FAA Safety Briefing - May-Jun 2025

May/June 2025 1

May/June 2025

Weather Tech

and Automation

6 The Foundation of

Forecasting12 Overcoming

Automation Overreliance15 Just in Time

Weather

2 FAA Safety BriefingU.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

ISSN: 1057-9648

FAA Safety BriefingMay/June 2025Volume 64/Number 3

Sean Duffy Secretary of Transportation

Chris Rocheleau Acting Administrator

Jodi Baker Acting Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety

Robert Ruiz Acting Executive Director, Flight Standards ServiceTom Hoffmann Editor

James Williams Associate Editor / Photo Editor

Rebekah Waters Associate Editor

Nicole Hartman Associate Editor

Paul Cianciolo Associate Editor / Social Media

Jamie Harvey Art Director

Published six times a year, FAA Safety Briefing, formerly

FAA Aviation News, promotes aviation safety by discussing current technical,

regulatory, and procedural aspects affecting the safe operation and maintenance of aircraft. Although based on current FAA policy and rule interpretations, all material is advisory or informational in nature and should not be construed to have regulatory effect. Certain details of accidents described herein may have been altered to protect the privacy of those involved.

The FAA does not officially endorse any goods, services, materials, or products of

manufacturers that may be referred to in an article. All brands, product names, company names, trademarks, and service marks are the properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.

The Office of Management and Budget has approved the use

of public funds for printing FAA Safety Briefing.ABOUT THIS ISSUE…

Contact Information

The magazine is available on the internet at:

www.faa.gov/safety_briefing

Comments or questions should be directed to the staff by:

• Emailing: SafetyBriefing@faa.gov

• Calling: (202) 267-1100

• Tweeting: @FAASafetyBrief

Subscription Information

The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office sells FAA Safety Briefing on subscription and mails up to four renewal notices.

For New Orders:

Subscribe via the internet at https://bookstore.gpo.gov/products/faa-safety-briefing ,

telephone (202) 512-1800 or toll-free 1-866-512-1800, or use the self-mailer form in the center of this magazine and send to Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC, 20402-9371.

Subscription Problems/Change of Address:

Send your mailing label with your comments/request to Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Contact Center, Washington, DC 20408-9375. You can also call (202) 512-1800 or 1-866-512-1800 and ask for Customer Service, or fax your information to (202) 512-2104. The May/June 2025 issue of FAA Safety Briefing focuses on the variety of tools and technology pilots use to safely avoid and mitigate risk during flight. Feature articles cover some of the FAA’s latest weather research work and programs and provide important tips on how to properly “tame” your technology. We also explore the many benefits of participating in the annual GA and Part 135 Activity Survey.

bit.ly/m/FAASB

www.faa.gov/Safety_Briefing

The FAA Safety Policy Voice of Non-commercial General Aviation

6The Foundation of Forecasting

How FAA Research Has Helped Redefine Access to Weather Technology

by Darcy Gagnon

9Giving Color to Aviation SafetyNew Graphics Enhancements Debut on 1800WxBrief.com

by Jeff Arnold

12The Dangers of Overreliance on Automation Safety Concerns and Mitigation

Strategies for Pilots

by Jason Blair

May/June 2025 115 Just in Time Weather

Using Technology to Help Navigate Fickle Flight Weather

by James Williams

18 Appraising Aviation Activity

How the GA Survey is Making Your Voice Heard

by Nicole HartmanDEPARTMENTS

2 Jumpseat: an executive policy

perspective

3 ATIS: GA news and current events

5 Aeromedical Advisory: a checkup on

all things aeromedical

23 Checklist: FAA resources and

safety reminders

24 Drone Debrief: drone safety roundup

25 Nuts , Bolts, and Electrons:

GA maintenance issues

26 Vertically Speaking: safety issues for

rotorcraft pilots

27 Flight Forum: letters from the

Safety Briefing mailbag

28 O n Final: an editor's perspective

Inside back cover

FAA Faces: FAA employee profile

2 FAA Safety Briefing

JUMPSEATan executive policy perspective

ROBERT RUIZ, ACTING FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

TAMING TECHNOLOGY

As we welcome the warmer and

sunnier days of spring, I’m sure

many of you are eagerly returning

to the skies to enjoy more routine

flying. To help shake off the rust

that may have accumulated during the colder months, it’s important to

focus on sharpening our flying skills

of course, but also on the technology we regularly rely on to get us to our

destination safe and sound.

The excellent weather tools and

technology we have today would have

been the envy of airline pilots not that long ago and are one of the many

reasons why it’s such a great time to

be in aviation. But even the best tech-nology isn’t very helpful without clear

thinking and correct actions. This

issue of FAA Safety Briefing is one tool

you can use to “tame” your technology

and ensure you know how to properly use the information at your disposal.

A good example is your preflight

weather briefing, which is essential

to a safe flight. But are you getting

the most out of your briefings? In the article, “Giving Color to Aviation Safety, ” we explain some of the recent updates on the flight plan-

ning site 1800WxBrief.com that can

help improve situational awareness

of weather conditions, including

the recent transition from text to Graphical AIRMETs (G-AIRMETs)

and the addition of Graphical

Forecasts to Aviation (GFAs) to their interactive map of the Continental US.

On the subject of weather, the FAA

has been at the forefront of advancing

weather data and research for nearly 20

years, including products that improve weather forecast capability and more

accurately depict turbulence and icing

potential. Y ou can learn more about these various contributions including

future plans to advance weather tech-

nology in the article “The Foundation

of Forecasting. ”

A recent study shows some

exciting progress for the FAA ’s Pilot Cognitive Assist Tool (PCAT), which

aims to aid pilots with decision-

making during flight. The feature “Just in Time Weather, ” showcases the PCAT’s potential, particularly

its ability to aggregate weather data and provide actionable insight to

pilots regarding unex-

pected or adverse weather

changes during flight.

As we stated, technol -

ogy can be a great asset in the flight deck, reducing

workload and enhancing safety. But there are risks

when we depend too

much on our devices to

navigate or make aero-

nautical decisions, not the least of which is a degra-

dation of manual flying

skills and pilot proficiency. In the article “The Dangers of Overreliance on Automation, ” we

take a closer look at these technology

pitfalls and some strategies we can use

to avoid any unwanted surprises.

On a final note, many of you may

have likely received an invitation

to participate in this year’s General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey.

A postcard is usually mailed out

in late February to a random set of

aircraft owners and fleet operators to

capture what kind of flying activity you had the previous year. I under -

stand the survey fatigue that often sets in with so many industries asking for

feedback. Y et, I know many of you do

take the time to carefully answer the questions asked of you, and for that,

I say thank you. Data collected in

this survey really does make a differ -

ence. For those who receive a survey

request, but maybe have not yet had a

chance to respond, I encourage you to

do so. This issue’s article, “ Appraising

Aviation Activity” takes a closer look at the survey, its long history, and

its direct impact on safety for NAS

operations.

When it comes to technology, it all

comes back to people and a commit-ment to staying current in every way.

Thank you for making this publica-

tion part of your educational toolkit. Enjoy reading and I’ll look forward to

meeting you again in the next issue.

Safe flying!

WHEN IT COMES TO TECHNOLOGY ,

IT ALL COMES BACK TO PEOPLE AND A COMMITMENT TO STAYING CURRENT IN EVERY WAY .

#FLYSAFE GA SAFETY ENHANCEMENT TOPICS

MAY

Approval for Return to

Service — The impor-

tance of proper return to service determination and documentation.

JUNE

Regulatory Roadblock Reduction —

How

streamlining the certifica-tion/approval of GA safety equipment can help owners adopt these technologies.

Please visit bit.ly/FlySafeMedium for more information on these and other topics.

May/June 2025 3

ATISGA news and current events

AVIATION NEWS ROUNDUP

The current operational version of GTG available globally is

Graphical Turbulence Guidance Global (GTGG).The Next-Generation Turbulence

Forecast System

Turbulence remains a cause of avia-

tion accidents, mainly in the form of

serious injuries to crew members and

passengers, and the FAA is continu-ing to improve the detection and

prediction of this hazard. Increased

automated turbulence observations

(spatially and temporally) and more

accurate forecasts of location and intensity of turbulence enable pilots,

dispatchers, and air traffic controllers

to better anticipate or avoid all known types of atmospheric turbulence. This

includes clear-air, mountain-wave,

and convectively-induced turbulence.

These efforts help to improve safety

and increase capacity within the National Airspace System (NAS).

The FAA sponsors research and

product development for turbulence

mitigation, including the Graphical

Turbulence Guidance (GTG) which computes the results from multiple turbulence algorithms, and then com-pares the results of each algorithm with

turbulence observations from PIREPs,

AMDAR data, and EDR reports to

determine how well each algorithm

matches reported turbulence condi-tions from these sources. Graphical

Turbulence Guidance version 4

(GTG4) is on track to be operational at the end of January 2026. Once

available, pilots, dispatchers, air traffic

managers, aviation forecasters, and

other decision-makers will be able to

access GTG4 through various software applications. One of the enhance-

ments GTG4 will offer is the ability to

upgrade the horizonal resolution from 13-km to 3-km grid spacing to capture

finer details and add forecasts of

convectively-induced turbulence, not

only in thunderstorms but well outside

thunderstorms where atmospheric dis-turbances or waves can travel hundreds

of kilometers downstream.

In April 2026, GTG Nowcast

(GTGN) — a tactical aid for avia-

tion — will transition to operations. GTGN will provide a nowcast of the

current turbulent state of the atmo-

sphere over the contiguous U.S. in near real-time, updating every 15

minutes. The basis for the nowcast

will be the most recently available

1-hour forecast from GTG4. Recent observations of turbulence will be used

to update the GTG4 forecast and create

a blended nowcast. This capability will

be expanded worldwide in 2028 with

GTGN Global, at the request of airlines

that have praised GTGN Beta.

A future upgrade to GTG4, planned

for 2027, will incorporate machine learning techniques to improve prediction of turbulence. These

techniques will enable automated

calibration (currently a labor-inten-

sive process) of the GTG algorithm

in response to changes in underlying numerical weather prediction models.

Learn more at bit.ly/3Fq3fyc.

Retirement of TAC AIRMETs and

OCONUS FAs

The Weather Information

Modernization and Transition

(WIMAT) team under the Policy and Requirements Branch of the FAA ’s

Aviation Weather Division worked

diligently with the National Weather

Service (NWS) to retire a couple of

legacy text-based aviation weather products and transition toward higher

resolution graphical products. As of

Jan. 27, 2025, both the Traditional Alphanumeric Code (TAC) and text

Airman’s METeorological Information

(AIRMET) for the Contiguous United

States (CONUS) and the Outside

4 FAA Safety Briefing

ATIS GA news and current events

of the Contiguous United States

(OCONUS) Area Forecasts (FAs)

were officially retired. The OCONUS

regions for this retirement did not

include Alaska. The Alaska FA is still

available to users.

The FAA conducted a safety

risk management panel for the text CONUS AIRMET retirement in 2020 and the panel occurred for the

OCONUS FAs retirement in 2024.

Both panels concluded that there were

no major risks to the safety of the

National Airspace System (NAS) due to these changes. The WIMAT team

also assisted in the socialization of

these changes to the aviation com-munity and coordinated with various

FAA lines of business to prepare for

this transition and alert users of these

changes prior to the retirement.

The retirement of these products

completes the official transition toward graphical products that

are already being produced by the

Aviation Weather Center (AWC). The

Graphical AIRMETs (G- AIRMETs) for the CONUS have been available

since 2010 and provide users with the

same information as the text-based product. The Graphical Forecasts

for Aviation (GFA) will replace

the text-based OCONUS FAs with

higher-resolution graphical informa-

tion. The GFA expansion for these OCONUS regions occurred back in

2019 and 2020. Y ou can find both the

G-AIRMETs and GFA on the AWC website at AviationWeather.gov .

General Aviation Provides Robust

Contribution to U.S. Economy

A recently released updated study

details the robust contributions of

general aviation (GA) to the U.S.

economy, determining that GA

supports a total of 1,330,200 jobs

and a total of $339.2 billion in U.S. economic output.

The Aircraft Electronics

Association (AEA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

(AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), General Aviation

Manufacturers Association (GAMA),

National Association of State

Aviation Officials (NASAO), National

Air Transportation Association

(NATA), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and Vertical

Aviation International (V AI) spon-

sored the study. Leaders of the associ-ations were encouraged by the study’s

depiction of the significant contribu-

tion that the GA industry has on the

U.S. economy.

To determine the total U.S. eco-

nomic impact of GA, the study calcu-lated the direct, indirect, induced, and

enabled economic impacts, based on the most recent data available from

2023. Y ou can read the full report at

bit.ly/3Dy5KOp (PDF).

Transformation of Aircraft Registry

In 2022, aircraft owners and operators

faced frustrations as FAA aircraft reg-

istrations took an average of 191 days

to process. The FAA ’s Civil Aviation Registry knew change was critical

and in response, the team worked

tirelessly to cut processing times and

implement long-term solutions. Their

game-changing effort? The launch of the Civil Aviation Registry Electronic

Services (CARES), a cloud-based

platform that has transformed aircraft

registration.

Since its debut in December 2022,

CARES has continued to evolve, adding several key search capabilities,

enhancing cybersecurity protections, and improving responsiveness to

stakeholders. Today, registration pro-

cessing averages just 10 business days,

a significant improvement.

But innovation isn’t stopping

there. With future enhancements on the horizon — including electronic

delivery of registration certificates and full digitization of the process —

the registry is setting a new standard for efficiency, security, and service.

Check out CARES for yourself at

cares.faa.gov .

National GA Awards Winners

Since 1962, the General Aviation

Awards (GAA) program and FAA

have recognized aviation profession-

als for their contributions to general aviation in the fields of flight instruc-

tion, aviation maintenance/avionics,

and safety. These awards highlight the

vital leadership roles these individuals

play in promoting safety, education, and professionalism throughout the

aviation industry.

The 2025 national honorees have

been announced and awards will

be presented in July during EAA

AirVenture 2025 in Oshkosh, Wisc.

The recipient’s names will also be

added to the large perpetual plaque

found in the lobby of the EAA

Aviation Museum.

Recipients of the 2025 National

General Aviation Awards are:

• Certificated Flight Instructor of the Y ear — Adam Boyd, Cabot, Ariz.

• Aviation Maintenance Technician of the Y ear — Samuel “Beau”

Hardison, Mountain View, Ariz.

• FAA Safety Team Representative

of the Y ear — Josselyn Slagle, New

Castle, Penn.

For more information visit

generalaviationawards.com.

May/June 2025 5

AEROMEDICAL ADVISORYa checkup on all things aeromedical

DR. SUSAN NORTHRUP , FAA FEDERAL AIR SURGEON

BUILDING THE RIGHT TEAM

Approximately seven years ago, my

predecessor, Dr. Mike Berry, penned

an article discussing the FAA medical

certification team. While excellent, it’s

time for an update.

As Berry explained, medical cer -

tification is a process that involves more than simply receiving a sheet of

paper. Pilots benefit most by build-ing a partnership with an Aviation

Medical Examiner (AME) that will

serve them better in the long run

over the course of multiple medicals

and their career. This is especially important if you have underlying

medical conditions.

Medical certification involves at

least three team members: Y ou, your AME, and the FAA. Y our AME is

often your liaison between the FAA

and medical specialists in the com-

munity when additional evaluations are necessary. Therefore, your AME

can be critical to how smoothly your

medical certification goes.

AMEs, like any large group of

professionals, have different strengths and weaknesses. Many AMEs practice

another specialty and perform FAA

medical examinations as a “labor of love” typically because they enjoy

aviation and interacting with pilots.

Many are pilots and aircraft owners

themselves. In fact, we draw many of our medical consultants (cardiology,

ophthalmology, pulmonology, etc.) from these AMEs. However, if you

have any significant medical issues,

it is best to have a short discussion with the AME before beginning

the examination to ensure that you

and the AME will be a good fit. For

individuals with multiple medical

conditions or high-risk conditions such as cardiac, neurology, or drug

and alcohol issues, it isn’t unusual to

spend significant time preparing an

airman’s application and support-

ing documents to ensure smooth passage with the FAA. Not all AMEs

can expend that much effort on FAA

exams; believe it or not, the high office overhead for many sub-special-

ists can easily consume the basic fee

they charge you.

Another thing to consider is that

we review and update our policy on an ongoing basis. If you have medical

issues that complicate your certifi-

cation, an AME may not be as up to date in the latest FAA policy which

is outside their specialty area. Thus,

your medical certificate could be

deferred or denied unnecessarily. On

the other hand, the AME might be very interested in helping you with

a problem in their specialty area.

Communication with your AME

early in the certification process is critical.

Unfortunately, it’s not

uncommon to see cases in which the AME unnecessar -

ily deferred issuance of the

medical to the FAA. We also

see cases where the AME

could have been more helpful

with obtaining the correct medical documentation. This

can mean delays for you and more work for the FAA. So what can

you do?

If you are in generally good health

without a significant medical history, any AME should be able to issue a medical. We recommend that you

consider building a relationship with

an AME who is familiar with current

FAA policy, willing to spend the time

necessary, and can provide you with the best possible certification experi-

ence. Various aviation organizations

often have individual AMEs whom

they recommend. Y our fellow aviators

can also be an excellent resource for a recommendation. Additionally, your

regional flight surgeon (RFS) can be

very helpful. RFSs know which AMEs in your local area have expertise for

specific conditions. Even if you don’t

currently have a problem, it can be

good to work with someone who may

be able to help you avoid problems with certification (bit.ly/RFS_POC).

Both the Aerospace Medical

Certification Division (AMCD) in Oklahoma City and the RFS can also

help if your medical certificate is

deferred. Both have added new physi-

cians, and sometimes they can review

and provide a disposition to your case while you are in the office. This saves

time for you and can allow the FAA

to be more efficient in working your

case and coming to a certification

decision. Helpful hint: To account for any unexpected issues, build some

time in your schedule to wait in the

AME's office while they try to contact

the FAA. Make sure that you bring all the necessary medical documentation

with you as well.

I hope that these tips can help you

have a better experience during your

next exam.

6 FAA Safety Briefing

THE FOUNDATION OF FORECASTING

How FAA Research Has Helped Redefine Access to Weather Technology

By Darcy Gagnon

May/June 2025 7

For the past two decades, one of the FAA ’s focuses has

been transforming the National Airspace System (NAS)

into a digital environment, with more efficient data

access and distribution for the airspace’s various users. While these and other evolving advancements have been

most noticeable in commercial air travel, the benefits to general aviation (GA) pilots have also been plentiful.

“-B”ig Changes

The most noticeable contribution to a digitized air -

space was through the rollout of Automatic Dependent

Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) services to airports and

aircraft. These services enable air traffic controllers to

track aircraft more accurately and give GA pilots access

to information about nearby traffic, weather, terrain, and temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) through their cockpit

display. While some pilots were initially apprehensive about

the cost and complexity to equip, many have grown to appreciate the technology, and since 2019, FAA researchers

have been gradually improving the latency and efficiency of

data, including weather, to ADS-B In.

But what if you want even more tech beyond what you

can get from ADS-B? In the past two decades, the FAA has increased access and transparency of data directly to

pilots. Therefore, the reason you can trust technologies

like Garmin and ForeFlight for additional weather data

is because the FAA not only supplies them with

the weather data, but our researchers are also vetting those technologies.

Gearing Up

A vital preflight resource for pilots is the National Weather Service (NWS) Aviation Weather Center, which provides

graphical forecasts for aviation and covers everything from

wind to icing conditions. However, few know that FAA research directly

supports these

services.

“The NWS

has a massive amount of

people and

industries

relying on it

outside of avia-tion, ” said Danny

Sims, FAA physical scientist and inflight icing project lead.

“Because they have to balance so many priorities, we told them that if they supply us with all the weather data they’re

generating, we’ll do the research on our end on how to

make it more granular for pilots. ” The byproduct of this

collaboration is the Aviation Weather Center webpage at

AviationWeather.gov.

So, what was improved? A lot of aviation weather forecast-

ing in the past was focused on altitudes that pertained mostly to commercial aircraft but didn’t necessarily reflect lower alti-tudes. One of the FAA ’s early projects in improving weather

forecasting technology was to provide a way for emergency

medical helicopters to access lower-altitude weather informa-

tion. After concluding that program, it was revamped to aid

GA operations, which is why you can now find lower altitude weather data on your preferred websites or apps.

Another favorite tool of pilots is weather cameras,

which are about as close as you can get to looking out your

window. Still, 2D visualization is limited, which is why

FAA researchers have taken it a bit further to provide visual estimation analytics.

“On weather cameras, a cloud might look further away

than it actually is, ” said Gary Pokodner, manager of the Weather in the Cockpit program. “This upgrade to weather

cameras helps calculate distance so you can better plan

your preflight. ”

Reacting in Real Time

Pilots should never plan a flight based on their perceived ability to dodge inclement weather. However, improve-

ments in weather technology mean pilots are certainly

better able to react to sudden meteorological shifts using

Screenshots of FAA Weather Cameras.

A screenshot of a ForeFlight icing forecast.

8 FAA Safety Briefing

ADS-B and the tools in their flight bag. One factor that has

plagued pilots for ages is in-flight icing.

“In the past, the most we could tell people was ‘you

might encounter icing in these regions over some amount

of time , ’” said Sims. “Now we can tell you what level icing

conditions are occurring at, and we are updating those

predictions every hour. ”

To do this, the FAA brings in weather information from

the NWS and supplements it with weather radar, surface reports, satellite data, and pilot reports. Icing forecasts are

updated at the top of the hour, and because of ADS-B equi-

page, that information goes straight to your cockpit display.

These products already provide awareness benefits for

pilots en route, but FAA researchers are working to make icing data more detailed during the key stages of departure,

approach, landing, and takeoff.

“ At the moment, the rule of thumb for many is to

stay away from ice, period, ” said Stephanie

DiVito, an FAA mete-

orologist working on a

new weather product that provides greater

icing information

surrounding airports.

“ As aircraft hardware and weather analysis and visualiza -

tion improves, there might be more flexibility for pilots to

navigate this hazard in the future. ”

For example, with this new data, a pilot could request a

path that avoids icing near an airport if, say, icing is present

on the north side of the airport but not the south. Similarly, if an aircraft is certificated to fly safely in freezing drizzle

but not freezing rain, these factors may inform a pilot’s

flight plan or best route to escape icing conditions.

“We want pilots to see weather in a way that doesn’t

require them to become a full-on meteorologist during those critical stages of flight, ” DiVito said.

Back to the Classroom

We can confidently say that weather technology and forecasting have improved over the past two decades. But

another crucial factor in the FAA ’s weather research is the

correct use of that weather technology.

“Even though the latency of what you’re seeing on your

radar has improved, weather can change in an instant, ” Pokodner said. “Too much reliance on weather technology

can lead to poor decision-making. ”

Pokodner and his group regularly host training events

and attend air shows to educate pilots on how to use weather technology. Their free aviation weather courses on

Y ouTube have accrued over 100,000 views, and they work

closely with flight schools to ensure that pilot exams accu-

rately assess a pilot’s weather awareness.

Looking forward, Pokodner and his team are researching

ways to use virtual reality and gaming technology to train pilots in weather preparation. They are also working on an app for flight instructors allowing them to easily create

customizable weather scenarios to use in classrooms.

Additionally, they want to provide more tools for current

pilots, like the ability to download pilot reports (PIREPs)

on the fly and more improvements to weather cameras.

Advancements in meteorological education along with

greatly improved situational awareness from emerging technology are just a few of the ways the FAA are helping

pilots navigate the challenges posed by weather.

Darcy Gagnon is a communications specialist with the FAA’s NextGen Office.

LEARN MORE

Aviation Weather Courses on YouTube

bit.ly/WxVideos

FAASTeam Course ALC-521, Enhancing Wx Knowledge and Training

bit.ly/ALC521Photos of icing on an aircraft and removed for measurement.

A screenshot of a Garmin icing forecast.

Giving Color to

Aviation Safety

New Graphics Enhancements Debut on 1800WxBrief.com

By Jeff Arnold

Recent upgrades to Leidos Flight Service weather products

now allow pilots to access enhanced weather graphics,

offering clearer and more comprehensive data to support flight

planning and decision-making activities.

These newly improved graphics offer a more detailed and

intuitive presentation of critical weather data, including turbulence

forecasts, icing conditions, convective outlooks, and more.Upgrading Textual AIRMETs to G-AIRMETs for the Lower 48 States

We’ve replaced static graphical forecasts for aviation (GFA) charts with GFAs on the interactive map. The GFAs have six distinct layer controls, along with

complete legends, time and altitude sliders, and textual graphical overlays that include:

• Ceiling & Visibility

• Clouds

• Precipitation

• Winds

• Turbulence

• IcingGFA Layer Control

Ceiling & Visibility

Clouds

Precipitation

Winds

Turbulence

Icing

Additionally, the new Leidos Flight Service weather products have been thoroughly integrated with our briefing engine. The relevant validity and

forecast periods and timeframes were added to the top of the image.

G-AIRMETs represented in the briefing

GFA Cloud Top information represented in the weather briefing

The GFAs are structured similarly to the G-AIRMETs in the briefing product and are displayed for the relevant portions of the flight during the

expected traversal time.

New changes to the 1800WxBrief.com Interactive Map

The layer controls tab on the interactive map is now sorted into three sub-menus or categories: Weather, Nav, and Local. The Weather sub-menu

focuses on weather tools, charts, and graphical depictions of weather phenomena. The Nav sub-menu displays airspace and special use airspace. Finally, the Local sub-menu provides area knowledge information, local frequencies, topographical data, and more. The area knowledge information

is a collection of data gathered from the experiences and insights of Flight Service Specialists.

• The new Nav sub-menu will contain the following layers:

• Airspaces (e.g., MTRs, SUAs) (Relocated)

• U.S. Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ)

• More to follow in future releases

Layers control Menu

The interactive map opacity slider allows users to adjust the

transparency of graphical overlays, making it easier to view

multiple data layers simultaneously. Additionally, improvements to

the interactive map search functionality now allow for exact match

searches to be conducted and easily identified in the map view.

Satellite imagery on the Weather sub-menu

Search Tool

This screenshot shows the search tool, which is located on the upper left of the interactive map.

Coming in Future Releases

Future releases include additional interactive map layers to properly overlay NavAids, airports and heliports, airspace color coding to match

sectional charts, and more.

We are excited about these enhancements and remain committed

to continuously improving our services to better serve the aviation

community. As always, pilots are encouraged to provide feedback on these updates to help us refine and optimize their experience. Feedback

can be submitted from the bottom of any 1800WxBrief.com page by

selecting “Request Help or Submit Feedback. ”

Visit 1800WxBrief.com for more information, and to explore the

new graphics.

Jeff Arnold is a graduate of Oklahoma State University, has held flight and ground

instructor certificates for over 16 years, and is a former Leidos Flight Service weather

briefer and air operations manager. Jeff currently serves as the director of innovation

and outreach for Leidos Flight Service.

New Toll-Free Number for pilots in Alaska.

A new toll-free number is available for pilots in Alaska. Pilots can now call 1-(833) 252-7433

(AK-Brief) to connect with an Alaska Flight Service hub facility.

Previously, some pilots faced difficulties reaching Flight Service when calling 1-800-WX-BRIEF

due to network provider issues. The new Alaska-specific number was implemented for easy

access and to ensure reliable connectivity.

Alaska’s regional hubs — Juneau (JNU), Fairbanks (FAI), and Kenai (ENA) — will continue to

operate with their existing toll-free and local numbers. Pilots using the new number can select

which hub to call. We encourage Alaska pilots to begin using the new number for seamless access to Flight Service in Alaska.

12 FAA Safety Briefing

The Dangers of Overreliance

on Automationon Automation

Safety Concerns and

Mitigation Strategies

for Pilots

By Jason Blair

Automation has significantly transformed aviation —

enhancing safety, efficiency, and workload manage-

ment for pilots. However, the increasing reliance on

automation tools in general aviation (GA) presents some safety risks. Unlike many commercial pilots, who undergo

extensive and regular recurrent training, GA pilots may not get such training and are often left to their own

devices to figure out new technology and how to incorpo-

rate it into their flight operations. As aviation technology advances, it is important for pilots to understand how it is

utilized and get appropriate training before relying on it.

The Rise of Automation in General Aviation

Modern GA aircraft are increasingly equipped with sophis-

ticated avionics, including glass cockpits, autopilots, and

GPS-based navigation systems. These technologies have

provided immense benefits, such as:

• Enhanced situational awareness through moving maps and terrain warnings;

• Reduced workload via autopilot capabilities;

• More precise navigation with GPS approaches;

• Increased efficiency and fuel savings.While these advantages are clear, the growing dependence on these systems raises concerns about pilot proficiency and safety. Let’s examine some of these concerns.

Overreliance on Automation: Safety Concerns

Degradation of Manual Flying Skills

One of the most significant risks of overreliance on automation is the erosion of manual flying proficiency.

When pilots frequently engage autopilot systems, their

hand-flying skills may deteriorate. This becomes critical in

emergency situations where automation may fail, requiring

immediate manual control. The crash of Air France Flight 447 in 2009 demonstrated how pilots who lacked hand-

flying practice and relied on automation did not properly

recover from a stall during an automation failure in a highly trained airline environment.

The interface of a general aviation autopilot system. (Garmin photo)

May/June 2025 13GA pilots are not exempt from the challenges of

becoming over-dependent on automation systems. As

our aircraft are equipped with more advanced and more

capable systems, they allow us to disengage our flying

skills more and more, relying on programming skills

too often.

If manual flying skills are not also practiced, they decay.

Complacency and Reduced Situational Awareness

Automation can create a false sense of security, leading to

complacency. Pilots may assume that automation systems

can be relied upon to handle more aspects of flight than

may be logical. This results in diminished vigilance during

flight operations. Situational awareness may decrease as

pilots become passive monitors rather than active par -

ticipants in flight management. This can lead to delayed

responses to system malfunctions, failure to cross-check

automation inputs and flight path deviations, and even the inability to detect potential hazards, such as airspace viola-

tions or terrain conflicts.

Automation Dependency in Emergency Situations

Automation failures often require immediate pilot inter -

vention. If a pilot is too dependent on automation, they may struggle to transition to manual control during an

emergency. Some common automation failures include:

• Reliance on autopilot systems during flight operations and the inability to physically fly the aircraft without

autopilot engagement;

• Inability to manage added workload while hand-flying

the aircraft, especially during instrument conditions;

• Instrument failures that require operating in reversionary modes with which the pilot may not be familiar.

Inadequate training in handling such scenarios can have disastrous consequences.

Misinterpretation of Automation and Mode Confusion

Pilots must understand the operational logic of auto-mation systems. Mode confusion occurs when pilots

incorrectly assume the state of an automation system.

This can lead to:

• Unexpected autopilot disengagement;

• Failure to recognize that automation is not following the intended flight path, whether lateral or vertical;

• Incorrect reliance on automation modes, such as altitude capture or vertical speed hold, without verifying actual

aircraft behavior.

Lack of, or training deficiencies in automation logic can

contribute to accidents where pilots fail to recognize or

correct automation errors in time.

Mitigating the Risks of Automation Dependence

There are ways to mitigate these risks and minimize the potential for accidents and incidents that occur due to

incorrect use of automation in modern aircraft.

The first is regular manual flight practice. Pilots should

actively maintain their manual flying skills by regularly

disengaging automation and hand-flying in different phases of flight. Don’t give up those basic flying skills. Practice

hand-flying en route segments, particularly in visual meteo-

rological conditions (VMC). Also fly instrument approaches without autopilot engagement to maintain proficiency.

A second way to reduce automation overreliance risk

involves the continued use of scenario-based training and

emergency preparedness. Pilots, and their instructors,

should include scenario-based training that emphasizes automation failures and manual flight recovery in their

initial and ongoing training. Including this type of training

during flight reviews and instrument proficiency checks (IPCs) is critical. Flight instructors and training programs

can help make this happen by including things like sim-

ulations of autopilot failures, partial panel exercises, and

presenting emergency scenarios that have a pilot transition

from automation to manual flight.

Enhanced Understanding of Automation Logic and Systems

Pilots need to fully comprehend the systems in their air -

craft. Navigation equipment, audio panels, communications

radios, and especially autopilots must be fully understood if

you are going to use and rely upon them. It is important that

a pilot know the limitations of these systems also.

Many autopilots have operational limitations that their

pilots have never seen. Know if or when an autopilot will disengage on its own, or how you would disengage the unit

if it isn’t doing what you want it to be doing. Be ready and able to verify any inputs and outputs of systems in your

aircraft to ensure they are doing what you want them to,

and think they are doing. We even now have some aircraft

with automatically switching fuel tank feeds. If items such

as these fail, the pilot needs to know how to identify those failures and how to remedy them.A general aviation autopilot system. (Garmin photo)

14 FAA Safety Briefing

Avoiding Overdependence on GPS Navigation

Following the magenta line can be easy but also misleading.

Reliance on GPS can be dangerous in cases of improper pro-

gramming, signal failure, or even equipment failure. While the

latter of these two items is not that common, mis-program-

ming the information in the GPS system with regard to how

you want the aircraft to navigate or perform is very common.

It is critical to know how to program your GPS naviga-

tion system to include using flight plan sequencing and loading approaches. Another key tip is to know how to insert or remove a hold at waypoints in an approach or in

the en route environment. Take your programming skills

well beyond the “direct-to” button and simply loading and

activating an approach in the “vector-to-final” option.

A healthy bit of professional skepticism goes a long way

when using your GPS navigation systems. If it is taking you somewhere you don’t think it should, be ready to disengage,

hand-fly, ask for a vector, or set up the approach or flight plan path again. This may also mean transitioning to more

traditional methods of navigation such as using a VOR or

using some pilotage and dead reckoning. Charts and the

ability to use them are still a critical part of pilot proficiency.

Staying Engaged as the Pilot-in-Command

Automation should serve as an aid rather than a replace-

ment for active flight management. Pilots should be

continually monitoring flight instruments and automation

settings. It is important to cross-check system inputs and

aircraft performance. Maintain a high level of engagement

rather than passively relying on automation. There should never be a moment where the pilot lost awareness of what

the aircraft is doing or where they are is lost just because

they are on a long cross-country flight and “the autopilot has it” for now.

The Role of Flight Instructors

Flight instructors play a critical role in ensuring GA pilots develop balanced automation skills. There is much they

can do in initial training and when they work with clients

who are coming back to them for recurrent training or

advanced training. Instructors should:

• Encourage students to practice manual flying during

each lesson;• Introduce controlled automation failures in training scenarios;

• Help students understand the full functions, capabilities, and limitations of automation systems in their aircraft;

• Reinforce the importance of situational awareness and active cockpit management.

By incorporating automation-related emergency proce-

dures into checkrides, currency flying, and training syllabi,

pilots will be better equipped to handle automation failures.

While automation has undoubtedly improved safety and

efficiency in general aviation, excessive reliance on it can

lead to skill degradation, complacency, and increased risk during failures. Pilots have a duty to find a way to strike a

balance between leveraging automation and maintaining

fundamental flying skills. Regular manual flight practice, scenario-based training, and a deep understanding of

automation systems are essential to ensuring pilots remain

proficient and prepared for any situation. By adopting a pro-

active approach to automation training, systems failures, and

keeping your flying skills sharp, you can ensure your overall safety of flight is increased. Learn to monitor and mitigate

failures related to potential overreliance on automation.

Jason Blair is a flight instructor and FAA designated pilot examiner (DPE) actively engaged

in training and testing pilots in single- and multi-engine airplanes in both general aviation

and commercial pilot training environments. He has been a DPE since 2007 and actively flies

his 1947 Stinson.

LEARN MORE

FAA Fly Safe Topic, CFIT and Overreliance on Automation

bit.ly/CFIT_Automation

“No Surprises! Keeping Control of Avionics and Automation, ” FAA Safety Briefing,

Jan/Feb 2020

adobe.ly/4hpaBiS

“Where the Heck Are We? Understanding the Lost Art of Aerial Navigation, ” FAA

Safety Briefing, Jan/Feb 2018

adobe.ly/41Bg2oS

“Teaching Technology – Instilling the Right Aptitudes and Attitudes for Safety, ” FAA Safety Briefing, Sep/Oct 2017

adobe.ly/4hnHZ9x

May/June 2025 15

Just in Time Weather

Using Technology to Help Navigate

Fickle Flight Weather

By James Williams

Imagine you are a VFR pilot on a cross-country flight,

and you notice that the weather is gradually chang-

ing from VFR to IFR. Y ou realize that you need to do

something (i.e., decide) either to turn around and return to your departure airport or divert to an alternate airport.

In this situation you could really use a tool to aid in your decision-making, but that’s not in the cards. Or is it? Well,

welcome to the Pilot Cognitive Assistance Tool (PCAT).

The FAA and the MITRE Corporation, a nonprofit

that manages federally funded research and development centers, recently conducted a joint research study on

technology that might provide that help in the future. The

PCAT is designed to provide cognitive support to pilots,

particularly in single-pilot operations. This is accomplished by accessing weather data that could be available during a

flight, interpreting it for the pilot, and presenting it on an

electronic flight bag (EFB) in a way that allows the pilot to make better-informed decisions. This would aid in reduc-

ing pilot cognitive workload.

Just in Time

Allowing pilots advanced notification of changing weather

conditions to determine if it would improve decision-

making by allowing more time to consider the changes was

the premise behind a recent research study conducted by

the FAA and MITRE using the PCAT. For example, would

the pilot divert to an airport with better weather, return to the departure airport, change course, etc., if they had more

time to consider the weather information? Also, would

a tool that could handle cognitive tasks like comparing runways for crosswind components when the wind didn’t favor one runway or alternate routes in the event of deteri-orating weather be beneficial?

The study was based on an experiment where pilots

flew a series of five scenarios in a simulator configured as a Cessna 172 with a 180-degree visual display, a Garmin

G1000-type display, and an EFB system displayed on a

tablet. From there, the pilots were split into an experimen-

tal group and a control group. Both groups had access to

the same information and technology, but the experimental group had the PCAT system providing notifications on the

EFB. The PCAT provided visual and auditory notifications

of important weather changes on the flight route during each scenario. The control group had the same information

available but had to actively search it out. From there, the

researchers collected objective and subjective data about

the scenarios. The objective data were things like deviations

from the intended flight path, response time to changes, and what kind of decisions the pilots made in response to

changes. The subjective data

included post-scenario and

post-experiment surveys to

measure the pilot’s perceived mental workload and general

information about the pilot’s

experience and currency.

And the Results Are …

Well, interesting and com-plicated. Getting subjects for

A photo of the experimental set up.

any experiment can be challenging, and it’s worse when you

require specific qualifications for your subjects (i.e., people

with some kind of training or qualification, like a pilot

certificate, rather than any person off the street). I only

dipped my toe into this world but ran into that issue with

a far simpler and shorter experiment in an environment

with a high concentration of pilots to draw from. In this study, a representation of the GA pilot population covering

a variety of ages and experience levels was used.

The study found that both groups made decisions at

similar times in each scenario with similar choices (e.g., deviate, land at a new airport, continue flight, pop-up IFR,

etc.). The control group took longer to view important

information or updates and had a higher number of touch-

screen interactions. This makes sense as the experimental group was getting push notifications that resulted in views

of information while increasing situational awareness. Both

groups felt they had a high level of situational awareness and adequate weather information. The average of the

mental workload ratings provided by both groups in the

post-scenario questionnaire did not show a clear difference.

Mental workload ratings increased with age and a greater number of years as a pilot. However, the mental workload

ratings decreased for pilots with a greater number of hours

flown in the last 12 months (pilot currency).

So, what about the study's other parameters, like altitude,

pitch, and roll? They didn’t really show a meaningful differ -

ence between the groups. It came close at a few points, but

close doesn’t count. This is where the challenges I men-

tioned earlier come in. The sample size for the study was

small, with 12 in each group for a total of 24 participants. With an even slightly larger sample, I would bet that you

would get more significant results. Also, the scenarios were

somewhat simple. If you used more complex scenarios and

ramped up the workload, you would likely see an increased

value for a system like the PCAT that offloads processing work from the pilot.

So why didn’t researchers just do a bigger, more complex

experiment? There’s always a tension between perfect and good enough. More complex scenarios require more time

to design and execute. They also introduce more oppor -

tunities for design or interpretation errors. Adding more participants extends the amount of time spent collecting

and analyzing data. That, in turn, increases costs because you’re probably having to pay someone to run the experi-

ment and crunch the numbers afterward. In an ideal world,

you’ d use a sample just big enough to prove or disprove

your hypothesis. But you can only really estimate what An Image of the EFB screen without the PCAT notification (left) and with the

notification (right).Examples of the PCAT notifications.

16 FAA Safety Briefing

that number might be while designing your experiment.

Even with unconstrained resources, you wouldn’t want

to automatically use a huge sample size because, with a

large enough sample size, you can make trivial differences

appear to be significant. So, it’s always a balancing act.

But in total there were promising results when comparing

PCAT vs. non-PCAT conditions and the study did accom-plish an important goal of showing benefits that indicate

future development should go ahead.

The researchers recommended larger and longer exper -

iments to explore the value that a tool like the PCAT could provide. As I read the study report, I agreed with that rec-

ommendation. This experiment offered more than enough

to show the promise of the PCAT. Think back to the hypo-

thetical laid out in the opening of this article. Would using a PCAT tool be beneficial in these circumstances? I think

so. It could help address plan continuation bias; “Well, I’ll

continue on and see if I can make it. ” If something like the PCAT popped up a notification saying your destination or

enroute weather is worse than forecast, it would give you

a chance to quickly evaluate whether or not to continue, avoiding additional potential risk exposure.

The PCAT could function as a cognitive assistant giving

you updates that let you have greater control over your flight

and increase your situational awareness and safety. The

intelligent nature of the system means you get advanced

notice of changes when they are happening along with some

suggestions to modify your flight in response. But you’re still in charge. Y ou’re actually more situationally aware while

looking at secondary screens and systems less. I can’t wait to

see what a more complex and larger experiment will reveal. While anything is possible, I feel like higher workload situa -

tions are where tools like this will shine.

James Williams is FAA Safety Briefing’s associate editor and photo editor. He is also a pilot

and ground instructor.

LEARN MORE

NextGen Weather

faa.gov/nextgen/programs/weather

Training devices are excellent tools for testing new technologies without risk to the participants.

May/June 2025 17

18 FAA Safety Briefing

Appraising

Aviation Activity

How the GA Survey is Making Your Voice Heard

By Nicole Hartman

Surveys — sigh. There’s no shortage of them. It often

feels like we’re being bombarded with requests, eagerly

seeking our feedback on everything from market

research and demographics to good old customer satisfac-tion. While surveys are intended to collect valuable insights,

they can feel overwhelming, making us hesitant to partici-pate. We might even think: Does my input really matter?

When it comes to the FAA General Aviation and Part

135 Activity survey (GA survey), the answer is unequivo-cally YES!

The GA Survey is voluntary and is the only source of

information on the general aviation fleet, the number of

hours flown, and the ways people use general aviation

aircraft. The data is used to assess safety, economic impact, and the effects of regulatory changes.

Let’s take a look at the history of the survey and how

your participation directly supports aviation safety.

Starting the Survey

Before the first implementation of the annual GA Survey in 1978, the FAA used the Aircraft Registration Eligibility,

Identification, and Activity Report (AC Form 8050-73) to

collect data on general aviation activity. The form was sent

annually to all owners of civil aircraft in the United States

and served two purposes:

• Part 1 was the mandatory aircraft registration revalida-tion form; and

• Part 2 was voluntary and applied to general aviation aircraft only, asking questions on the owner-discretion-

ary characteristics of the aircraft such as flight hours,

avionics equipment, base location, and use.

In 1978, the FAA replaced AC Form 8050-73 with a

new system. Part 1 was changed to a triennial registration

program. Instead of requiring all aircraft owners to reval-

idate and update their aircraft registration annually, the

FAA only required revalidation for those aircraft owners who had not contacted the FAA Registry for three years. In

2010, the FAA eliminated the voluntary Triennial Aircraft

Registration Report Program and established rules that

require the renewal of an aircraft registration every three

years and place time limits on interim statuses.

The General Aviation Activity Survey replaced Part 2

of AC Form 8050-73. It was conducted annually based on a statistically selected sample of aircraft and requested the same type of information as Part 2 of AC Form 8050-73.

The first survey took place in 1978 and collected data on

the 1977 general aviation fleet.

Survey Shifts

The GA Survey periodically revises the content, imple-mentation, and definition of the GA population to

remain current with regulations, activity patterns, and

aviation technology. For example, in 1999 the survey

form was redesigned to reduce item non-response, add

new content, and be compatible with optical scanning.

Air medical services were added to the use categories,

and it began collecting avionics data yearly rather than

every other year. The 2005 revision included changing the

fractional ownership question from yes/no to a percent-

age of hours flown, reducing the number of fuel type response categories by removing obsolete options, and

adding average fuel consumption (gallons/hour). In 2007

the location of the aircraft was revised to ask about the state or territory where the aircraft was “primarily flown”

during the survey year rather than where it was "based”

as of Dec. 31 of the survey year. The 2019 modification

eliminated non-mutually exclusive transponder selec-

tion options in the “Installed Transponder/Surveillance Equipment” section of avionics questions. The survey

will continue adapting its content based on welcomed

feedback and support from GA industry leaders, organi-zations, and respondents.

May/June 2025 19

20 FAA Safety Briefing

Aim of the Appraisal

The purpose of the survey is to provide the FAA and the

public with a variety of estimates on general aviation and

on-demand Part 135 aircraft activity. The collected data

enables the FAA to monitor the general aviation fleet so

that it can:

✔Evaluate the impact of safety initiatives and regulatory

changes;

✔Anticipate and meet demand for National Airspace System facilities and services;

✔Develop more accurate safety measures for the general aviation community.

Other government agencies, industry groups, trade

associations, and private businesses also rely on this infor -

mation to identify safety problems and to form the basis for critical research. The data is used to compute safety

metrics such as fatal accident rates, assess the GA indus-

try’s economic impact, track the success of safety initia-tives (including avionics recommendations), determine

funding for infrastructure and service needs, and assess the

impact of regulatory changes. In fact, the NTSB’s official accident rate for aviation uses the GA survey data as input,

while other segments use mandatory reporting, such as

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Jens Hennig, vice

president of operations, safety, and security for the General

Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), highlighted this nuance, stating:

“The GA survey provides a cornerstone to FAA, NTSB, and the aviation industry’s work to advance aviation safety …

… The use of a voluntary survey, as opposed to

mandatory reporting, also balances the importance of understanding the flying within the industry with the

burden imposed on aircraft owners. ”

Each year, about 30% of the fleet (more than 80,000) is

surveyed, with certain high-use aircraft — such as turbine

aircraft, rotorcraft, newer aircraft, and Alaska-based air -

craft — surveyed at 100%. Note: single-engine aircraft are sampled at a rate of ~13% and twin engines are surveyed

at ~53%.

We strongly encourage everyone who is contacted to

respond so that all aviation activity is represented. Y our responses are strictly confidential, and only the survey

contractor processes the data to generate estimates.

15 Minutes Well Spent

Surveys may seem tedious, but this one is a small effort with a big impact. If you're selected, take those 15 minutes

— your input helps keep aviation safe, efficient, and

well-supported.

Ultimately, this survey benefits participants and indus-

try partners by providing vital data on the GA fleet. These insights inform research, safety initiatives, and regulatory

changes championed by the government, trade organiza-

tions, and industry groups.

It is the only source of comprehensive data on the

size and scope of the GA fleet, flight hours, and aircraft used. The FAA and industry rely on accurate data from

a diverse range of aircraft, and that is where they need

your help. We encourage everyone who is contacted to respond to the survey to ensure all aspects of aviation

activity are represented.

Nicole Hartman is an FAA Safety Briefing associate editor and technical writer-editor in the

FAA’s Flight Standards Service. An example of what the GA Survey looks like.

An example of the GA Survey post card.

May/June 2025 21

ON TRACKHELP US STAY

WITH THE

47TH ANNUAL

GENERAL AVIATION AND PART 135 A CTIVITY SURVEY

Receiving responses to the GA survey from all aircraft is essential to assess the need for

aviation infrastructure and evaluate the impact of safety and aviation initiatives.

*Survey invitations were sent to a select group of aircraft owners/operators.

QUESTIONS? CALL 800-826-1797 OR EMAIL INFOAVIATIONSURVEY@TETRATECH.COMUnderstanding

Flight Hours and Safety Metrics Reporting your  ight hours is critical because of the direct

linkage to computing accurate accident rates.

Not Reporting Your Hours = Higher Calculated Accident Rate

Reporting Your Hours = Lower Calculated Accident Rate

More AccurateMore Accurate^^ 

IT ONLY TAKES 15 MINUTES!Complete your survey today!*

THE PATH TO UNLEADED AVGAS

SPRING 2025 UPDATE

HOW DOES AN UNLEADED FUEL GAIN APPROVAL THROUGH THE

FAA FLEET AUTHORIZATION PROCESS? (Part 2)

This is the second of a three-part series explaining how the next generation

of unleaded aviation fuels may be authorized for use in specific engines

and aircraft. This segment focuses on the FAA’s Fleet Authorization process,

developed utilizing the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) along with the

use of ASTM testing standards. The first installment covered supplemental

type certificates (STC) and approved model list STCs. For more information, visit flyEAGLE.org/updates .

Q: What is the FAA Fleet Authorization process, and why is it import -

ant to pilots and aircraft owners?

Pilots and aircraft owners should be aware that the Fleet Authorization pro -

cess will result in the FAA, through PAFI, authorizing a qualified unleaded fuel

for use in aircraft and aircraft engines. The makes and models of type-cer-

tificated and non-type-certificated piston aircraft and aircraft engines that

can safely operate with the qualified unleaded avgas will be compiled and

published by the FAA in a document called the Eligible Fleet Authorization Summary Report (EFASR). EAGLE highlighted the FAA’s Fleet Authorization

process in a recent fact sheet available at bit.ly/3XpcZPu (PDF).

Q: How does the Fleet Authorization process work?

Under the Fleet Authorization process, the FAA collaborates with industry

partners to conduct comprehensive testing of candidate unleaded fuels. This

includes evaluating the fuel’s compatibility with various aircraft materials,

engines, operational environments, and supply chain components. This data,

along with an approved ASTM production specification, is required for a

qualified replacement fuel. Once it is qualified and the EFASR is published, the FAA will issue a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), which will

“identify the qualified fuel, specify the aircraft and engines eligible to use the

qualified fuel, and provide references and other information to accomplish the alteration necessary to enable the use of the fuel. ”

It should also be noted that type certificate applicants and holders, as well

as owners/operators of non-type certificated piston-powered aircraft, may

refer to the EFASR and SAIB to determine whether the fuel can be safely used

with their aircraft and engines. Owners of special light-sport aircraft (SLSA) can also use the information provided to meet the operating limitations

specified in 14 CFR section 91.327(b)(5).

Q: What role does PAFI play in the Fleet Authorization process?

PAFI is a collaboration between the FAA, industry stakeholders, and

technical experts to identify and evaluate unleaded fuel candidates. Estab -

lished in 2014, PAFI defines and executes comprehensive testing protocols

to ensure that candidate fuels meet necessary safety, performance, and

environmental standards.The FAA requires PAFI to make fleet-wide authorization decisions, and

it generates the technical data required to support the ASTM specification.

This data undergoes extensive peer review by aviation and fuel experts

involved in avgas production, distribution, storage, dispensing, operation,

maintenance, and aircraft usage to ensure the fuel’s safety and reliability.

The resulting data helps the marketplace determine whether approved

fuels are viable not only for aircraft operation but also for long-term production and distribution.

Q: How does the Fleet Authorization process compare to the STC

process?

While both the Fleet Authorization and STC processes aim to ensure safe fuel

use, they differ significantly in scope and application.

STC Process: The STC process requires FAA approval for each aircraft and

aircraft engine model. In the STC process, fuel developers work directly

with the FAA to conduct required testing to collect data proving compati-

bility, safety, and performance for specific engines and airframes. This data is provided to the FAA for evaluation, determination of means of compli-

ance, and authorization to approve the unleaded fuel for the requested

aircraft and engines. Aircraft and engines each require their own STC. Once the fuel is authorized by the FAA, aircraft owners must then purchase the

approved STC and work with a certificated mechanic to implement the

required modifications.

Fleet Authorization Process: As stated above, the FAA, through PAFI,

collaborates with industry partners to conduct comprehensive testing of candidate unleaded fuels. This includes evaluating the fuel’s compatibility

with various aircraft materials, engines, operational environments, and sup -

ply chain components. This data, along with an approved ASTM production

specification for the unleaded fuel, is required to have a qualified replacement

fuel. Once there is a qualified replacement fuel and the EFASR is published,

the FAA will issue an SAIB, which will “identify the qualified fuel, specify the

aircraft and engines eligible to use the qualified fuel, and provide references

and other information to accomplish the alteration necessary to enable the use of the fuel. ” This process may also require engine and other modifications

to the aircraft.

Q: Is there information available regarding the PAFI test plans,

including engines, airframes, and materials that will be tested?

Yes, this information is available at flyEAGLE.org/resources .

Stay tuned for Part 3, where we will explore the role of industry consen-

sus standards, such as those from ASTM International, in ensuring the safe,

consistent production, distribution, and use of unleaded aviation fuels.

To learn more, visit flyEAGLE.org .

22 FAA Safety Briefing

May/June 2025 23

CHECKLIST FAA resources and safety remindersJAMES WILLIAMS

OUTSIDE YOUR COMFORT ZONE?

I’ve always said that if you started

flying out of either a towered or

non-towered airport, it has an impact

that stretches beyond your first tenta-

tive flights. Although my first flight at

the controls was out of a non-towered airport, the vast bulk of my initial

training was out of a small, towered,

class D airport. And henceforth I have always felt just a little bit more com-

fortable at towered airports. On my

first solo cross country I still remem-

ber arriving at a non-towered airport

for the first time without an instructor alongside. I initially thought, “What

are these people doing? They’re every-

where! It’s chaos!” It wasn’t. It was a mildly busy morning at a fairly normal

GA airport. In retrospect, I know that

now. But at the time it was a culture

shock. I’ve witnessed an equal but

opposite effect on those who ‘grew up’ at a non-towered field. These tenden-

cies can be overcome by experience.

Personally, I spent a summer operat-

ing out of a non-towered GA reliever

airport on a regular basis and that made me a lot more comfortable in

the non-towered environment going

forward. But not everyone has that opportunity, so what should we do?

There’s an AC for That!

There may not be an app for that,

but there is an Advisory Circular (AC). ACs are one of the FAA ’s ways

of sharing information and helping

people comply with regulations. ACs

certainly aren’t the only way to comply

with a given rule or regulation, but they are a good way to ensure com-

pliance if in doubt. They can also

be a good starting point for deeper research on a topic. In this case AC

90-66C, Non-Towered Airport Flight

Operations , last revised in 2023, calls attention to recommended proce-

dures and processes for use at airports

without a control tower or where the control tower is not operating.

The AC combines guidance from a

collection of FAA sources into one rel -

atively brief document. These include

the Airman Information Manual

(AIM), Chart Supplements, the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge

(PHAK), and more. The AC includes references to those other documents

so that you can dig deeper if you need

more info from the original source.

Increasing Comfort

The AC offers a lot of guidance in less

than 30 pages, and it reads faster than

that when you account for the format-ting. While the whole thing is worth

reading, we will mention a few areas

of emphasis here. First is knowing

about your airport before you arrive:

whether it’s your departure, destina-tion, or anything in between, like radio

frequencies, traffic patterns, airport

conditions, and procedures. The FAA

doesn’t regulate traffic pattern entry,

only pattern flow. This means that when entering the traffic pattern at an

airport without an operating control

tower, inbound pilots are expected to observe other aircraft already in the

pattern and conform to the traffic

pattern in use. (Reference AC 90-66C,

AIM, PHAK, and 14 CFR 91.126 (b)).

While most airports utilize a standard left pattern, some don’t. These will

be documented on the VFR chart or

in the Chart Supplement and check-ing ahead of time will inform your

approach to the airport.

Next, we want to focus on commu-

nication. Non-towered airports are

more like a jam band than an orches-tra. Without a conductor (ATC) they rely on good communication between the players. The AC emphasizes the

need for clear and concise transmis-

sions. One example is when preparing

for takeoff, make sure to provide

relevant information, i.e., “XYZ traffic, Cessna 123, taking off Runway

32, XYZ traffic. ” By sandwiching the

info with the airport name, you give anyone who missed the beginning

of the message a chance to catch

up. Avoid using phrases like “taking

the active. ” That doesn’t tell anyone

anything. You know what the “active”

is but you’re assuming everyone else

is on the same sheet of music. So you

want to make sure your messages are the right mix of information and

brevity. Also, you want to start mon

itoring communications at least 10 miles out so you can start developing

a mental picture of the activity before

you arrive and for 10 miles on depar -

ture to avoid conflict on your way out.

Lastly, one of the often-repeated

pieces of advice is to avoid straight-in

approaches. While the FAA doesn’t regulate pattern entry, straight-ins are

not good for mixing into established

traffic and increase the risk of a midair

collision. With advice from this AC and

a little practice, you can expand your comfort zone to include non-towered

airports that once were “off limits. ”

James Williams is FAA Safety Briefing’s associate editor and

photo editor. He is also a pilot and ground instructor.

LEARN MORE

AC 90-66C, Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations

bit.ly/AC90-66C

14 CFR section 91.126 (b), Operating on or in

the Vicinity of an Airport in Class G Airspace

bit.ly/14CFR_91_126b

24 FAA Safety Briefing

DRONE DEBRIEF drone safety roundupREBEKAH WATERS

THE FAST PASS FOR DRONES

It’s a warm summer day, and you’ve

decided to take your drone out for

a spin. But then you realize you’re

near an airport and you’ll need

special permission to fly. Waiting

for an airspace authorization used to be like waiting in line for a popular

ride at a theme park. Thanks to the

Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC),

the “fast pass” for drones, that wait

time has been cut from days to

almost seconds in some cases. With

just a few taps on an app, remote pilots can receive near real-time

authorization to fly in controlled

airspace, making the skies more accessible while still keeping

them safe.

Drone operators who want to fly

in controlled airspace at or below 400 feet, around many airports, must receive an airspace authorization from

the FAA. Before LAANC, pilots had

to apply for authorizations through

the FAA DroneZone

(faadronezone-access.faa.gov). The FAA collaborated with industry to

streamline the process and make it

efficient for drone operators. Today, LAANC automates the application

and approval process for airspace

authorizations and offers near real-

time approvals. LAANC directly supports

unmanned aircraft system (UAS) integration into the National Airspace

System (NAS). It provides the frame-work that makes the automated

application and approval process

for airspace authorizations possible.

Companies are approved by the FAA

to provide LAANC services. Once approved, they become UAS service

suppliers (USS). USSs provide desktop

and/or mobile apps that utilize the

LAANC capability to issue near real-

time approvals. This is accomplished through the UAS data exchange,

which facilitates the sharing of air -

space data between the FAA and USS.

Drone pilots who want to fly in

LAANC enabled controlled airspace at

or below 400 feet use an FAA-approved USS app to request an airspace authori -

zation. Requests are checked against multiple airspace data sources in the

FAA UAS data exchange, such as UAS

facility maps, special use airspace data, airports, and airspace classes, as well

as temporary flight restrictions (TFRs)

and notices to airmen (NOTAMS). If approved, the pilot receives the

authorization in near real-time. Unless

specifically requested in an authoriza-

tion, drone pilots don’t need to notify

the tower before

they fly.

If you are thinking about request-

ing an airspace authorization through LAANC, here are some things to consider:

• Airspace authorizations are available to pilots flying under part 107 or the

exception for recreational flyers.

• Y ou can apply up to 90 days in

advance of your operations, but it’s

a good idea to apply at least a day or

two before you want to fly. This is

to give adequate time for air traffic

control situational awareness.

• Y ou can submit a “further coordina-tion” request above the designated

altitude ceiling in a UAS facility map

up to 400 feet. This is only available

for part 107 operations, and approval

is coordinated manually through the FAA, so it will take longer.

• If you are planning an operation in controlled airspace that requires

a waiver and an airspace autho-

rization, you must apply for both through the FAA's DroneZone. For

more information on waivers go to bit.ly/107waiver .

Born out of a partnership with

industry that is focused on safety

and efficiency, LAANC is your “fast

pass” to the sky! It is available at 597 LAANC-enabled facilities and 828

airports (bit.ly/LAANCairports). If

you want to fly near an airport that

doesn’t participate in LAANC, you

can request airspace authorization through FAA DroneZone. Remember,

LAANC provides airspace authori-

zations only. Pilots must still check

NOTAMs, weather conditions, and

follow all airspace restrictions. To find a list of FAA-approved USS, go to

bit.ly/LAANCsuppliers.

Rebekah Waters is an FAA Safety Briefing associate

editor. She is a technical writer-editor in the FAA’s Flight

Standards Service.BORN OUT OF A PARTNERSHIP

WITH INDUSTRY THAT IS FOCUSED ON SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY , LAANC IS YOUR

“FAST PASS” TO THE SKY!.

May/June 2025 25

NUTS, BOL TS, AND ELECTRONS GA maintenance issuesREBEKAH WATERS

THE CARE AND KEEPING OF BATTERIES

Batteries are an important part of

any aircraft. They provide the initial

power needed to start the engine,

energize critical systems, and keep

everything functioning. The primary

role of the battery is to provide a reserve of electrical power in case

the alternator fails, allowing pilots to

navigate, communicate, and get the aircraft back on the ground safely. If

the battery is weak or neglected, the

whole system struggles — starting the

engine becomes unreliable, avionics

may fail, and safety is compromised. Regular maintenance keeps both the

battery and the engine in top shape,

ensuring smooth operation when it matters most.

Battery types vary. Most small

private aircraft use lead-acid bat-

teries, while most commercial and

military aircraft use NiCad batteries. However, other types are becoming

available such as gel cell and sealed

lead-acid batteries. The battery best

suited for a particular application will

depend on the relative importance of several characteristics, such as

weight, cost, volume, service or shelf

life, discharge rate, maintenance, and charging rate. Any change of battery

type must comply with the aircraft’s

type certification basis and may be

considered a major alteration to the

aircraft. To ensure safety and reliabil-ity, it’s essential to update the aircraft’s

instructions for continued airworthi-

ness (ICA) to include maintenance and inspection requirements specific

to the new battery type.

Regular inspection and mainte-

nance of aircraft batteries is crucial

to ensure optimal performance and safety. Mechanics should conduct

routine checks for physical damage,

electrolyte levels, and signs of corrosion. Regularly inspect and clean

battery terminals and keep them free

from corrosion to ensure proper elec-trical contact. Poor connections can

lead to several potentially dangerous

issues, including increased electrical resistance, battery drainage, system

malfunctions, and overheating and

potential fire hazards. Always follow

manufacturer-recommended charging

procedures. Overcharging or deep discharging batteries can significantly

reduce their lifespan. A good charger

has the option to select the type of battery you are charging which helps

protect the battery.

Proper storage of aircraft batteries

is crucial to maintain their function-ality and extend service life. Store bat-

teries in a dry, temperature-controlled

environment. Extreme temperatures

can degrade battery performance and shorten lifespan. Maintain batteries at

an appropriate state of charge during

storage. For lead-acid batteries, this typically means keeping them fully

charged to prevent sulfation. Perform

regular checks during storage to

monitor voltage health and recharge

as necessary to maintain optimal charge levels.

Even with proper maintenance

and storage, there comes a time when

batteries must be replaced. Several

factors, including capacity degrada-tion, physical damage, manufacturer’s service life limits, and safety concerns, can lead to the decision to remove and dispose of an aircraft battery.

When this happens, proper disposal

is crucial to ensure safety and compli-

ance. Follow all federal and state regu-

lations regarding hazardous materials.

Aviation mechanics who follow

good maintenance and storage prac-tices significantly enhance the safety, reliability, and lifespan of aircraft

batteries, which in turn contributes to

overall flight safety! To find out more

about battery care, see the resources

listed below.

Rebekah Waters is an FAA Safety Briefing associate

editor. She is a technical writer-editor in the FAA’s Flight

Standards Service.

LEARN MORE

Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook —

Airframe, Chapter 9bit.ly/43H2Ygx

AC 43.13-1B, Acceptable Methods, Techniques,

and Practices — Aircraft Inspection and Repair bit.ly/AC43131BREGULARLY INSPECT AND

CLEAN BATTERY TERMINALS

AND KEEP THEM FREE FROM CORROSION TO ENSURE PROPER

ELECTRICAL CONTACT.

26 FAA Safety Briefing

VERTICALLY SPEAKING safety issues for rotorcraft pilotsLEAH MURPHY

WEATHER OR NOT

Every preflight should include a

comprehensive weather check, but for

helicopter pilots operating in low-

level flight environments, weather

planning can look a little different.

One of the greatest risks to heli-

copter operations is inadvertent flight into instrument meteorological condi-

tions (IMC). Many helicopters are not certified for IMC and lack the instru-

mentation and stability necessary for

safe flight in zero-visibility conditions.

Pilots should thoroughly evaluate

real-time observations and forecasts to detect potential hazards.

Standard weather products like

METARs, TAFs, AIRMETs, and PIREPs can indicate IMC of low ceil-

ings and poor visibility. However, pilots

should also recognize less obvious

factors that could reduce visibility,

even if IMC is not explicitly forecasted. These include showery precipitation,

blowing snow, and haze or smoke, all

of which can cause temporary IMC

that might not otherwise be indicated.

Proactively identifying these risks allows pilots to make informed go/

no-go decisions and plan safer alter -

nate routes if conditions deteriorate.

A valuable resource for helicopter

pilots is weather radar, which pro-

vides real-time data on precipitation

and storm activity. The Terminal

Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) system, available through the Aviation

Weather Center, is a specialized radar

system deployed near major airports. It provides high-resolution weather

data focused on a local radius, offering

critical insights into wind shear, micro-

bursts, and localized precipitation.

Unlike TDWR detecting short-range

weather hazards, Next-Generation Radar (NEXRAD) covers a much

larger area and provides a broader picture of developing weather trends. While NEXRAD is ideal for long-range flight planning, TDWR is better suited

for assessing conditions around depar -

ture and destination airports. Using both sources together provides a more

complete picture of weather conditions for a planned route.

In 2006, the helicopter emergency

medical services (HEMS) weather tool was introduced as an experimental

product designed specifically for the

helicopter air ambulance industry. Its

creation was in response to an unfor -

tunate history of controlled flight into

terrain (CFIT) and loss of control

(LOC) accidents in helicopter oper -

ations. Many air ambulance flights

require pilots to accept a flight request

within minutes, leaving little time

for extensive weather analysis. The

HEMS tool was developed to provide

quick, easy-to-understand weather data tailored for low-level flights.

Since its inception, the tool has

evolved significantly in its presenta-

tion, accessibility, and the range of

information it provides. Today, it is fully integrated into the Graphical

Forecasts for Aviation-Low Altitude

(GFA-LA) web-based platform, avail-able through AviationWeather.gov .

As an FAA-approved source of

aviation weather information, the HEMS tool is an essential resource for any pilot operating in the low-level flight environment. Those

unfamiliar with this tool should

take time to explore its features on

both desktop and mobile devices

to ensure they can use it effectively when needed.

To access the tool:

• Navigate to the Graphical Forecasts for Aviation page at

AviationWeather.gov/gfa.

• At the top right, select the helicop-

ter icon to activate the low-altitude

mode, which displays weather

information up to 5,000 feet.

• Use the tabs and sidebars to cus-tomize the displayed information,

including ceilings and visibility,

winds, icing conditions, and more.

Helicopter pilots should integrate

multiple weather sources to build a

comprehensive preflight plan.

By thoroughly evaluating weather

conditions, understanding radar imagery, and setting conservative

flight limits, pilots can reduce the risk of inadvertent IMC, CFIT, and other

weather-related hazards.

Leah Murphy is a dual-rated flight instructor and helicop -

ter air ambulance pilot. She is also an FAA Safety Team

Representative in Cleveland, Ohio.Screenshot of G-AIRMETs in low altitude mode (forecasts up to 5,000 ft) on AviationWeather.gov.

FLIGHT FORUM

Check out our GA Safety

Facebook page at

Facebook.com/groups/GASafety .

If you’re not a member, we encourage you to join the group of nearly 17,000 participants in the GA community who share safety principles and best practices, participate in positive and safe engagement with the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam), and post relevant GA content that makes the National Airspace System safer.

May/June 2025 27

letters from the Safety Briefing mailbagLukewarm Lights?

One question about “ A New Look for Night

Lights” (bit.ly/41IuFqx), with LEDs producing much less infrared radiation (heat) than incandescents, how is the front face of these lights kept free of snow and ice?

— Robert

Hi Robert, thanks for reading and for

your great question! The LEDs will have heaters built into the unit that are ther -

mostatically controlled. This will prevent the accumulation of ice and snow, so the LEDs aren’t left out in the cold.

Night Currency Clarification

Regarding the paragraph on night currency in the article “Flying into the Dark” (bit.ly/4ht0sSg), unless I've missed something, a pilot can be pilot-in-command and solo at night, he/she just can't carry passengers without having done the three takeoffs, land-ings to full stops. 61.57(b)(1) "... no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying persons during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise ..." Can you please clarify?

— Jon

Hi Jon! It’s actually the same as daytime.

You can’t carry passengers without three takeoffs and landings, but you can get current before the flight solo. The only difference is that at night, you have to do full stops rather than touch-and-gos.

It is true that a pilot can be pilot-in-

command (PIC) of an aircraft and solo at night if that pilot has not met the require-ment for completing three take-off-and landings (TOL) to a full stop (within 90 days) as specified by § 61.57(b)(1). It is also true that a pilot cannot be the PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers without and until accomplishing three takeoffs and landings to full stops as required by

§ 61.57(b)(1). Thanks for reading, fly safe! Public Engagement to Modernize

Pilot Schools

Recently, the FAA held an introductory

meeting (virtual) to collaborate with the public on innovative flight training strategies to modernize pilot school regulations. Current part 141 pilot school training regulations have foun-dational ties to the early years of pilot training and elements directly linked to the Civil Air Regulations [sic] from the 1940s. Therefore, updating part 141 regulations would ensure the training conducted at pilot schools meets the 21st century challenges of technology, safety, and the advancements in teach-ing and learning methods.

These forums will be a key resource

in the FAA ’s ability to identify and address the demands and needs of the flight training industry and additional public meetings will be held throughout the year. The FAA expects to publish a findings report in early 2026 at the conclusion of the project. Learn more about how to get involved and the meet-

ing schedule at bit.ly/3WueoDH.

For more stories and news,

check out our blog “Cleared for Takeoff” at medium.com/FAA .

Let us hear from you! Send your com-

ments, suggestions, and questions

to SafetyBriefing@faa.gov. You can also reach us on X (formerly Twitter) @FAASafetyBrief.

We may edit letters for style and/or

length. Due to our publishing schedule, responses may not appear for several issues. While we do not print anony-mous letters, we will withhold names or send personal replies upon request. If you have a concern with an immediate FAA operational issue, contact your local Flight Standards District Office or air traffic facility.

28 FAA Safety Briefing

ON FINAL an editor's perspective

TOM HOFFMANN

ON THE UPGRADE

I’m dating myself, but in my early

years of flight training, my experi-

ence with magenta lines had more

to do with depicting the boundar -

ies of an airport radar service area (ARSA) than a direct-to-navigation tool. While I do prefer flying with a

traditional steam-gauge six-pack, I

certainly see and have experienced some of the many benefits that the

latest glass technology provides.

There are many alluring upsides

to using this tech including improve-

ments in reliability, accuracy, and workload management. It’s what

motivates many pilots to upgrade their

aging birds. But there’s a lot to consider when making these upgrades; some

obvious, others not so much. In this

technology-themed issue, I thought

I’ d highlight a few things to consider

when upgrading and help you get the most safety bang for your buck.

Do Your Homework

A good first step is to assess the type

of flying you do with your aircraft and determine which upgrades might

best contribute to safety and function-

ality. For example, if you primarily fly daytime VFR trips of an hour or

less, funds spent on an angle of attack

indicator (AoA) might make more

sense than a new electronic flight

instrument system (EFIS). Both have positive safety benefits, but the AoA

might offer more of a safety benefit

for that type of mission profile.

Incidentally, an AoA indicator is

typically a device that you never knew you needed until you install it and

learn how to use it. Wings fly based

on the angle of attack with the relative wind. Whether we realize it or not, we

use our airspeed indicator as a way of

crudely approximating angle of attack, without consideration of weight or gravity (G)-forces. An AoA can help pilots focus their attention where it

needs to be to avoid a stall. See the

FAA ’s recent bulletin on AoAs at bit.ly/SAIB_AOA.

A good approach toward upgrade

options might be to focus on the

hazards you are primarily concerned

with and the tools you can install to help mitigate them. If you’re con-

cerned about an inflight structural

failure, for example, you could look at

options for a ballistic recovery system

(i.e., airframe parachute).

Be sure to also leverage all sources

of knowledge about potential upgrades and ask questions. Reach out to type clubs, research online forums,

and check with fellow pilots. There are

lots of good upgrade options, but not

all of them are worth the cost.

The Big Picture

When researching for upgrades, be

sure to look at the project holistically,

with consideration for future changes.

This was top of mind for Brad Zeigler, an FAA aviation safety analyst, who

was considering some upgrades to

his 1975 Cessna 182 Skylane . “When

my attitude indicator failed, I knew

that I wanted to replace my old

vacuum-powered round gauges with

a new large digital display, but funds

only allowed for a pair of smaller round electronic flight instruments, ”

explained Zeigler. “By considering my

future plans for an autopilot upgrade, I was able to select a unit that would

eventually control my future autopi-

lot, and when I save up the funds for

a 10-inch EFIS, my round electronic

display will serve as a required backup display, albeit relocated on the instru-

ment panel. ”Budgeting for Time and Money

Two items sometimes overlooked

by pilots are the time and expense

needed for an upgrade. For example,

even a simpler avionics installation may still require a technician to spend

several hours perched upside down

under your panel tracing cables and

replacing wiring harnesses. Many

owners are often surprised by how long the aircraft is out of service. For

that reason, it might be prudent to

schedule any interior work while the engine is being overhauled or during

an annual inspection.

Post-Mod Considerations

After your shiny new upgrades are

installed, there are still many things

to consider, including training,

potential checklist modifications, and

new maintenance considerations.

Take the opportunity to find an instructor familiar with your aircraft

model and any enhancements you’ve

made. Don’t try to teach yourself how to navigate your new naviga-

tor or pilot your new autopilot. Do

the bookwork ahead of time, watch

videos, do some ground instruction, and finally, fly with an instructor

who can teach you how to use your

new avionics in flight.Panel upgrade to a 1975 Cessna 182 Skylane.

FAA FACESFAA employee profile

PAUL CIANCIOLO

JAMES KENNEY

Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA’s Flight Technologies and Procedures Division

As a teenager, James (Jim) Kenney was

udderly devoted to working at a small

dairy farm in New Jersey. However,

his mother was concerned he would

become a farmer.

“My mom suggested that I go

to school for hotel management instead, ” Jim said. “I had to find

something more exciting — so I picked aviation. She was at least

happy that I went to college. ”

Jim started flying when he was 17

and earned his airline transport pilot

certificate when he was 22. He then built hours as a flight instructor and

flew charters. Soon after reaching

more than 4,500 flight hours, Jim was offered an aviation safety inspector

job in Cleveland. He later transferred

to the Chicago Certificate Manage-

ment Office (CMO) to provide air

carrier oversight.

“ A few years later, I transferred

to Washington, where I started as a subject matter expert in the part 121

flight operations, ” he continues. “I

worked on many interesting projects. Then I got a call from the director

of Flight Standards asking if I would

like to focus on international issues. ”One of Jim’s significant accomplish-

ments was designing and implement-ing the International Aviation Safety

Assessment (IASA) program. When

another country’s air carrier flies into the U.S. or codeshares with a U.S. air

carrier, it must meet safety standards

set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Through IASA,

the FAA focuses on a country’s ability,

not the ability of individual air carri-

ers, to adhere to international safety

standards and recommended prac-tices. Before leaving the FAA in 1996,

Jim also served as the manager of the

Scottsdale Flight Standards District

Office (FSDO).

Before returning to the FAA, Jim

worked in senior management roles at four small part 121 and 129 air

carriers. He also spent 10 years at an aviation consulting firm managing

many large aircraft leases, engineer -

ing, and maintenance.

In 2013, Jim worked briefly in

the FAA ’s unmanned aircraft group

before returning to his passion for

crewed aircraft.

“I accepted a position in the Flight

Technologies and Procedures Division and immediately began working on

ADS-B issues, ” he adds. “One of my

duties has been to reduce the number

of transmitted callsign errors, com-monly called a callsign mismatch. We

have seen excellent improvement in

this area as the error rate has dropped

from 5% to less than one-fifth of 1%. ”

That decrease is attributed to the

considerable time spent educating the public about Automatic Depen-

dent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology operation. Jim notes that

the team’s work on ADS-B traffic and

weather has also positively impacted

general aviation (GA) safety.“I’ve had dozens of GA pilots tell

me that the ADS-B In traffic informa-tion saved their lives, ” Jim explains. “If

any GA pilot does not have access to this inexpensive technology, it should

be the first thing on your to-do list. I

guarantee that you will be surprised by what you see. ”

The biggest challenge with ADS-B

is equipping and ensuring the equip-

ment works correctly. Air traffic con-

trol does not usually advise pilots of ADS-B errors when the transponder

is functioning properly. A free Public

ADS-B Performance Report (PAPR)

is key to eliminating errors. Jim

recommends that all aircraft owners request a PAPR (bit.ly/PAPRequest)

at least once a year before the air -

craft’s annual inspection.

“I believe we are just scratching the

surface with ADS-B In technology, ” he

expands. “With additional investment

and testing, ADS-B In will continue

to provide more significant safety enhancements for the GA community. ”

Paul Cianciolo is an associate editor and the social media

lead for FAA Safety Briefing. He is a U.S. Air Force veteran

and an auxiliary airman with Civil Air Patrol.

James Kenney in front of a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 when

he served as president of Laker Airways in England.

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

LOOK WHO’S READING

FAA Safety Briefing

“Safety is paramount when I’m flying, and I’m never

done educating myself on how to be a safer pilot.

That’s why I read FAA Safety Briefing magazine.”

– Bruno Brasileiro

Pilot and Social Media Content Creator

@Fly_With_Bruno