I don't think anyone can argue that Cirrus co-founder Alan Klapmeier is an aviation genius. He started an airplane making company from scratch that with only two main models has dominated the piston single market for years. That company is currently working on a very promising VLJ prospect with several hundred pre-orders. Though Klapmeier is no longer with Cirrus, they are still going strong. The Duluth News Tribune mentioned Monday that Cirrus sales are up 5% this year. That's a stark contrast to sales being down overall worldwide.

Klapmeier came up with a great product and had the vision and leadership to bring it to market. Now, he's set his sights on a new aircraft: the Kestrel. This 6-place composite turboprop is a great next step for an SR22 owner and boasts performance numbers that beat a major competitor, the Socata TBM-850, and threaten to leave most of the VLJ fleet in the dust. It looks like this aviation genius has another great product and is posed to turn Kestrel Aircraft Company into the next Cirrus.

The debate of total time versus training is probably as old as aviation itself. In fact, sailors were probably debating this issue centuries before the Wright Brothers ever got anywhere Kill Devil Hill. Would you rather fly on an airliner piloted by two people who have at least 1500 hours of total flight time or by people trained to operate that specific aircraft in all the normal, adverse and emergency situations it might encounter...even if one of them had fewer than 1500 hours? Is that 1500 hour mark magical? In emergency conditions, is a pilot with 1500 hours guaranteed to save your life when a pilot with only 750 might not? Not in the case of Colgan Airlines Flight 3407. The FO was the low-time crew member with over 2200 hours and they still crashed.

However, ever since that accident some people have been clamoring for higher minimum times for all airline pilots. The bill that made it through congress (HR 5900) set that requirement as a 1500 hour ATP rating for all airline pilots, no matter what seat they're in. Though Some Celebrate this the families of those who died on Flight 3407 celebrate this, I worry that the unintended side-effects of this legislation will cause some serious problems for aviation in America. I don't think I'm alone either.

Looks like the folks at Terrafugia might have a competitor entering the marketplace. Albeit with a slightly less refined solution. The Maverick is essentially a dune buggy attached to a powered parachute, and is targeted to make life easier for those folks working in hard to reach places. I admire the simplicity of the design, not a lot of creature comforts, just what you need to get yourself downrange.

It probably won't go head to head against the folks at Terrafugia, but it's nice to see some more innovation in this whole drive it and fly it space...

When I first heard about the FAA's new rule for ADS-B, I didn't even think to check and see if it made exceptions to allow certain aircraft to operate in controlled airspace without ADS-B. I assumed it would be that way because that's how the current rules regarding transponders work. (This affects gliders, hot air balloons, airplanes not originally equipped with electrical systems and some others.) It turns out that this exemption did carry over into 91.225(e) of the new ADS-B rule (page 140.)

While that makes plenty of sense to someone with an aviation background, it apparently doesn't compute with someone who has little (if any) understanding of the subject. I just realized that fact when I read an editorial in the Washington Examiner yesterday. I'm disturbed and offended that The Examiner would publish such an alarmist story by an author unfamiliar with the subject who didn't bother to do any in-depth research to improve his or her knowledge in the area. However, I'll let that be for a moment.

This article highlights some potential attitudes regarding ADS-B that could prove extremely hazardous to everyone in our country - pilots or not. I want to address these attitudes first.