FAA watching you?
Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:35 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
From what I have gathered from air traffic controllers is radar coverage is very weak without the transponder on. Talked to a lot of folks who have a transponder but will be removing transponder and not installing ADSB. I can see their reasoning as a transponder before 2020 will get you into B and C, but after will not. So if you never do the B and C thing why have a transponder?
- fast eddie offline
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:45 pm
- Location: ABILENE
- Aircraft: Carbon Cub
Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:43 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
fast eddie wrote:From what I have gathered from air traffic controllers is radar coverage is very weak without the transponder on. Talked to a lot of folks who have a transponder but will be removing transponder and not installing ADSB. I can see their reasoning as a transponder before 2020 will get you into B and C, but after will not. So if you never do the B and C thing why have a transponder?
Not just into, but around - B's have a 30nm ring regardless of whether you're in the B tiers. Also anything above 10k Class E (which is most of the CONUS) unless <2500AGL. So unless you always fly low, you are limited by not having one.
I get the whole anti-government thing, however I have had multiple useful alerts from TIS-A (legacy Mode C) and TIS-B (ADS-B) pointing out aircraft I wasn't fully aware of, or had lost sight of. Because it greatly improves ground reception for ATC and they re-broadcast to aircraft, it also gives a much clearer picture of who's out there.
The safety benefit I have already experienced from ADS-B traffic and weather far outweighs any of my concerns about people on the Internet watching my super-interesting flight paths (nobody cares), or the FAA observing me (which they can do anyway) making egregious deviations from FAR's (which I don't do). To each their own. I personally feel there are far greater evils threatening aviation.
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:08 am
Re: FAA watching you?
fast eddie wrote:From what I have gathered from air traffic controllers is radar coverage is very weak without the transponder on. Talked to a lot of folks who have a transponder but will be removing transponder and not installing ADSB. I can see their reasoning as a transponder before 2020 will get you into B and C, but after will not. So if you never do the B and C thing why have a transponder?
There are good reasons for transponders and ADS-B, not the least of which is that there's a lot of traffic out there, even if you don't see it, so that ATC can be a big help if you use flight following--besides the limitations of not being able to fly into the various airspaces in which transponders are now required and in which ADS-B Out will be required in 26+ months. Being able to see much of that traffic on your own is pretty valuable, too.
And don't think for a minute that ATC can't see you if you don't have a transponder squawking. I had a defugalty with the FAA some years ago and had to meet with a couple of their Inspectors (results: some training requirements with my CFII). During our confab, they told me of a Bonanza pilot who'd gotten a clearance to land at Front Range but inadvertently landed at Denver International instead--their runways are in the same basic configuration, although KDEN is a whole lot bigger than KFTG, and they're only about 7 miles apart. So instead of manning up and confessing to the KDEN tower, he firewalled it, taking off without a clearance, then turned off his transponder and dropped to the deck to attempt to escape.
He headed northeast of Denver, and eventually landed at some small airport in northeast Colorado. There he was met by the Sheriff, who'd been alerted by the FAA, because Denver Tracon had been able to track him until he was out of their area, when Denver Center took over. Shortly FAA Inspectors showed up, summarily taking his certificate and grounding his airplane under their "emergency" authority. I was told that he eventually was suspended for a year; he appealed to the NTSB and lost. Turned out he was also a professional pilot in his "day job", and so it was a very costly mistake, which he compounded by believing that he couldn't be tracked on radar with his transponder off.
Cary
Last edited by Cary on Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth..., put out my hand and touched the face of God." J.G. Magee
Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:59 am
Re: FAA watching you?
jliltd wrote:In so far as the invasion of privacy issue I would encourage only installing 2020-compliant equipment that offers "anonymous" mode. More specifically this means UAT out with Mode C transponder. No Mode S or ES products. Examples of these non-anonymous expensive boxes would include most of the latest all-in-transponders like the Garmin GTX 345 and Appareo offerings. Even an upgraded GTX 330ES. A common scenario for the type of anonymous capable compliant UAT out configuration I am suggesting would be keeping your existing Mode C transponder and adding a Garmin GDL-82 or Freeflight RANGR Lite UAT with an anonymous switch wired on the instrument panel. Completely legal. Then if squawking VFR with anonymous mode enabled you remain a target maintaining all data needed for safety without any personal identifying information added which does nothing for safety. At the same time Flightaware won't even show your flight. If you are using flight following (or deaparture) and cancel and change to VFR squawk code (1200) your track and information will disappear on Flightaware (and other monitoring services). However, surrounding aircraft and ATC will still see you but with "VFR" overlayed on your chevron icon rather than your real registration.
If you fly above 18K feet or in Europe than you will need one of those expensive 1090 ES ADS-B outs which is never anonymous at any time. Don't let Mexico or Canada operations affect your decision about UAT (anonymous capable and cheap) and 1090ES (never anonymous and expensive). Mexico will probably never adopt a mandate within our lifetime and Canada is speculating it might only require it in certain regions. Never ask an avionics salesman if you should spring for an all new1090ES box as the response is predictable.
My suggestions for the typical non-turboed bush plane in AK and the lower 48 (and transitioning thereto) would be:
1. Avoid all in one gee whiz boxes. Use a compliiant out and then feel free to chose and change your "in" by whim over the years whether portable with an external antenna or common glareshield mount. This allows maximum flexibility as products change over the years and doesn't lock you into one proprietary in.
2. Limit your selection of a compliant out box to UAT frequency (978Mhz).
3. Maintain Mode C transponder (not S or ES).
This works very good.
Just some things to think about.
Jim
This is great info. Thanks for posting. I've been on the fence about 1090ES vs. UAT only because I want to keep traveling to Canada and Mexico. If I can still do that with UAT 978, then the choice is easy. It may be some extra hassle having separate IN and OUT systems, though. Specifically, can you program the IN receiver (like Stratus) to recognize that you have OUT, so that it doesn't show your "own ship" as traffic in your same position? For a few thousand dollars, I'm willing to deal with it and skip the all-in-one solution.
On the privacy issue, I did comment on the proposed regulation and object to the warrantless surveillance aspect of the whole program. Somewhere in the bowels of the FAA there is a binder with a compendium of all comments received on the rule, along with cut-and-paste responses to why the rule was not changed in response to the vast majority of comments. At least with UAT, it should still be possible to fly anonymously when I'm not "in the system." I need to be able to be free.
CAVU
Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:44 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
CAVU wrote:On the privacy issue, I did comment on the proposed regulation and object to the warrantless surveillance aspect of the whole program. Somewhere in the bowels of the FAA there is a binder with a compendium of all comments received on the rule, along with cut-and-paste responses to why the rule was not changed in response to the vast majority of comments. At least with UAT, it should still be possible to fly anonymously when I'm not "in the system." I need to be able to be free.
CAVU
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. But I do deal with privacy of personal information as a professional thing.
There is no expectation of privacy when you go flying, therefore no warrant is needed. All radar data is archived, and all they need is a single point of correlation (e.g. you called up the tower leaving from or going to an airport) to forensically piece together the data they do have. Usually this is useful for determining where a plane went down, but can be bad news if you do dumb things in an airplane.
Somehow this enormous myth of anonymity in aviation has persisted, which Cary's example illustrates. All the lack of identified squawk does is make it harder to ID you, and keep your known flight info from showing up on the Internet. If you self-announce on a CTAF, there is probably a LiveATC recording of it which can timestamp you against data. The only way I think you could be totally anonymous (as in no data anywhere) is to fly well below primary radar and never use radio, and then you'll probably piss off someone on the ground who will ID your tail number anyway.
I commend the attempt at avoiding Big Brother, but please bear in mind the practical and legal limits you face in trying to avoid any detection. In nearly all cases it just isn't possible. UAT's main advantage is cost and ability to utilize old Mode C transponders. Partial anonymity is advertised, but if the man wants to find you bad enough, there is not a lot you can do about it.
Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:12 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
I suppose some don't like the government tracking them. Unless you do something wrong, though, they probably won't bother you.
For me, its the public knowledge I don't like. People have to jump through some hoops and know where to look to figure out what you are doing without the ABS-D.
With ABS-D, like with doc_dyer's example, all people need is to google your N-number. This displeases me.
For me, its the public knowledge I don't like. People have to jump through some hoops and know where to look to figure out what you are doing without the ABS-D.
With ABS-D, like with doc_dyer's example, all people need is to google your N-number. This displeases me.
- ShadowAviator offline
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:30 pm
- Location: Waldo
- Aircraft: 1969 C-172K "Valor"
SERVICE CEILING -noun - The altitude at which the pilot starts smacking the dash, exclaiming, "CLIMB OL' GIRL CLIMB!"
Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:59 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
delete
Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
I stopped doing criminal defense and FAA certificate actions about the same time, but the overall advice I would have given to anyone to avoid any kind of prosecution is, don't intentionally do anything that violates the law or regulations. Sure, you can still get snagged for inadvertent violations, but those are generally much less serious than intentional acts, and they're treated much less harshly.
This worry that somehow the long arm of the law or FAA will reach out and grab you just because there's ADS-B Out in your airplane is so much poppycock. In fact, there's potentially a real benefit. Example: let's say that Sgt. Jones at Fort Carson's restricted area sees you fly along the south side of the restricted area, and he's sure that you're inside its perimeter. He uses his high powered sniper scope to grab your 2" tail number and reports to his superiors, who report the "transgression" to the FAA. But you were using your WAAS GPS, and you were clearly well outside the perimeter by at least a mile. You know it, and because your ADS-B Out position source is the same as your GPS, there's a clear record that you did not violate the restricted airspace.
But what if you didn't have ADS-B Out? The radar tracking is much less precise, the radar installation is a long way away, and so it's not usable one way or another. Then it's down to he said, you said. He said you violated the restricted area, you say you didn't. He's got nothing to lose by lying, but you do. Whose credibility is really on the line?
So besides screwing yourself out of a valid defense by not having ADS-B Out (or not using it if you have it), you miss out on the traffic that is improved if you have both In and Out. My boss at the bank where I worked years ago used to call that "shooting yourself in the foot".
Don't get me wrong. I didn't like paying 5 AMUs for my ADS-B Out, but I've been flying with it or 1 3/4 years now, and I'm not sorry for having it.
Cary
This worry that somehow the long arm of the law or FAA will reach out and grab you just because there's ADS-B Out in your airplane is so much poppycock. In fact, there's potentially a real benefit. Example: let's say that Sgt. Jones at Fort Carson's restricted area sees you fly along the south side of the restricted area, and he's sure that you're inside its perimeter. He uses his high powered sniper scope to grab your 2" tail number and reports to his superiors, who report the "transgression" to the FAA. But you were using your WAAS GPS, and you were clearly well outside the perimeter by at least a mile. You know it, and because your ADS-B Out position source is the same as your GPS, there's a clear record that you did not violate the restricted airspace.
But what if you didn't have ADS-B Out? The radar tracking is much less precise, the radar installation is a long way away, and so it's not usable one way or another. Then it's down to he said, you said. He said you violated the restricted area, you say you didn't. He's got nothing to lose by lying, but you do. Whose credibility is really on the line?
So besides screwing yourself out of a valid defense by not having ADS-B Out (or not using it if you have it), you miss out on the traffic that is improved if you have both In and Out. My boss at the bank where I worked years ago used to call that "shooting yourself in the foot".
Don't get me wrong. I didn't like paying 5 AMUs for my ADS-B Out, but I've been flying with it or 1 3/4 years now, and I'm not sorry for having it.
Cary
"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth..., put out my hand and touched the face of God." J.G. Magee
Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:45 am
Re: FAA watching you?
If I lived where I needed it and if I planned to keep flying I would get it.
I hate govenment intervention in my life but I still like to fly so if I lived where I needed it I'd likely get it.
With that said I live in the desert and I can easily avoid the requirement where I fly so count me out.
I'm not going to pay big bucks to have yet another a-hole watching my every move.
I hate govenment intervention in my life but I still like to fly so if I lived where I needed it I'd likely get it.
With that said I live in the desert and I can easily avoid the requirement where I fly so count me out.
I'm not going to pay big bucks to have yet another a-hole watching my every move.
- Mountain Doctor offline
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:33 pm
- Location: Richland
- Aircraft: Maule MXT-7 180A
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:54 am
Re: FAA watching you?
I'm not too concerned about FAA or whoever watching me.
I'm just against having to spend a bunch of money to comply with a new mandate, the benefit of which is dubious.
From the little I know, I lke the looks of Garmin's soon-to-be-introduced GDL-82 ADS-B.
Supposed to be around $1700 for the gizmo(s) plus who knows how much for installation calibration & certification.
So best case scenario is gonna be somewhere between 2K and 2500 installed. That's a lotta avgas.
I don't imagine any other reputable mfr is gonna come up with anything any more cost effective.
But I'm hoping.
I'm just against having to spend a bunch of money to comply with a new mandate, the benefit of which is dubious.
From the little I know, I lke the looks of Garmin's soon-to-be-introduced GDL-82 ADS-B.
Supposed to be around $1700 for the gizmo(s) plus who knows how much for installation calibration & certification.
So best case scenario is gonna be somewhere between 2K and 2500 installed. That's a lotta avgas.
I don't imagine any other reputable mfr is gonna come up with anything any more cost effective.
But I'm hoping.
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!
Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:06 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
Plus the downtime of the aircraft.
Sounds like a decent price but install likely to be a couple grand for sure.
For myself, and thousands (Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?) other pilots the VALUE is simply not there!
Noncertified ADSB-In is cheap if a person wanted the advantages without the Big Brother aspect.
Sounds like a decent price but install likely to be a couple grand for sure.
For myself, and thousands (Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?) other pilots the VALUE is simply not there!
Noncertified ADSB-In is cheap if a person wanted the advantages without the Big Brother aspect.
- Mountain Doctor offline
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:33 pm
- Location: Richland
- Aircraft: Maule MXT-7 180A
Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:09 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
Mountain Doctor wrote:If I lived where I needed it and if I planned to keep flying I would get it.
I hate govenment intervention in my life but I still like to fly so if I lived where I needed it I'd likely get it.
With that said I live in the desert and I can easily avoid the requirement where I fly so count me out.
I'm not going to pay big bucks to have yet another a-hole watching my every move.
As long as you don't hop over into Seattle's Mode C veil or bust into Whidbey's Class C airspace on your way to some of the more idyllic places in western Washington, you're probably right, Doc. My home drome is only 4 miles north of the Denver Mode C veil. I could avoid B & C airspace, too, but it would certainly curtail a number of my current destinations and make my flying more circuitous, mostly southwards. We often talk about the freedom of flight--I like that with a mode C transponder and ADS-B Out in 2020, I'm free not to avoid any airspace except restricted areas and that I need permission to enter Class B. Each to his own.
Cary
"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth..., put out my hand and touched the face of God." J.G. Magee
Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:07 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
The key, Mountain Doctor, to staying under the radar is to not talk and to stay low. At 200' an unidentified primary blip means nothing to them.
If you go to places and altitude where you are required to talk, you need the boxes. If not, you don't. There is a lot of desert and we can stay low and out of the way near town.
500' is fine in empty spaces, but around town it is safer down where the microwave towers show up clearly against the horizon. The trick to not bothering people is to not fly over them. Then you are just an airplane out there. Altitude is meaningless to them if you are out there.
The problem with radio where not required is that pilots want to use it. The easy way to solve that is not have one. Otherwise, simulate not having one.
Somewhere I heard that anonymity is like a warm blanket. Meybe that is why I give way and land behind everyone. No, I don't use the radio where not required and confuse everyone.
I am talking about legal but unusual stuff here. If your orientation is what will other pilots think, don't go there.
If you go to places and altitude where you are required to talk, you need the boxes. If not, you don't. There is a lot of desert and we can stay low and out of the way near town.
500' is fine in empty spaces, but around town it is safer down where the microwave towers show up clearly against the horizon. The trick to not bothering people is to not fly over them. Then you are just an airplane out there. Altitude is meaningless to them if you are out there.
The problem with radio where not required is that pilots want to use it. The easy way to solve that is not have one. Otherwise, simulate not having one.
Somewhere I heard that anonymity is like a warm blanket. Meybe that is why I give way and land behind everyone. No, I don't use the radio where not required and confuse everyone.
I am talking about legal but unusual stuff here. If your orientation is what will other pilots think, don't go there.
- contactflying offline
- Posts: 4972
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:36 pm
- Location: Aurora, Missouri 2H2
Download my free "https://tinyurl.com/Safe-Maneuvering" e-book.
Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:58 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
If everyone adopted, there'd be so much clutter that we all be lost in it. You really think they have time to monitor all this data?
I only fly in to the US occasionally any more, but would like to equip because it's just such capable technology. I equipped the T210 I sold last year. It was fantastic for friends and family to know I'd made it safely to my destination, or what time I'd arrive for supper! If I went missing, forget the 406 ELT, Spot, or inReach if I was within receiver range. Seeing other airplane's around me was very cool.
This technology will work best when everyone adopts. I think Canada should have lead. Our radar coverage is so poor and sparse that we should mandate this now.
Speaking just culture, and trying to stay clear of politics, individual rights are paramount, but it shouldn't preempt other's safety. I'll be looking for you, but would also appreciate advance warning of your presence. If you want to be anonymous, stay on the ground.
I only fly in to the US occasionally any more, but would like to equip because it's just such capable technology. I equipped the T210 I sold last year. It was fantastic for friends and family to know I'd made it safely to my destination, or what time I'd arrive for supper! If I went missing, forget the 406 ELT, Spot, or inReach if I was within receiver range. Seeing other airplane's around me was very cool.
This technology will work best when everyone adopts. I think Canada should have lead. Our radar coverage is so poor and sparse that we should mandate this now.
Speaking just culture, and trying to stay clear of politics, individual rights are paramount, but it shouldn't preempt other's safety. I'll be looking for you, but would also appreciate advance warning of your presence. If you want to be anonymous, stay on the ground.
Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:49 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
I've heard Canada is going with a satellite system. I think this is far better then ground based. There won't be as many dead spot this way...Pinecone wrote:If everyone adopted, there'd be so much clutter that we all be lost in it. You really think they have time to monitor all this data?
I only fly in to the US occasionally any more, but would like to equip because it's just such capable technology. I equipped the T210 I sold last year. It was fantastic for friends and family to know I'd made it safely to my destination, or what time I'd arrive for supper! If I went missing, forget the 406 ELT, Spot, or inReach if I was within receiver range. Seeing other airplane's around me was very cool.
This technology will work best when everyone adopts. I think Canada should have lead. Our radar coverage is so poor and sparse that we should mandate this now.
Speaking just culture, and trying to stay clear of politics, individual rights are paramount, but it shouldn't preempt other's safety. I'll be looking for you, but would also appreciate advance warning of your presence. If you want to be anonymous, stay on the ground.
Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk
Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:26 am
Re: FAA watching you?
Stay on the ground? No, there is too much traffic there. Low seems to be the least congested.
- contactflying offline
- Posts: 4972
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:36 pm
- Location: Aurora, Missouri 2H2
Download my free "https://tinyurl.com/Safe-Maneuvering" e-book.
Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:24 am
Re: FAA watching you?
This isn't directed at anyone here, but given the amount of information people put on facebook, I'd surmise that most folks WANT everyone and their dog to know exactly what they're doing, when and how. Trusting facebook while distrusting the government is not high-level discernment, in my opinion.
I like to remain pretty anonymous, so much so that I request (insist) that people not share information or images of me on facebook, which I find much more invasive than the FAA. But I see no benefit to me from being monitored by any group, public or private, so I'm not super happy with the ADSB requirements. The 10k msl part of it is a bummer for me, as I often cruise there for better winds.
That said, I think if ADSB was standard when all of us learned to fly we'd be real unhappy with an aircraft that didn't have it. I mean, how many of us fly around without radios? They're not required for most VFR flying, cost as much or more than the ADSB equipment, and are less useful for avoiding collisions. If I decide to pony up for the ADSB-out I'll also get the -in...no point in not benefiting from it.
As for ADSB being the basis for user fees...maybe. But that's not a government plot, it's private enterprise plot. The same airline bean counters who figured out they could get four more passengers on the airplane if everyone gave up three inches of leg room have been trying to defer the user fees they pay to the government for a long time. If it happens it won't be because of ADSB, or because anyone in the FAA thought it was a good idea, it'll be because the airlines finally spent enough money on lobbyist's to force it through.
Overall I've found far more reason to distrust the private sector than the public sector...thought I'm not super fond of either.
I like to remain pretty anonymous, so much so that I request (insist) that people not share information or images of me on facebook, which I find much more invasive than the FAA. But I see no benefit to me from being monitored by any group, public or private, so I'm not super happy with the ADSB requirements. The 10k msl part of it is a bummer for me, as I often cruise there for better winds.
That said, I think if ADSB was standard when all of us learned to fly we'd be real unhappy with an aircraft that didn't have it. I mean, how many of us fly around without radios? They're not required for most VFR flying, cost as much or more than the ADSB equipment, and are less useful for avoiding collisions. If I decide to pony up for the ADSB-out I'll also get the -in...no point in not benefiting from it.
As for ADSB being the basis for user fees...maybe. But that's not a government plot, it's private enterprise plot. The same airline bean counters who figured out they could get four more passengers on the airplane if everyone gave up three inches of leg room have been trying to defer the user fees they pay to the government for a long time. If it happens it won't be because of ADSB, or because anyone in the FAA thought it was a good idea, it'll be because the airlines finally spent enough money on lobbyist's to force it through.
Overall I've found far more reason to distrust the private sector than the public sector...thought I'm not super fond of either.
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:11 am
Re: FAA watching you?
I don't buy the argument that just because complete anonymity is not possible that we should be comfortable with anyone in the world knowing were any airplane is at any given time. Yes, if the government decides to hunt you down, they will. However, the world is too full of crazy ex-girlfriends, business competitors, etc to make all my airplanes flight data available real-time to the entire world.
Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:43 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
A simple email to the FAA blocks the third party rebroadcast via flightaware, etc. Just follow the instructions, they update it on a monthly basis.
https://www.fly.faa.gov/ASDI/asdi.html
https://www.fly.faa.gov/ASDI/asdi.html
Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:45 pm
Re: FAA watching you?
Unfortunately, that won't keep you from showing up if you have ADS-B on some sites, as they have a network of receivers they operate (usually run by their users in exchange for an upgraded account), so they can display ADS-B out equipped aircraft regardless of what data they do/do not get from the FAA. Some sites (I believe FlightAware is one) are playing nice by not displaying data on aircraft that have requested blocking, but there is nothing that requires them to do so.
DISPLAY OPTIONS
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
Latest Features
-
Live to Tell
A Minnesota pilot is surprised to learn that the sudden asymmetric drag of an out-of-rig ski can…Read More -
Creators
Working in some of the Yukon's most beautiful and remote environments, photographer Simon Blakesley captures aircraft in…Read More -
Aircraft Ownership and Maintenance
Upgrading to big tires can make a huge difference in backcountry performance, but with those gains come…Read More -
Tales from Yesteryear
In this tale from bush flying yesteryear, Don Cogger signs up to help Atlee Dodge Jr recovery…Read More
Latest Knowledge Base
-
Destinations
A regional guide with ideas for winter camping destinations in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona.Read More -
Aircraft
Finding an affordable aircraft that can handle the backcountry for $80K or less? A challenge for sure, but with the…Read More -
Aircraft
01.29.2018 - Zane - Updated tire diameter graphic to add 8.50x10 Guide to tires for use in the backcountry and off-airport landing…Read More -
Pilots
12.22.2013 - Initial article format Operating aircraft on skis and negotiating a snow-covered landscape is an entirely unique skillset and environment.…Read More
