Michael Roberts all added their own opinions on the full-body X-ray machines, but focused mostly on privacy, freedom and rights issues. In that context, Luttwak’s argument stands out, and he detailed what he believes are better solutions that the IATA also supports.

AVweb: The alternate method supported by Luttwak and IATA calls for segregation of fliers into groups based mainly on their travel habits. Luttwak: “The guy who has traveled 50 times in the last 50 weeks without blowing up an airplane is unlikely to become a terrorist the 51st time.” Air Transport World reported in December that IATA would like to see that concept integrated with electronic data pre-screening that would divide travelers into three categories — known traveler, regular, and enhanced — for three separate levels of screening. The IATA estimates that some 90 percent of travelers would fall into the known or regular lanes with 10 percent receiving more scrutiny based on their risk factor as determined by pre-screening. Ultimately, biometric data might be used to allow those deemed to present the lowest risk to move through checkpoints without stopping for personal interactions.

TSA is out of control. It is a perfect example of government intrusion run amok with knee-jerk reactions that do not enhance security while they criminalize the flying public. Those of you who think of this as just a minor inconvenience and accept it as the price we all have to pay for being safe are fooling yourselves. Wake up and realize that the TSA security theater is playing a feature film for your benefit titled, Smoke, Mirrors, and Illusion.

Your price of admission? Losing another bit of freedom.

Posted in Rants and Raves | Leave a comment

Uh oh . . .

Low altitude aerobatics are an especially dangerous way to spend time. A friend sent me a link to a series of pictures capturing an amazing event in which the pilot in my opinion uses up whatever bit of good luck he had on that day.

It reminds me of the saying: I’d rather be lucky than good.

Click on this link and you aren’t going to believe it.

Posted in Single Ship | Leave a comment

Senior Citizens and Gadgets

Last August I joined facebook to utilize the triad of website, blog, and the most powerful social networking platform on the planet. It may be popular off the planet as well. I mean, how would we know?

Anyway, according to a friend who knows about these things, it’s the “New Internet,” and we’ll ultimately do everything there. Wonderful. I can’t wait to be more confused by it all than I am right now.

In that spirit, I received this from my sister-in-law. I don’t know who wrote it, but I’d like to meet him. Here’s the testimonial:

When I bought my Blackberry, I thought about the  30-year business I ran with 1800 employees, all without a cell phone that plays music, takes videos, pictures, and communicates with Facebook  and Twitter. I signed up under duress for Twitter and Facebook so my seven kids, their spouses, 13 grandkids and 2 great grandkids could communicate with me in the modern way. I figured I could handle something as simple as Twitter with only 140 characters of  space.

That was before one of my grandkids hooked me up for Tweeter, Tweetree, Twhirl, Twitterfon, Tweetie, Twittererific, Tweetdeck, Twitpix, and something that sends every message to my cell phone and every other program within the texting world.

My phone was beeping every three minutes with the details of everything except the bowel movements of the entire next generation. I am not ready to live like this, so I now keep my cell phone in the garage in my golf bag.

The kids bought me a GPS for my last  birthday because they say I get lost every now and then going over to the grocery store or library. I keep that in a box under my tool bench with the Bluetooth  phone I’m supposed to use when I drive. It’s red. What’s up with that?

I wore it once and was standing in line at Barnes and Noble talking to my wife and everyone within 50 yards was glaring at  me. I had to take my hearing aid out to use it, and I got a little loud.

The GPS looked  pretty smart on my dashboard, but the lady inside that gadget was the most annoying, rudest person I  had run into in a long time. Every 10 minutes, she would sarcastically say, “Re-calc-u-lating.” You would think she could be nicer. It was like she could barely tolerate me. She would let go with a deep sigh and then tell me to make a  U-turn at the next light. Then if I made a right  turn instead   . . . well  . . . let’s just say it was not a good relationship.

When I get really lost now, I call my wife and tell her the name of the cross streets, and while she is starting to develop the same tone as Gypsy, the GPS lady, at least she loves me.

To be perfectly frank, I’m still  trying to learn how to use the cordless phones in our house. We’ve had them for 4 years, but I haven’t figured out how I can lose three phones all at once and have to run around digging under chair cushions and checking bathrooms and the dirty laundry baskets when the phone rings. Who the heck moves them, anyway?

The world is just getting too complex for me, and it even messes me up every time I go to the grocery store. You would think they could settle on something themselves, but this sudden “Paper or Plastic?” every time I check out just knocks me for a loop. I bought some of those cloth reusable bags to avoid looking confused, but I never remember to take them in with me.

Now I toss it back to them when they ask me by replying, “Doesn’t  matter to me. I’m bi-sacksual.” Then it’s their turn to stare at me with a blank look.

I was recently asked if I tweet. I answered, “No, but I do toot a lot.”

I  know some of you receive this are not over 50. I sent it anyway to allow you to forward it to those who are and to make the point that we senior citizens don’t need anymore gadgets. The TV and garage door remotes are about all we can handle.

Speaking of remotes, have you heard about the snippet of conversation (supposedly true) between three old guys sitting in a coffee shop in West Texas shortly after the April 2008 story broke about the raid on the Yearning for Zion ranch?

They were talking about polygamy, and one of the guys says, “Why would anyone want more than one wife? It’s hard enough getting control of the remote as it is.”

And it’s hard to argue with the wisdom of that.

Posted in Single Ship | Leave a comment

Middle East Optimism?

First off, let’s make it clear that as a veteran of a useless hot foreign war and an essential cold one, I have strong personal opinions about the manner in which America uses its military power in pursuit of national security objectives. So when I read a headline like “Biden Grows Optimistic About Iraq,” there’s no way I can avoid reading the article, this one by Gerald F. Seib in the Wall Street Journal. The following borrows heavily from that source.

Although Biden recently presided over the Senate as it ratified a new strategic arms agreement with Russia, his personal most important national-security moment occurred earlier that same day when he called leaders of Iraq’s key political factions to congratulate them on having finally formed a new coalition government. In an interview, he said that while failure to ratify the agreement would have been “really bad,” the “really big story is [a stable] Iraq,” because that objective is crucial to the paramount requirement of American policy: building up bulwarks to stop the expansion of Iranian influence in the Middle East.

Oh. Now I get it. We were promised by the cowboy “W” that we wouldn’t be nation-building in Iraq. But bulwark-building is okay. These guys are really tricky with the words.

Biden’s optimism is rooted in the inability of Iran to influence formation of the new government in Iraq, in spite of handing out money to the tune of $100 million trying to buy outcomes. And when achieving that objective through Iraqi supporters failed, the Iranians unsuccessfully tried making Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki their own.

Biden’s positive evaluation is also heavily influenced by his personal involvement while he was a senator and now as Vice President, having made six visits to Iraq and weekly calls to Mr. Maliki and other factional leaders among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds to nudge them toward agreement.

That begs the question, of course, as to how much America has spent trying to buy the outcome we want. In the meantime, while ignoring the runaway budget crisis at home, we’ll continue to crow about the good news as defined by those who brought us to this point.

Mr. Maliki hasn’t (as yet) crossed the three “red lines” Washington insisted be avoided: to form a government without the participation of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds; to allow the followers of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to control any part of Iraq’s security apparatus, and; to put Sadr’s followers in a position to bring down the government on their own.

Further justification for Biden’s optimistic view results from having looked at a map and concluding that “Iran has a long border with Iraq.” He acknowledges that they should and will have a relationship, but the new government means the relationship can be on Iraq’s terms. The ability of Iraq to resist Iran’s coercion is key to American policy toward containing Iran’s expanding influence and move toward nuclear weapons capability.

But in spite of Biden’s pat on the back to himself, ambassadors-to-Iraq Ryan Crocker, Christopher Hill, and James Jeffrey, he admits that “they’ve got a lot of hard decisions coming up now.” Giant problems remain, and Seib’s article provides an accounting to include: unfilled cabinet posts, others created as pacifiers to various factions, a Kurdish north riven by disagreements with Arabs, and Mr. Maliki’s announcement that U.S. troops cannot remain in Iraq beyond the end of this year unless a new security agreement is negotiated by then.

That bodes ill. We’re going broke, but we’ll find a way to justify borrowing more as we continue trying to buy the outcome we want. And based on our dismal record in Iraq so far, in which total lack of oversight lost track of billions, we’ll throw billions more into a bottomless pit of fraud and waste on a gargantuan scale.

Civilian contractors must be smiling as they eagerly await the next opportunity to stick their greedy paws into a gushing flow of greenbacks.

Posted in Rants and Raves | Leave a comment

Fastest Tricycle in the West

For non-pilots who usually fly in airliners and rate a flight based on the landing more than any other criteria, and who judge the quality of the landing by the touchdown, let me expand your knowledge of this most important pilot task by pointing out that when the wheels meet the concrete it ain’t over yet.

The reason is that the airliner has just become the fastest tricycle in the West, and the potential for mayhem still exists in the form of inertia: a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line. Some of you may remember the formula: inertia equals mass times velocity squared. What this means is that something really heavy (like an airliner) going fast (well over 100 mph) has bunches of inertia waiting to cause the pilot a real headache if something goes wrong.

To avoid inertia-related problems, the pilot needs to reduce it. Since lowering gross weight at that moment is not possible, slowing up is the only option, and modern airliners offer the pilot three ways to do that: brakes, spoilers, and thrust reversers. Spoilers are panels built into the top of the wing (shown in color on the diagram of the Boeing 757 upper wing surface) that can be raised into the slipstream to create drag. Thrust reversers deflect a portion of engine exhaust forward. (The dark ring at the rear of the Boeing 777’s engine pictured on the right is a deployed reverser) Both are very effective at shedding airspeed, especially early in the landing roll when speed is highest.

At touchdown speeds, brakes are the least effective of the three, which leads to an interesting safety measure when figuring landing data: all landings are planned without considering the beneficlal effects of spoilers and thrust reversers. It’s as if they are “extra.” Although you normally use them, you never count on them.

Runways “contaminated” with water, slush, snow, or ice complicate the landing problem because the brakes aren’t very effective for slowing the airplane if the tires aren’t in solid contact with the runway. Although the pilot still can’t plan to use them, spoilers and thrust reversers are much more valuable when landing in these conditions because they don’t rely on friction. In case you figured this explanation was leading up to something, you were right. The following borrows heavily from AVweb.

On December 29, 2010, an American Airlines Boeing 757 ran off the end of Runway 19 in snowy conditions while landing at Jackson Hole Airport. About seven inches of snow had fallen in the area since midnight, but the runway itself had good braking coefficients (a measure of braking effectiveness, which means that the pilots had no reason to suspect that runway conditions were not suitable for landing). No injuries were reported among the 181 passengers and crew on board.

The incident was partially recorded on video by a passenger and posted on YouTube. The video, taken out of a window, shows a portion of the wing upper surface and the top of an engine and has led to a fair amount of speculation by some pilots.

The aircraft appears to be on the ground prior to passing the wind sock and PAPI lights (visual glide path indicators, the four lights located near the approach end of the runway), which indicates the pilot touched down at an appropriate point and did not “land long.” In the video, the engine’s thrust reverser panel first moves just after touchdown, but it does not fully open and the outboard spoilers are not visibly deployed. Because of that, things quickly get more interesting.

A full ten seconds after touchdown, the thrust reverser panel moves from barely open to closed, and does not begin to reopen, this time fully, until approximately seven seconds later (17 seconds after touchdown). The engines do not appear to spool up (to increase the amount of reverse thrust) until roughly ten seconds later. From this we can conclude that the 757 rolls on the runway for 27 seconds before the reversers appear amply engaged. This is way too late to be of much use, and the aircraft departs the end of the runway roughly nine seconds later. That moment is very obvious on the video.

Pilots who claim to be familiar with the 757 have left comments in professional pilot forums stating that the thrust reversers on the 757 can sometimes refuse to engage. Others have speculated that a problem with the hydraulics or Boeing’s air/ground logic system (which, in plain language, “tells” the aircraft whether it’s on the ground or in the air) could have prevented the spoilers, reversers, and the brakes from working properly.

Subsequent events have focused a spotlight on the actions of American Airlines immediately following the incident.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), airline technicians violated standard procedures when they removed the cockpit voice recorder and the digital flight data recorder (DFDR) and flew them to Tulsa, Okla., where technicians downloaded information from the DFDR. It is common in incident investigations for the airline involved to transport the recorders on their own aircraft, to get them to NTSB labs in Washington. D.C., as quickly as possible. The airline is instructed to transport the recorders without delay and without accessing the information contained within them by any means.

NTSB: “Although a thorough examination by our investigators determined that no information from the DFDR was missing or altered in any way, the breach of protocol by American Airlines personnel violates the Safety Board’s standards of conduct for any organization granted party status in an NTSB investigation. We have revoked the party status of American Airlines and excused them from further participation in this incident investigation.”  (Note: “party status” is a term used by the NTSB to designate outside organizations that will be allowed to play a role during an investigation. American Airlines, Boeing Aircraft, and Pratt & Whitney — the engine manufacturer — would all be given party status as a normal procedure.)

There will be more to come as the NTSB conducts its investigation. In the meantime, I’ll do a bit of speculating on my own: if no mechanical malfunction is discovered, this incident will be labeled as a result of pilot error. When you touch down on a runway that might be contaminated with snow, slush, and/or ice, it’s imperative that you recognize the potential mayhem that awaits the fastest sled in the West and actively plan to avoid it.

At main gear touchdown, check throttles at idle, lower the nose gear to the runway, deploy the thrust reversers, confirm that the automatic system has deployed the spoilers, and increase reverse thrust (to the maximum if necessary) to slow the aircraft as rapidly as possible. Depending on the runway condition, test the brakes by applying them as well and be alert for anti-skid cycling, which indicates the wheels are in contact with the runway, and any tendency of the aircraft to veer off of runway heading.

Then the passengers will deplane (at the gate, not into a snow-covered field) with admiration in their eyes and nods of appreciation to you, the steely-eyed aviator, for the magnificent display of cockpit prowess they just witnessed.

(Please forgive me for that last paragraph, but I just couldn’t help myself.)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Posted in Single Ship | 1 Comment