378 More on Best Glide + Bad Pilots and ATC in the News
01:03:59 Share

About a month ago, in episode 372, I analyzed the crash of November 2 Uniform Zulu, a Bonanza B-35 that suffered an engine failure at 7,500 feet over Virginia. And you sent me more emails about that episode than any other episode in recent memory.

So today our intern Kelly will be reading some of them, including one from a listener who wrote that she heard the episode and told her husband about it, and he used one of the tips we talked about when he later had an engine failure. And we have ATC audio from that emergency. We also have analyses of two fatal crashes this past week, one of a TBM 700 that crashed into a house in Minnesota and an SR-22 that crashed an IMC in New Jersey.

Hello again and welcome to Aviation News Talk where we talk in general aviation. I'm Max Trescott. I've been flying for 50 years. I'm the author of several books and the 2008 National Flight Instructor of the Year. And our mission here at the podcast is to help you become the safest possible pilot.

Last week in episode 377, some of you said it was one of our best episodes ever. And we talked with Dr. Tony Kern about human error, airmanship, and the hidden threats that pilots can pose to themselves. So if you didn't hear that episode, you may want to check it out. Head on out to aviationnewstalk.com slash 377. And if you're new to the show, welcome. Glad you found us. Now,

Now, if you would just take a moment and whatever app that you're using to listen to us and touch the subscribe key, or if you're using Spotify or the Apple podcast app, the follow key so that next week's episode is downloaded for free. And my thanks to these people who signed up in the past week to support aviation news talk. We had one-time donations from Jamie Johanson and from Timothy Free, who's a repeat donor.

If you'd like to hear your name next week, sign up now to support the show by going out to aviationnewstalk.com slash support.

Coming up in the news for the week of March 31st, 2025, it's almost like an episode of Cops because we have a slew of stories of bad behavior of pilots and controllers that all come from the past week, including an air traffic controller charged with assaulting a colleague, a Swiss air traffic controller found guilty of negligent homicide related to a crash, and a student pilot who crashed while carrying passengers. All this and more in the news starts now.

And here's a story that came out just as we were finishing episode 377 last week, but there was only one source. It was from overseas. And frankly, I kind of questioned whether the story was real, but turns out it is. From thewashingtonpost.com, air traffic controller charged with assaulting a colleague in the Reagan National Tower. That's TCA. A work dispute led to an altercation between employees and the control tower at Reagan National Airport last week on Thursday night. People familiar with the matter say.

An ATC supervisor at Reagan National punched a colleague during a dispute in the control tower that forced others to step away from their duties to intervene, according to two people with knowledge of the incident.

A spokesperson from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority said that a 39-year-old controller was arrested Friday and charged with misdemeanor assault and battery following reports of an incident in the tower at DCA. He was taken to the Arlington County Jail, served with a misdemeanor summons, and released.

Two people familiar with the incident, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive law enforcement matter, said the altercation began after a disagreement about operations.

The controller, the people said, began yelling at the other air traffic controller and then punched him in the face. Other controllers who were in the middle of communicating with aircraft had to leave their positions to restrain him, the people said, a possible safety concern. Spokesperson for the FAA said only that, quote, the employee is on administrative leave while we investigate the matter. Online records indicate that he's been an air traffic controller since at least 2015.

The air traffic control system at National Airport has been under scrutiny after a mid-air crash between a military helicopter and a commercial jet occurred just beyond the airport runways in January, killing 67. The crash is still under investigation, but a preliminary FAA report said staffing at the tower on the night of the crash was, quote, not normal. FAA data indicates that 90% of its facilities were understaffed as of September.

And on Friday, the day after the reported altercation, a Delta Airlines passenger jet leaving National had to maneuver to avoid a potential collision with a group of Air Force jets, the FAA said. Audio of the incident indicated that the Delta pilot asked a controller if an aircraft was 500 feet below them, and the controller responded affirmative. And in a related story from PaddleYourOwnCanoe.com,

FAA says it's sending counselors to the control tower at Oregon National. The FAA is sending crisis counselors to the tower at Oregon National and reviewing the number of arrivals that controllers are expected to deal with after a bloody brawl broke out between two on-duty staffers last week. A 39-year-old air traffic controller involved in the incident has been arrested and charged following the incident that reportedly left blood splattered across one of the computer consoles that control flight movements at the airport.

Sources say the fight is a sign of just how much stress the small team of controllers is under at DCA following the January 29th midair collision that killed 67. In the aftermath of the accident, the controllers have been under intense pressure to safely manage the heavy air traffic around the airport, while the FAA has come under fire for not providing enough support to the stressed team who witnessed the harrowing moment that the aircraft collided in January.

Without specifically referencing the physical altercation or the criticism it has faced, the FAA said in a statement on Wednesday that it was, quote, increasing support and oversight for the air traffic control team at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

The FAA also said it was evaluating current arrival rates at DCA, which could result in flights being cut to the airport to allow more time between planes landing at the airport. To support the well-being of controllers, a critical incident stress management team will visit DCA in early April, offering confidential support for staff following stressful events. The FAA will also conduct regular wellness checks at the facility.

In addition, the FAA said it would increase the number of supervisors at the control tower and review whether the number of frontline controllers was proportional to the workload. At present, most aircraft arrivals are disproportionately concentrated in the last 30 minutes of every hour, so the FAA could try to spread arrivals across each hour in order to alleviate pressure on the tower. From Swissinfo.ch, air traffic controller found guilty in Swiss military jet crash.

Over eight and a half years after the fatal F-18 military jet accident in Switzerland, an air traffic controller has been found guilty of negligent homicide by a military appeals court. He received a suspended fine. The Second Military Court of Appeals upheld the acquittal of the second fighter jet pilot.

The court sentenced the 42-year-old Sky Guide air traffic controller to a suspended fine of 11,400 Swiss francs, which is about $13,000 U.S. He had already been given a suspended fine by an earlier court. The controller and the prosecutor had appealed that sentence. And by the way, just as background, Sky Guide is the private company that provides all ATC services in Switzerland.

The military court of appeals found the man guilty of negligent homicide because he had informed the crashed F-A-18 pilot that he was flying too low.

The 27-year-old pilot collided with the mountainside. The pilot was killed and the aircraft destroyed. In explaining the verdict, the presiding judge stated that if the air traffic controller had ordered the specified minimum flight altitude of 15,000 feet instead of the incorrect 10,000 feet, the collision with the mountains would not have occurred. Quote, your radio message triggered the maneuver and the collision, he told the pilot.

The radio message was an instruction, and the pilot could therefore trust it. The air traffic controller could have corrected the order later. However, the court also acknowledged that there had been a chain of unfortunate circumstances. The stressful situation, the level of training, and the over 60-year-old radar, which is no longer in operation, were cited.

The judge noted if just one wheel had turned differently, nothing would have happened. The presiding judge stated that the air traffic controller's primary task was to vertically separate the F-18, which had just taken off, from the fighter jet that later collided with a mountain. He wanted to prevent a collision between the two aircraft. They wanted to save lives. They wanted to resolve the situation, the judge said. According to the verdict, the convicted man must pay half of the cost of the proceedings, which is 38,000 Swiss francs.

And Fox40.com, in an interesting twist to a story, a pilot in Alaska who survived a night on a frozen lake after the plane began sinking, is now facing disciplinary action.

There was a story out about a week ago about a missing Piper PA-12 supercruiser in Alaska that was later found. Now, that's a very old high-wing Piper, and the plane was found a day later. And there's an amazing photo of the plane that had broken through the ice of a lake with three family members on top of the wing. This is a follow-up to that story, which we didn't cover at the time since everything seemed to have turned out well.

A pilot rescued with two young family members after they survived a night on the wing of an airplane partially submerged in an Alaska lake is a student pilot who was not authorized to fly with passengers. The FAA on Friday started disciplinary action against the pilot, according to NTSB investigator Mark Ward. The pilot has thus far not cooperated with federal investigators about what happened on the flight. He has neither returned their calls nor reported the accident within the required 24-hour period.

Investigator Ward said, quote, the FAA told me that he is a student pilot. He had no application in for a pilot's license, and it appears that he has a history of violating the no passenger rule. Quote, at this point, we don't know whether he landed purposely or for an emergency procedure, and he's not talking to us. One of about a dozen volunteer pilots who headed out in the search for the plane spotted it with the three survivors on the wing.

The Alaska Army National Guard launched a helicopter from Anchorage to rescue and deliver them to a nearby hospital. Based on interviews with the helicopter's pilot and rescue crew chief, Ward said it appeared that the plane had landed near a glacier on the partially frozen lake, broke through the ice as it rolled to a stop, and then began to sink. The plane's canvas or fabric-covered wings acted as a flotation device and kept it from fully sinking, he said. That's what saved them.

The pilot was able to get the girls out of the plane as it was slowly sinking, and the girls' clothes were dry when rescuers arrived.

but the pilot got wet and was suffering from hypothermia by the time rescuers arrived. FAA records show that the pilot received a student pilot license in 2018. Ward said it's probable that if a student pilot was unlawfully flying passengers and suffered an accident, any insurance claim would be denied, leaving the pilot responsible for damage and for the cost of recovering the aircraft from the lake.

And also from Alaska, this comes from alaskanewssource.com, former Palmer, Alaska pilot responsible for near midair collision sentenced. A Palmer man was sentenced on Wednesday to three years of probation with a fine of $10,000 for operating an unregistered aircraft without a license. The pilot, age 57, was an aviation business owner and pilot for 30 years, flew a Piper Cherokee aircraft delivering goods to Alaskans around the state.

In June 2023, he was reported to the FAA for failing to radio his intention to take off and flew into oncoming air traffic, nearly causing a midair collision. After an investigation by law enforcement, they discovered he was operating an aircraft without a valid license or registration.

FAA issued an emergency order of revocation of his ATP certificate, which required him to immediately surrender his certificate or file an appeal within 10 days. He failed to do either and continued to operate his aircraft without a valid certificate until his initial arrest in July 2024. He was later released pending trial and failed to appear for multiple court hearings. He was rearrested in September 2024.

In December, he was convicted by a federal grand jury for his aviation violations. From BenningtonBanner.com, which is a newspaper in Vermont, stalker pilot takes plea before trial begins. In a story that we talked about in episode 295, a New York man arrested in October 2023 for using a private plane to stalk and terrorize a Schuylerville, New York woman over four years has taken a plea deal with prosecutors two days before his trial was to begin.

The pilot, age 65, was charged with five counts in 2023, two felonies, and three misdemeanors. The charges included aggravated stalking with court order violation, violation of an abuse prevention order, giving police false information in order to implicate another, attempting impeding of a public officer, and resisting arrest. The pilot pleaded no contest to one count of felony aggravated stalking while under a court order.

In exchange for his guilty plea, prosecutors dismissed all four of the remaining charges. He was sentenced to a one- to two-year term, concurrent, all suspended with a five-year probation, which overlaps with supervision from another case with the same victim in New York. The pilot was facing a possible 11 years behind bars if found guilty at trial. And finally, from ocregister.com, that's a paper from Orange County in Southern California,

Man who flew drone over Vandenberg Space Force Base, sentenced to time served. A 39-year-old man who illegally flew a drone over Vandenberg Space Force Base and photographed the military complex was sentenced Monday to four months he has already served behind bars.

Yingpao Zhou of Contra Costa County pleaded guilty on March 10 to one federal count of violating the National Defense Airspace. In an L.A. courtroom on Monday, U.S. District Judge John Walter also sentenced Zhou to a year-long period of supervised release and ordered him to pay $225 in fines and special assessments.

Joe was arrested December 9th at SFO prior to boarding a China-bound flight. According to court papers, detection systems at Vandenberg in Santa Barbara County discovered the drone on November 30th flying over the base. Trackers found that the drone flew for nearly an hour, traveled to an altitude of almost one mile above ground level, and originated from Ocean Park, a public area next to the base.

Base security personnel went to the park, spoke to Joe and another person accompanying him, and learned that Joe had a drone concealed in his jacket, the same one that flew over the base. Prosecutors and agents later searched Joe's drone pursuant to a warrant and saw several photographs of Vandenberg taken from an aerial viewpoint.

A search of his phone showed that Joe conducted a search for the phrase Vandenberg Space Force Base Drone Rules and messaged another person about hacking his drone to allow it to fly higher than it could otherwise. Joe is a Chinese citizen and lawful permanent resident of the U.S. Well, that's the news for this week. Coming up next, a few of my updates, including analysis of two fatal crashes in the past week. And later, our intern Kelly will be here to read some of your emails. All right here on the Aviation News Talk podcast.

And now let's get to the good news. First, congratulations to Peter Langworthy. He says, I love your podcast. I've learned tons listening to your interviews with the various DPEs. I passed my CFI initial checkride earlier this year on the first try, and your podcast played a big part in making that happen.

Thanks again for what you do, and I'll be sending a Venmo contribution to help support the show. Peter, thanks so much. Congratulations to you. And if you have good news to share, just send me a note and let me know. Just go out to aviationnewstalk.com and click on Contact at the top of the page.

And here's more good news. I just checked the rankings in the Apple podcast app and of the more than 250 aviation podcast, aviation news talk was ranked number one for four of the past 10 days, which is a pretty good showing as no podcast is number one every day of the week. So thanks for your support. And please tell all of your friends about the show and encourage them to hit the subscribe key.

And there's even more good news. Best of all, it's about my favorite airport. Long-time listeners know that that's the Oceano Airport, L52, right on the coast in California. It's my favorite because it's close to the beach. They have bicycles you can borrow at the airport and then ride the short distance into town. And best of all, it's the only beach in California that allows motorized vehicles on the beach.

And it has the biggest sand dunes I have ever seen, which run for an eight mile stretch down the beach. And you can rent ATVs and dune buggies to go flying up and down the sand and just go flying over the top of those dunes. But unfortunately, a couple of years ago, the California Coastal Commission said that this vehicular traffic would have to be eliminated in three years, which meant no more fun riding up and down the dunes.

But here's the good news. It's a news release from the Friends of Oceano Dunes, which was one of the parties that sued, it says, quote,

Today, the California Court of Appeal in Ventura held that the California Coastal Commission exceeded its authority in attempting to ban OHV, or off-highway vehicles, at Oceano Dunes. The court stated, The Commission's attempt to ban OHV use at Oceano Dunes contradicts the plain language of the certified local coastal plan. Such a ban thus amounts to amending the LCP, a power reserved to the county. It further stated,

Hence, we conclude the commission did not have the authority to phase out OHV use by unilaterally amending the Oceano Dunes development permit because the LCP permits such use. The LCP states that one of its goals is to maximize public recreational opportunities, including OHV use at Oceano Dunes.

So I'm excited. That's fantastic news. Put it on your to-do list when you get a chance. Fly to L52, the Oceana County Airport, and have fun riding an ATV up and down the dunes. Now, by the way, that runway is just 2,325 feet long by 50 feet wide. So if you're flying a faster plane, practice those short field landings before you get there.

And more good news. Flying Magazine has just posted a link to a really fun story that I wrote for the February issue. They sent me to Southern California where I spent a full day at three separate locations with Skyrise.

That's a startup that's building the Skyrise 1 helicopter, which has a revolutionary cockpit configuration that eliminates traditional controls such as cyclic, collective, and pedals. Instead, it features a single centrally mounted control stick, two touchscreen displays, all powered by a triply redundant fly-by-wire flight control system, and their own proprietary SkyOS. And we talked about Skyrise in episode 339 when I first visited them.

This time they had me test fly a regular production Robinson R-66 helicopter, which was my first time flying in a turbine helicopter. From there, we went into their simulator so I could compare flying it to the standard R-66 that the Skyrise 1 is built around. And then I drove to a third location where I was able to sit in a prototype of the Skyrise 1.

And you can read my article and learn more about this amazing helicopter by going to the show notes, which you can find by going to aviationnewstalk.com slash 378 and clicking on the link for Skyrise.

And now let me tell you about our video of the week. This was suggested by listener Daniel Switkin in an email that Kelly will be reading in a few minutes. Daniel mentioned that AOPA recently tested the glide range feature on three different EFB apps in three different airplanes and found that they failed to make the runway in every case. And he suggested that I share that video as the video of the week.

Now, the links for our videos of the week are on that same page with links you can use to become a supporter and start supporting the show. So when you go to view the videos, look at the bottom of the page for the video links. And up on the top of the page, you'll see four options listed for supporting the show. Just choose one of those and donate. So to see all of our videos of the week and or to support the show, go online to aviationnewstalk.com slash video.

And just a quick reminder that whenever you buy a headset, make it a Lightspeed headset. And when you do, Lightspeed will send a check to support Aviation News Talk, but only if you first go to a special link that we've set up for you to get to their website. So when you buy, go first to aviationnewstalk.com slash Lightspeed, which will take you to their website where you can make your purchase.

Now let's talk about three fatal accidents from the past week. It's been a pretty bad week for aviation. Yesterday on Wednesday night, a Cessna 210 crashed in Louisiana, killing the man and woman on board. The pilot was apparently the owner of a waterfly operation, and the woman was reportedly training as a pilot for the company. The crash occurred about 8.30 p.m. local, so it would have been dark. The plane took off from somewhere near New Orleans and headed west-southwest.

FlightAware shows that it was not on an IFR flight plan. The plane was in the air for about 15 minutes at an altitude of 3,000 feet. As it approached the airport in Houma, Louisiana, it started to descend with a rate varying between 170 feet per minute and 700 feet per minute. The last day at point captured was at 2,100 feet, and the plane was still in control at that point. The weather at Houma Airport was reported to be 1,400 foot overcast.

The airport had been overcast the entire day. So unless this accident involved an engine failure, which is possible, it appears to be a VFR flight that entered IMC and lost control at night. And of course, our condolences to both families. And I'm sorry to report that a CERS pilot died in New Jersey on March 30th.

The aircraft, November 319 Tango Mike, was a 2024 SR-22G7 that was delivered in July 2024, so it was just eight months old. I've heard from a listener to the show that this was a rental aircraft and that the pilot was a renter pilot. Reports identify the pilot as a 61-year-old man who founded a pharmaceutical company. There is no weather reporting at the Princeton Airport. The closest weather reporting is from Trenton Airport.

which was reporting winds at 080 at 9, visibility 9, overcast at 500 feet, temperature 7, dew point 7, altimeter 3013. According to FlightAware.com, the pilot was on an IFR flight plan, but appeared to lose control about four minutes after takeoff. The Newark departure frequency for the area was not recorded by LiveATC.net, so we don't have a recording of the conversation between the pilot and ATC.

According to data from ADSBExchange.com, the pilot took off at 10.30 a.m. from runway 10 and made a small turn to fly northeast consistent with his IFR clearance. The autopilot was engaged a minute later at approximately 950 feet MSL in heading mode with a heading of 100 degrees and a level-off altitude of 2,000 feet. The ground speed was initially 107 knots and the climb rate was about 1,100 feet per minute.

A minute later, while flying at 125 knots, the autopilot captured the target altitude of 2,000 feet and went into altitude hold mode. The aircraft then began to accelerate as you would expect when an aircraft levels and crews. One minute later, for reasons that are unknown, the autopilot disconnected. Just a minute and 39 seconds later, the aircraft crashed. Now I've loaded the ADS-B data into flystow.net and here's what happened after the autopilot disconnected.

The aircraft lost about 100 feet and then climbed back up to its target altitude. It entered a slight climb and then entered a rapid descent that reached 2,300 feet per minute. A right turn developed and the aircraft lost a total of 600 feet. It then pitched up briefly, climbing at over 200 feet per minute and regaining 300 feet. The aircraft then entered a left turn, descending at up to 4,000 feet per minute. It briefly leveled off in the turn before descending again at over 5,000 feet per minute.

In that final left turn, the aircraft turned more than 270 degrees. By looking at the turn radius and the ground speed, I was able to calculate that the aircraft was in about a 57 degree bank throughout that final left turn. Now the accident data has the signature of spatial disorientation and loss of control on IMC. It's also similar to several other accidents we've discussed in the past year in which aircraft crashed shortly after the autopilot disconnected.

Now, that's a cautionary tale that we all need to be vigilant whenever we're flying with an autopilot and be prepared to either fly proficiently when it disconnects or quickly re-engage the autopilot.

That being said, I have thousands of hours of flight with the Garmin GFC 700 autopilot that was in that aircraft, and I can't remember a single instance of it ever disconnecting on its own. So, I think it's likely the pilot disconnected the autopilot, either accidentally or on purpose. I've accidentally disconnected the autopilot in the Cirrus Vision Jet several times, but

Because the autopilot disconnect button sticks up far enough from the side stick that it's easy to brush the button when moving your arm, and the button is relatively sensitive.

But the setup in the SR-22 is different, and it's much harder to accidentally hit that button because the button is flatter and doesn't stick up as high. Yet, I've seen people accidentally turn off that button when they're stressed. For example, on occasion, I've seen pilots press the autopilot disconnect button instead of the push-to-talk button. So it's entirely possible that this pilot was responding to a call from ATC and pushed the wrong button.

But a well-trained pilot should be able to quickly recover from this mistake if they have a lot of experience using the autopilot in the aircraft they fly. And here's part of the problem. I exchanged text messages about this accident with a listener who is a high-time Cirrus instructor, and I said, quote, why in the heck aren't people using the autopilot when it appeared to me that he was flying by hand? He wrote back, that's because some instructors won't allow you to use the autopilot until you can hand-fly everything. The

The result is they never get enough knowledge to understand and trust what does that button do. And I wrote, when I'm teaching student pilots, they start learning to use the autopilot on the first flight. I think it's the only way to go. It's not something to be learned at the end. And he replied, as do I. Everything with the autopilot first, then by flight director, then hand flying.

25 years ago when I was teaching in 25-year-old Cessnas, there were few autopilots except in higher-end airplanes. And there was an unfortunate culture among some flight instructors that they didn't teach people how to use the autopilot since, quote, real pilots don't use the autopilot. I think the reality is that many of these instructors didn't know how to use the autopilot well, and they were too embarrassed to teach it as they didn't want to admit their lack of knowledge about it.

These days, virtually every new airplane includes an autopilot, so student pilots are exposed to autopilots from day one. But these autopilots are more complicated than they used to be, and I suspect the same thing still exists today. CFIs who don't teach the autopilot because they don't fully understand it themselves, and they make the same lame excuse that real pilots don't use the autopilot. Well, I call BS on that.

Real pilots need to do both things exceptionally well. They need to hand fly well, and they need to have a thorough understanding of their autopilot so they can use it well. So if you don't understand your autopilot well, please commit to learning more about it. The other thing that's tragic about this crash is that there were three advanced technologies in this aircraft that could have helped save the pilot. The first is that the aircraft had a blue button on the autopilot.

The button is blue so you can quickly spot it and use it in an emergency. And it's the level key. Now I'm surprised when I fly with Cirrus pilots that some of them have said they have never seen it demonstrated. To demonstrate it, I'll usually put the aircraft in a descent with a 30 degree bank and have the pilot push the button. I then start counting, 1,001, 1,002, and by the time six seconds have gone by, the aircraft is always straight and level. But don't wait too late to push the button.

If you're banked more than 75 degrees, the level mode won't engage. The second technology is Garmin's ESP, or Electronic Stability and Protection. It's found in a number of G1000 NXI and G3000 equipped aircraft, as well as in Cirrus aircraft. In these aircraft, when you bank more than 45 degrees, you'll feel the yoke or stick working against you to try and force the wings back to a 30 degree bank.

but you can overpower ESP, so you need to not resist it and let it do its job. The SR-22G7 also has something you won't find in any other piston aircraft that I'm aware of, and that's a stick shaker that provides an immediate tactile feedback to the pilot when the aircraft is nearing a stall. Now, there's no evidence that this aircraft stalled, but I just wanted to mention it as another safety feature.

And finally, the accident aircraft had a parachute. If the pilot used it, which we don't know, it would have been pulled at too low an altitude. But there's an interesting problem surrounding when pilots fail to use the parachute. Rick Beach of the Sierra Sonoma Pilots Association analyzed all parachute pulls and all failures to pull the parachute.

What he found was that when the aircraft was at fault, pilots were more likely to pull the parachute. So, for example, one of the early parachute pulls involved an aileron that wasn't working because of faulty maintenance, and the pilot pulled the parachute because the plane had failed on him. But when pilots fail to pull the parachute, it's often the case that the pilot was at fault and caused the problem. Many of these failures to pull are because of disorientation in IMC.

So when the pilot screws up, they seem to be more inclined to struggle to fix the problem they caused and less likely to save themselves by pulling the parachute. So please remember this and don't fall into that trap. So learn everything you can about your autopilot. Practice re-engaging the autopilot so you can do it quickly if the autopilot disconnects. And remember to use the level button in order to pull the parachute.

There was also another fatal accident this week involving November 721 Mike Bravo, a TBM-700 that crashed while on approach to Anoka County Blaine Airport, KANE in Minnesota. ADSB data indicates the plane was on a stable approach to runway 9 before the aircraft turned sharply left, lost altitude and nosedive almost vertically into a residential building. The sole pilot perished and the aircraft was destroyed.

There were several PIREPs that had been issued at the time of the accident for light rime icing. Weather at the airport just before the accident was winds 030 at 12, visibility 10, skies overcast at 900, temperature 3, dew point 2, altimeter 29.92.

This aircraft appeared to be flying the RNAV GPS-9 approach and was vectored at 3,000 feet onto the initial segment between Jonah and the IF Huffer. If he was cleared for the approach, he should have descended to 2,700 feet at Huffer, but he remained at 3,000 feet almost all the way to the final approach fix of SeaWrap. At the intermediate fix, his ground speed was 110 knots.

That speed decreased continually until it reached 87 knots, about 4 or 5 tenths of a mile before the FAF. At that point, the aircraft started to descend, most likely because the autopilot captured the glide slope outside the FAF since it was 300 feet high. Even though the aircraft was descending, the airspeed continued to decrease, suggesting that the pilot pulled the thrust lever too far back at glide path intercept.

Six-tenths of a mile beyond the final approach fix, passing through 2,500 feet, the aircraft had slowed to 75 knots and had begun a left turn. In the next eight seconds, the aircraft turned more than 90 degrees to the left, and the speed dropped to as low as 54 knots as the aircraft reached 1,700 feet. So losing 800 feet in eight seconds implies a descent rate of 6,000 feet per minute.

The aircraft did roll wings level and its airspeed increased to 127 knots, but in the next four seconds it lost another 800 feet, so it was descending at 12,000 feet per minute. So it appears that while descending on the glide path, the aircraft got too slow and stalled. It also appears the pilot tried to recover, but he was in IMC at the time, and he was only about 1,400 feet above the ground when the stall began, and he was unable to recover in time.

As I mentioned, there were Pyreps at the time for light rime icing, and if he had any ice on the aircraft, that could have increased his stall speed. And here's an excerpt from the TBM 700 POH. Under a section called Flight into Known Icing Conditions, it says, Procedures for Holding, Approach, and Landing in Icing Conditions. Minimum recommended speeds are Flaps Up Position, 130 knots. Flaps Takeoff Position, 110 knots.

flaps landing position 90 knots. The winds at the time were mostly a crosswind, so it appears that this aircraft's airspeed was well below the minimum 90 knots for full flaps. And elsewhere it says, if the flaps are extended, do not retract them until the airframe is clear of ice. So it's also possible, though I think less likely, that the pilot retracted an increment of flaps, which induced a stall.

Regardless, the pilot was too slow, which appears to have led to a stall that was unrecoverable. Coming up next, our intern Kelly reads some of your emails, and I answer more of your questions about flying Best Collide after an engine failure. All right here on the Aviation News Talk podcast.

Today, I'd like to talk more about Best Glide and some more things that you may want to think about as you develop your own procedures for handling an engine out emergency. We talked about some of these things in episode 372 when I analyzed the crash of November 2 Uniform Zulu, a Bonanza B-33B, which suffered an engine failure at 7,500 feet MSL while flying over Virginia.

You sent me more emails about that episode than any other recent episode, and I'll read some of them today. Just to refresh your memory about that episode, that pilot did a lot of things right, but still ended up in a fatal crash.

The flight originated in Florida and stopped overnight at Rockingham Airport, KRCZ, in North Carolina, before continuing north the next morning. Approximately an hour into the flight, the aircraft lost power at 7,500 feet, about six miles south of Charlottesville, Virginia. The pilot was not receiving flight following.

As he descended through 6,250 feet, he began squawking 7,700 and contacted the Charlottesville Tower. By the way, the airport is located north of the city. He expressed doubt about reaching the airport three times, but continued toward it.

The Bonanza B-35B's published glide ratio of 10.2:1 meant that from 6,900 feet above the airport, which is where it was when it lost power, it could theoretically glide about 11.5 nautical miles. However, the airport KCHO was approximately 13 miles away. The final crash site was about 2.4 miles short of the airport.

The pilot lined up with an open field that was about 3,000 feet long, but he overshot the field and crashed into the trees at the far end of the field. So while he managed his energy relatively well during the glide, he had too much energy at the very end and overshot his landing point. Now, the pilot did a lot of things right, such as getting back to best glide speed relatively soon, but there were some choices he could have made that might have led to a positive outcome.

Had he been getting flight following and asked about other fields, he would probably have been told that Snow Hill, a private 2,200-foot grass strip, was well within gliding range. Or he could have chosen a higher cruising altitude, or chosen a route that kept him within gliding distance of an airport at all times. And in that episode, I called upon ForeFlight and Garmin Pilot to add a new feature to their apps that would make it easier for pilots to flight plan a route that always stays within gliding distance of an airport.

Now, today I've asked our intern Kelly to help out by reading some of your emails. Kelly, if you would, please read the email from new PayPal supporter Karen Larson. Of course, Max. Always happy to do your reading and your thinking for you. Okay. Just read the email, please. Max, this is my first time giving feedback as I have only been listening to your show for about a year. I have thoroughly enjoyed your in-depth look at specific accidents and the tips and tricks to avoid mistakes made by others.

A bit of my background: I'm a 787 pilot for a major airline and own a carbon cub and have been flying the backcountry of Utah and Wyoming for about the last six years. In total, I have been flying for about 25 years and have accumulated about 11,000 hours. I was reintroduced to general aviation about seven years ago and last year decided to acquire my CFI, which I didn't have.

I accomplished that goal in December, and the year spent digging into the books and learning and relearning a lot of the basic aerodynamics and other subjects have been very valuable. On episode 372, you analyzed the Bonanza crash in Virginia. I had a conversation with my husband, also an airline pilot and an aerobatic instructor in the Extra, T6, and pits, about this accident and a few of the points that you made.

He doesn't listen to podcasts, so I just fill him in. We rarely fly longer cross-countries in our Cub, and when we do, it is in areas where radar coverage doesn't reach because of terrain, so we rarely get flight following. Last week, he and I ferried a T-6 to Houston for a formation clinic for a friend.

We utilized flight following for the flights from Phoenix to Houston. Later that weekend, he, along with the owner, began the ferry back to Phoenix, and just over Austin, they had a cylinder crack and lost nearly all of the power to the engine. He started looking on ForeFlight for an airport and runway lengths, then recalled the conversation we had about the Bonanza accident. He then quickly asked ATC for the closest airport.

It happened to be a private air park just underneath them, and they were able to land there safely. I pulled the audio so I could hear him talking to ATC, and realized he had to tell ATC twice that they were declaring an emergency. I'm sure that was due to startle effect on the controller's part. According to ADS-B, the entire emergency was only three minutes. So thank you for all you do to research and record these podcasts in an attempt to make us the safest pilots.

And you know, Max, I'm just saying, if I had a nickel for every time a listener said your advice saved a flight, I could probably afford my own carbon cub. Or at least a tire. Thanks, Kelly. I guess we'll have to double your salary. Karen, what a great story. I'm so glad the podcast had an influence on the outcome of your husband's engine out. And kudos to you on getting your CFI. That was the most satisfying reading I have ever done.

And now let's listen to the audio from her husband's engine out in the T6, and this comes to us courtesy of LiveATC.net. Roger, there's an airport off your left side, two miles. It's the Lakeway Airport. And then another airport, Spicewood, is at your 12 to 1 o'clock in about seven miles. Roger.

Alaska 318 contact approach 125.32 2532 Alaska 522 N411B, you're declaring an emergency N411B, we're declaring an emergency, we're going to make a left turn here for the runway off our left N411B, roger, I'm showing no traffic reserve between you and that airport and you can proceed as requested and you are declaring an emergency Emergency aircraft for N411B N411B, roger, you're a single engine aircraft and how many souls on board?

2 hours of gas and you said 2 sols? Correct. Departure SW3772, 4000. N4B, if you can make it, Spicewood does have a longer runway but the airport off your left side is the closest. Do you know the wind? Austin wind is 33015 gust 24. And departure 960D, Tango is 2 for 4 on the runway heading. SW976, Houston Center 134.2. 34.2 SW976.

Southwest 3772, Austin departure, radar contact, turn left heading 270, maintain 4000 Heading 270, 4000, Southwest 3772 N1, Robotango, there is traffic 11 o'clock, 3 miles, appears to be northbound 2500, indicated there is no other traffic observed to and in the airport, do you have, I'm sorry? N1, Robotango, do you still have power, are you able to make the glide down? We have partial power, about 25%

1 Bravo Tango, roger. And you do have Lakeway inside off your left side? 1 Bravo Tango, roger. Radio service, Terminator, Freeview Change, approved. That traffic is 12 o'clock, northbound 2500. Actually, we ran this frequency. I'm going to stay with you. 1 Bravo Tango, can we get your phone number please? 3 3 0 Thank you. And that was 2 6 0, correct? 3 3 0 3 3 0, thank you. 1 Bravo Tango, Freeview Change is approved.

And three minutes and 20 seconds later, an aircraft heard them on the ground, and here's what they said. Yeah, 1 Bravo Tango, this is 960 Delta Tango, we hear you. We'll let them know. Can you please let us know what you're hearing, please?

Yeah, and Austin, that was one Bravo tango there on the ground site, they said. Beautiful. Thank you, sir. So a great outcome. Karen, thanks so much for sharing this story with us. And I'm so happy that our tip in Episode 372 about contacting ATC to locate the nearest airport was helpful in this case. Kelly, if you would now please read the email from patron supporter David Dismore. You got it, boss. Here it is.

Max, I just listened to episode 372. I thought of one other item that the pilot could have done that you did not mention. I am working on my commercial rating in my SR-20. I have to practice power-off 180 landings to a spot within 150 feet after my intended landing spot. At least for me, this was not easy and has taken many practice attempts, usually in the

using flaps and slips to manage the energy. I think it would be wise for everyone to practice a power off 180 with a CFI in the plane they normally fly.

When you have to do it with a dead engine, it probably won't go well if you have not practiced it to perfection when you have the option to go around. Thank you, Kelly. And David, thanks for your email. Great that you're working on your commercial. It will make you a better pilot, which I found to be the case when I did my helicopter commercial back in February. No question, practicing power off 180s is a good thing to do. Though I'd suggest you not combine that with a no-flaps landing in the Cirrus. Do those maneuvers separately.

Another listener also mentioned that this kind of practice could have helped the accident pilot. I don't think it would have helped that much, and here's why. The power off 180 is a far less complex maneuver. The key thing is figuring out when to make the base turn. Once you've made that turn, you're on final at low altitude, it's relatively easy to see where your touchdown spot will be and you can adjust accordingly.

When at high altitudes, I think it's much harder for pilots to figure out whether they'll make it to a field. That's because there's little movement of the terrain in the windshield, so it takes longer to find the spot on the window that isn't moving, which is the spot where you'll be touching down. Plus, the winds will change during the descent. If a tailwind goes away, you won't be able to make it to a spot that looked doable at higher altitude.

So for power failures in cruise, I think it's more helpful to practice the maneuver at high altitudes. Also helpful, having a CFI who doesn't grab the yoke and scream when things get real. Hey, I resemble that remark. I wasn't naming names, Max, but now that you mention it. Okay, enough with that. Kelly, do you have the email from Patreon supporter Nico Gallardi? Yes, he writes, Hi Max, I love your podcast and listen to every episode.

I had a question on N2UZ. This pilot did a lot of things right and found himself lined up on downwind for a 3,000-foot field but then ended up overshooting it.

You mentioned that flaps were nearly up, and we don't know about prop position gear and whether he tried to slip. So to me it seems that he did not manage his energy properly. But in all the things you consider that he could have done differently, you don't mention that he could have practiced power-off landings more. Why not? I fly an RV-14 and I try to do a power-off approach whenever tower or conditions allows me to, just to practice.

But I am not sure a lot of pilots do this regularly, even though it is an essential skill in a single engine plane without a parachute. And in a subsequent email he wrote, I concur that the problem with the Power-Off 180 is that it is always done from a more or less defined spot. A beam the numbers on downwind at pattern altitude. When I practice, I don't do mine like that.

Typically, I choose a spot, e.g. New Jerusalem Airport, when I am at 5,500 feet or so and pull the power at that altitude once I am within glide range. Then the challenge is to put it down from 5,500 feet without touching the throttle again. I think this is a more realistic exercise. Nico PS, suggestion for a future show topic. Does aerobatic training help you become a better pilot?

Thank you, Kelly. And thanks, Nico, for your email and for supporting Aviation News Talk each month with your donation via Patreon. Yes, I suspect that aerobatic training helps you become a better pilot. Probably most training helps. And thanks for clarifying that when you're practicing engine outs, you're doing it at altitude. As I mentioned earlier, that kind of practice is probably more helpful than just practicing power off landings in the traffic pattern.

Kelly, if you would, please read the email from Daniel Switkin. Hey, Max. I heard your episode about the Bonanza pilot who lost his engine and overshot his landing into a field when he failed to make the airport. You mentioned that one thing he could have done better is to use a glide range ring on his EFB.

Interestingly, AOPA recently tested the glide range feature on three different EFBs in three different airframes and found that they failed to make the runway in every case. You may want to share their video as your video of the week.

Daniel, nice to hear from you again. Thanks so much for sharing this video. I see it came out about two months ago, and I had not heard of it before you mentioned it. And yes, it is interesting to see that they tested three different versions of glide range rings and that in all three cases, the airplane didn't make it to the runway. So everyone, if you do have a glide range ring, such as the one in ForeFlight,

you may want to practice with it first to see what kind of results you get before you end up having to use it for real. And Daniel, that's a great suggestion. Yes, I will make that our video of the week. Kelly, if you would, please read the email from Carter Boswell. Oh, we've got a two-part question from Carter. This one's a glide path deep dive, so strap in. In regards to the Bonanza crashing in episode 372, I was wondering, because the Bonanza suffered an engine seizure,

and it froze the propeller. Its engine outglide was considerably better than it would have been had it been revolving. In the case of the Bonanza, what is the difference in glide ratio between a Bonanza that loses an engine and has the propeller revolving versus one that doesn't have the propeller revolving? Next question. When I was test flying my Glasser, I could not stop the propeller from revolving when trying to determine the best engine outglide speed.

I tried various means to do so, including stalling the aircraft in a clean and dirty configuration, yawing it when slowed. I even tried to stop it by entering into an upright spin. Nothing worked. What are your recommendations?

Best, Carter. Thank you, Kelly. Carter, I've done a little research, and it's hard to come up with a definitive answer. One of the best sources I found was an article written by Peter Garrison, who I can now call a colleague since we both write columns for Flying Magazine. Peter, of course, has been writing for decades, and he's known for being a very technical writer, which is another way of saying that there's far too much detail in the article to read it all here. So I'll include a link to it in the show notes in case you want to read it.

He wrote in part, quote, I've mentioned a couple of times lately that an airplane with a controllable pitch propeller will glide farther with a propeller in coarse pitch than in fine pitch. And he goes on to explain why. So the first thing to remember in any engine out emergency is if you can control the pitch of your prop,

Pull the prop control out to get the best possible glide. However, there is an issue around this, and that is that in most aircraft, oil is used to control the propeller pitch. And in most single-engine aircraft, when you lose oil pressure, which is quite likely going to happen when you have an engine failure, the blade returns to the fine pitch position. So while pulling the prop control out may help you briefly and improve your glide, it

Once you lose oil pressure, the prop returns to that fine position and you'll lose that gain and glide distance that you had. Peter continues, quote, Anyway, the gist of the idea is that a windmilling propeller is driving the engine, takes a certain amount of power to do this, and the faster the engine turns, the more power it takes. This power has to be supplied by the airplane's descent. The more power is required to spin the engine, the greater the rate of descent has to be.

Skipping down further, he says, so far, so good. But now you have to wonder about a stopped prop. Suppose the engine seizes up and doesn't windmill. Is the glide better or worse than with a windmilling prop? For a lot of different reasons, it's hard to guess the drag of a stopped prop. The flow field around the nose of the airplane is distorted. The blades are not exactly flat plates and they get more streamlined toward the hub.

The drag may depend on the position in which the prop stops. The prop's wake may affect the drag of the rest of the airplane. But let's stipulate for the sake of this discussion that my propeller stopped in in fine pitch because a constant speed prop automatically goes to fine pitch when it stops turning and has an equivalent flat plate area of 1.7 square feet.

So if the flat plate area of the prop is 1.7 square feet, it's absorbing 17 horsepower, which must be supplied by increasing the rate of descent accordingly by 267 feet per minute to be exact. More exact actually than this calculation warrants. And suppose I had a three bladed prop, the increase in sink rate would be even worse, which in his calculations, by the way, turned out to be worse than the horsepower absorbed by a windmilling propeller.

And then he writes, but wait, that's more than I figured the windmilling prop was using in course pitch. Weren't we taught that the drag of a stopped prop is less than that of a windmilling one? There's a basic difference in kind between the windmilling drag of an engine and the drag of a stopped prop.

The horsepower cost of windmilling increases and decreases more or less in direct proportion to the airspeed. For my engine, remember, the rate is about 2 horsepower per 100 RPM. If you slow down, the engine turns a little more slowly. It needs a little less horsepower to keep it turning. The horsepower cost of the drag of the stop prop, however, is a function of the cube of the speed. Reducing speed by 10% reduces the rate of descent penalty of the stops propped by 27%.

I suspect that the idea that you can glide farther with a stopped prop than with a windmilling one originated with the fixed-pitch propellers and slow gliding speeds of trainers. A slow airplane's propeller has flat pitch and therefore high engine speed and friction while windmilling. Between the high engine friction and the low flying speed, the balance tipped in favor of a stopped propeller.

Cleaner, heavier, faster-gliding airplanes with constant speed, and in many cases, three-bladed propellers, gain little or nothing by stopping the prop.

For them, the gain is in pulling back the prop control to course pitch, which also has the advantage of being a simple action that can be performed instantly and does not distract the pilot from the most important task at hand, identifying a landing place that the airplane can actually reach without requiring extraordinary airmanship or luck on the part of the pilot. And then here's something he wrote that I'd never heard of before. He wrote, there's one more control that affects glide angle, the throttle.

People usually say that the throttle should be open, believing that a free flow of air reduces windmilling resistance. I then ran and re-ran a series of glides with throttle open and closed, and with a prop in coarse and fine pitch. There was too much scatter in the results to allow fine discrimination among three of the cases, but one stood out as vastly superior to the others. Coarse pitch and open throttle, which bested the others by 30% or more.

So a lot of interesting information in Peter Garrison's article. And then since this was a bonanza we were talking about, I did what I always do with Beechcraft questions. I wrote to my good friend Tom Turner, who we've had on the show before. Tom is the executive director for the American Bonanza Society's Air Safety Foundation. Tom, by the way, has a great newsletter called Flying Lessons Weekly, and you can sign up for it by going out to thomaspturner.com.

I wrote to Tom and asked, I wondered if you have any idea about the difference between best glide for windmilling prop versus one that stopped. And here's his reply. He said, no, there is no published data. I'd assume the glide performance would be noticeably improved from a typical 900 to 1000 feet per minute per the POH and zero thrust in flight simulations to

I'd imagine the rate of descent in a glide, and I think here he's talking about with a stop prop, would be in the 500 to 700 feet per minute range, but that's just a somewhat educated guess. So thank you, Tom. And as for your second question, Carter, I suspect it's next to impossible to stop the prop in some airplanes.

Catherine Kavignaro, who we've had on the show many times, wrote that in her Cessna 152 Aerobat, once you're established in a spin, centrifugal force sends the fuel outboard in the tanks, and after 13 rotations, the fuel in the lines is exhausted, and the nose is pitched up sufficiently for the propeller to come to a stop.

It sounds like you've tried just about every way imaginable to stop your prop, so it might not be possible in your airplane. Thanks again for your questions, Carter. And believe it or not, this next email also comes from a different listener, also named Boswell. Kelly, do you have an email from Bozzy Boswell, who's from Australia? G'day, Max. See, I've been practicing for this moment. Reading emails from cool Australians is the highlight of my intern gig. Bozzy wrote, G'day, Max.

In episode 372, you mentioned you had searched for a flight planning tool that allowed you to plan a route that would keep you within airport energy cones and couldn't find one. I wanted to let you know about the popular EFB app in Australia that I use and how it lets me achieve this.

Firstly, though, I should probably point out that the distances between airfields down under are much larger than the U.S., so staying within gliding distance of an aerodrome is a lot harder over here. The app I use is AvPlan EFB, which has had for years a feature I use all the time. Along with the familiar glide range ring most EFB apps provide while in flight...

AvPlan provides airport glide range rings in flight planning mode. These shaded circles around each field change size with your flight planned altitude based on your configured aircraft glide ratio and shift horizontally with the forecast wind. I also turn on the satellite map base layer as an early step in my flight planning so I can plan around long stretches of tiger country.

As you mentioned in the show, the extra time to give yourself options is small, and the few dollars extra in hire fees is cheap insurance, should the noise up front stop. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Thanks for your fantastic show and all you do to encourage safety. No matter how many audiobooks and podcast episodes have accumulated in my listening backlog, whenever you drop an episode, it goes straight to the head of the queue. Bozzy.

Thank you, Kelly. And Bozzie, by the way, is based at the Wollongong Airport in New South Wales, Australia. And I never miss an opportunity to say Wollongong. Wollongong. Sounds like a bouncy little kangaroo. Yeah, it's kind of like saying Djibouti. You just have to grin when you hear the name of that place.

So, Bozzy, thanks for your email and thanks for letting us know about the features in the AvPlan EFB app. I just downloaded the app onto my iPhone to try it out, and I also exchanged a couple of emails with a company so that I could confirm which features come in which version of the app. And by the way, I'll include a link to their website so people can read more about the app. They offer a 30-day free trial so you can check out the features for yourself and decide whether you'd like to use the app, even if that's the only feature you want to use it for.

If you're in Australia and subscribe for data in that region, they offer three pricing levels. And if you're in the U.S. and subscribe for U.S. data, there are two pricing levels for the app, which are $59 a year for the VFR version and $149 for the IFR version with all of the related IFR charts. And that's in U.S. dollars. Now, Bozzy mentioned two separate features, and I initially confused the two of them.

One is the aircraft glide envelope, similar to the glide feature in ForeFlight. In flight, there will be a green shaded shape around your airplane that takes into consideration the aircraft glide ratio, wind, and terrain to display an area that your aircraft could theoretically reach and still be at a maneuvering height of 1,500 feet AGL if you start a glide at best glide airspeed at that moment that you lose the engine.

So essentially the glide ring doesn't take you all the way down to the ground, but the edge of the ring is where you'll be at 1500 feet AGL, which makes a lot of sense. And I've confirmed with the company that this feature is included in the $59 a year version of AvPlan EFB.

Now, the other feature, which I haven't seen in any other app, is the airport glide range overlay. And this is essentially what I said in episode 372 that I would like to see in the future in apps like ForeFlight and Garment Pilot. But it only comes in the premium version of AvPlan EFB, for which you'll have to pay $149 per year. When this airport glide range overlay is selected,

Gray areas surrounding airports appear along your planned route, and the size of the gray area is based on the altitude that you input into the flight plan section of the app. To use it, go to the All Flight tab and create a flight plan. And then after you've done that, go to the Planning tab and select Optimize Altitudes and select an altitude for your flight. The altitude you select drives the size of the range rings around each airport.

You'll also need to go into the Maps tab, touch the Settings gear in the upper right, and then touch View Items. From there, select Airport Glide Ring and enter information about the glide ratio and best glide speed for your aircraft. When you've done that correctly, you'll see gray shaded circles around each airport. Then, if you plan a route that keeps you within those circles, you're always within gliding range of an airport.

The only other thing I would like to have seen is to have the app automatically create a route that maximizes the time you spend in those circles. And that's what I'm hoping ForeFlight and CarbonPilot will eventually do. So, great feature if you're serious about flight safety and you don't have a parachute and you want to plan your routes so that you're always within gliding range of an airport.

you may find it worth $149 per year just to get that capability. Of course, it's also a full-featured EFB with a zillion other features you'd expect in an EFB app.

So Kelly, thank you so much for your help today. Of course. I'm just glad I get to play a small part in helping people fly safer and maybe even smile along the way. And by the way, if you have any voice work that you'd need to have done, you can hire Kelly by just going out to aviationnewstalk.com slash voice.

And just a reminder that I love hearing from you and I read many of your emails on the show. If you'd like to send me a message, just go out to aviationnewstalk.com, click on contact at the top of the page. That's absolutely the best way to send me a message. And of course, I also want to thank everyone who supports the show in one of the following ways. We love it when you join the club and sign up at aviationnewstalk.com slash support to

To support the show financially, you can also do that at aviationnewstalk.com slash PayPal. We also love it when you leave a five-star review on whatever app that you're listening to us on now. And of course, if you're in the market for a headset, please consider buying a Lightspeed headset and using one of the links in our show notes, because if you use those links, they will donate to help support the show. So until next time, fly safely, have fun, and keep the blue side up. And remember that you can always go around. You can always go around.

coming down to your side baby sliding upside down you can all