http://www.rjma.com/flight/airwaves/1219.htm

General aviation is changing faster than many of us realize. Most of this change has been positive. Improved in-flight technology and the recent light sport aircraft rule are solid improvements. Another recent improvement is the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recently released report noting that "the small size, lack of fuel capacity, and minimal destructive power of most general aviation aircraft make them unattractive to terrorists and, thereby, reduce the possibility of threat associated with their misuse."

Fortunately, we have large and powerful groups like AOPA and EAA working hard to protect the rights of general aviation pilots. Their record of accomplishment in this regard has been noteworthy. Without these organizations, September 11 could have spelled the doom of general aviation as we know it.

However, there remains one major negative area that only we as pilots can influence. That is, ensuring the safe outcome of every flight we take. Sadly, about 72 pilots each month let us down in this regard. These are the pilots who, through pilot error, are involved in serious aircraft accidents. Dress up the data any way you like, the outcome is the same. A pilot screwed up! It could have been due poor pre-flight planning, maneuvering mistakes, or poor judgment with regard to weather and other operation factors, e.g. fuel management, etc.

The belief that pilots are "human" and therefore prone to error, as suggested to me recently by one flight school representative, is utter nonsense. This is a naive and reckless defense of the status quo.

If you do not think this is a serious problem, then keep a smile on your face as you send in your annual aircraft insurance premium check! In fact, jump for joy if your annual premium did not increase by 15% or more this year. Our sad accident history has driven insurance rates so high for FBOs and flight schools that many of them have been forced out of business or at least stopped renting aircraft. Others have imposed such high insurance deductibles that renters are forced to purchase their own renters' policy . . . or "go bare" and incur the risk of personal financial disaster if they bend metal or hurt somebody in a rental airplane.

Let's stop complaining and, instead, start doing something about it! We can begin by recognizing that our own training and the frequency that we fly are the two greatest predictors of a safe or sad outcome of every flight we take.

From a flight instructor's perspective, this sounds like a self-serving observation. Okay, perhaps . . . but who else is in a better position to assess the proficiency of general aviation pilots. Not the FAA designated examiner. He only sees a snapshot of proficiency immediately following a period of intense training. Instead, it is the flight instructor who is called upon by many general aviation pilots at the end of each 24 month period for a bi-annual flight review (BFR).

What I often observe in the many BFRs I conduct is downright scary! With very few exceptions, most pilots coming to me for a BFR do NOT recall even basic airspace rules. They have long forgotten how to make correct traffic pattern entries. Most cannot recover from a simulated stall/spin scenario by reference to the instruments only.

Tragically, I fear that many of these DANGEROUS pilots are slipping by the BFR process altogether - by simply not taking one, or by receiving a "pencil BFR" (abusers know what this is), or by substituting some other FAA approved requirement.

I suspect that if we talk with our air traffic controller friends in the tower and radar rooms that we would hear many more scary stories about the proficiency some general aviation pilots.

So what is the solution? The solution is to become a more proficient pilot. Train hard and fly frequently! Take a look at our corporate pilot and airline brethren. They fly frequently AND they undergo recurrent training every six months. Similarly, air traffic controllers are not immune. They undergo on-going performance reviews and frequent recurrent training.

The average general aviation pilot, on the other hand, flies infrequently, has no mandated recurrent training, and receives a flight review only every other year - if even then. Herein lies the problem.

Negative transference is a term that describes the mental process of attributing to one group the unpleasant preconceptions or characteristics of another group. Negative transference occurs in aviation when pilots view air traffic controllers in the same negative light that they view radar traffic cops hiding in the bushes who gain delight in pulling over wayward speeders! The only two characteristics these two groups have in common are their use of radar technology and their public safety mission. Other than that, there are NO similarities.

Somewhere in their creation, pilots are taught to view ATC as the enemy, as a necessary evil, and "Big Brother in the Sky." They are taught to distrust their intentions, to beware of a controller's ability to "bust" you, and to avoid engaging them at all costs. For example, inexperienced flight instructors admonish instrument students NOT to file icing pilot report (PIREPs) from their non ice certified aircraft out of fear that the controller will blow them in.

How many times have your heard a controller say, "Traffic, 11 o'clock, altitude 5,500 unverified." This means that the traffic he or she sees on the radar screen is not talking to them! Why anybody would launch without talking to ATC and getting a squawk code is a baffling mystery!

Sadly, there is no language in the FARs, the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), or the typical private pilot training syllabus that I can find that counteracts or refutes this negative ATC stereotype. I subscribe to and read every major aviation publication out there and I cannot recall seeing any recent piece that paints a warm and fuzzy halo around air traffic controllers . . . none, nada, nothing (got yur ears on, AOPA PILOT?)!

Such negative stereotypical views effectively reduce the pilot's cockpit resources by as much as 50 percent!

I recently spent a morning having donuts and coffee with air traffic controllers in the tower at Niagara Falls International Airport. If there is one thing warm and fuzzy about air traffic controllers, it is their enjoyment of coffee and donuts! My purpose in this visit was to obtain their "take" on this negative transference.

My controller hosts were John Falls (pictured in red sweater below), David Kelly, and Janet Schultz. These controllers are no new kids on the block. Combined, I figured they had nearly a 100 years of air traffic control experience! John Falls began his ATC career in 1953 as a military controller working oceanic arrivals into Tokyo. David Kelly began his ATC career right there at Niagara Falls in 1969. Janet began her career over 18 years ago as a military controller.

"My ATC career began long before we had radar," says John. "Back then, trans-Pacific pilots would radio me their lat/long coordinates that they acquired by sextant, along with their heading, and their airspeed. We knew they would travel one degree of longitude for each 60 knots of airspeed, so at 180 knots, they cover three degrees of longitude in one hour. We then pushed along a little marker representing the airplane, called a shrimp boat, on our table map."

Janet jumped in at this point in the discussion and said, "John would then climb out of the tower cab, grab his red and white flags, and run to the end of the runway to guide the arriving airliner to a safe landing!" John chuckled kindly at this characterization of his experience, then took another sip of coffee and bite out of his donut!

John Falls returned to Western New York in 1957 as a tower controller at Niagara Falls, then he transferred to the Buffalo radar control facility in 1968. In 1978, he became a training specialist at the Buffalo ATC facility. He retired from the FAA in 1989, and after a brief retirement, returned to ATC service working for a private control tower contractor where he now is.

I asked John Kelly if he would recommend an ATC career for a young person today.

"Absolutely," he said. "Air traffic control can be a great career for a person who loves aviation. The pay and benefits are good and there can be a good deal of job satisfaction."

Others controllers I have spoken with agree with this observation. In the NY TRACON, for example, controllers with some overtime can earn over $140,000 per year!

Our morning's conversation revealed the professionalism of these three controllers. Each described instances where they gave a helping hand to errant pilots . Janet, for example, told of a recent incident where a pilot who she had cleared for take off on KIAG's Runway 24 turned the wrong way and took off on Runway 28 Right instead. She checked the airspace, grabbed the mike and said, "NXXXX, you are cleared for immediate takeoff, Runway 28 Right!."

"I got it on the tape so the guy was protected if anything had happened," she added.

Janet could have just easily passed the details of this errant pilot to the local FSDO for follow-up enforcement action against the pilot's certificate. "What would have that accomplished," asked Janet?

On the hand, controllers are human. If an errant pilots acts like the south end of a horse walking north, he could find himself in a bind. The very best way to handle your foibles is to be courteous and cooperative. Remember, ATC is a member of your cockpit crew. But also remember, whatever you say on the radio goes on the tape.

ATC has resources that can benefit every flight operation. Whether its weather information, traffic alerts, or suggestions on possible alternate airports, they perform a valuable service. Pilots who fail to take advantage of these services, or who distrust the person on the other end of the microphone, are downright foolish.

In summary, let me suggest you do several things every time you take off from a non-towered field. First, contact ATC, get a squawk code, and traffic advisories. Second, wherever you take off, call the local flight service station on the second radio and give a pilot report (PIREP). Let them know your position, aircraft type, outside temperature, cloud bases and tops, visibility, ride conditions, and icing reports. You'll be doing the system a great big favor.

Lastly, don't get all gushy or sweet on the microphone, but do offer a parting well-wish when being switched to another frequency. These men and women work hard to make the system work and to keep us safe. Let them know you appreciate their good service.

It's been a long flight, IFR most of the way. Your destination is a non-towered field with a published VOR or GPS approach procedure. Your cell phone battery is dead. The public phone at the airport is broken. And there's no way to reach ATC on the ground with your radio. You've got a lot on your mind but you don't want to forget to cancel your IFR flight plan!

The scenario is perfect for what I call the "Class E Trap." Fall into it and you could find a certified letter from the FAA ten days later in your mailbox.

As you descend down through the clag, your plan is cancel your IFR plan with the approach controller just as soon as you get a visual on the airport. You break out of the clouds at 1,300' AGL with better than six miles of visibility. So you call ATC with your IFR cancellation. On this particular day, there happens to be an FAA inspector in the FBO observing landing operations at your destination airport

At 1,300' AGL, you are still in Class E airspace (in most parts of the United States). And as every student pilot knows, the minimum VFR cloud clearance when in Class E airspace is 1,000' above the clouds, 2,000' abeam the clouds, and 500' below the clouds (when below 10,000' MSL). In the scenario above, you cannot legally cancel your IFR plan until you are either: (1) 500' below the 1,300' cloud base, or (2) you are in Class G airspace.

Let's suppose the weather is right down to minimums. Your ONLY option is to close your IFR plan after you land. Again, the cell phone battery is dead, the public phone is out order, and you cannot reach ATC on from the ground with your aircraft radio (no RCO or nearby VOR to call through . . . and no nearby neighbors or other cell phone carrying people). How are you going to cancel your IFR flight plan?

Answer: While it might appear that you are out of options, this is seldom the case in aviation. The resourceful pilot, with strong scenario-based decision making skills, typically has at least one more option up his or her sleeve. So what do you do?

Use another in-flight airplane to relay your IFR cancellation message to ATC. While sitting on the ground, switch your aircraft radio back to the approach control frequency you used on the way in and call: "Any aircraft, this is Nxxxx on the ground at Small Town Airport."

It may take a couple of minutes, but you've got a 99 percent chance that someone will hear you. Once they reply, simply ask them to relay your IFR cancellation to any ATC facility. If you can't reach anybody on the approach frequency, check your IFR chart for the Center frequency and make your call on that frequency. And if you can't reach anybody on the Center frequency, switch to 121.5 (emergency frequency) and try that.

If you do not cancel your flight plan (for whatever reason), the ATC facility working your arrival will attempt to reach the airport FBO by phone. If no answer, they will likely initiate SAR (search and rescue) procedures through the nearest Flight Service Station. If it goes this far, sit quietly in your airplane. The local police department will be dispatched to your airport.

Obviously, you do not want to let it get this far. So, ALWAYS have a solid IFR cancellation plan in mind BEFORE you begin the approach - actually, even before you leave the ground in the first place (remember FAR 91.103).

Note: Understanding of the national airspace system, particularly the various classes of airspace and the required weather minimums to operate within each class, is one of the biggest shortcomings I see when conducting bi-annual flight reviews.

This section is reserved for the best photo of the month sent in by an Over the Airwaves reader. This one comes from Col. George Waskowski, ANG, 107th Refueling Wing. Be sure to click on the photo to enlarge to full screen.

It was one of those fun days in the flight training business. The weather was picture-perfect. My student, a friend who had received his primary training elsewhere, was undergoing some recurrent flight training. I asked him to demonstrate a relatively simple maneuver . . . the power-off stall.

"Yessiree, Bob," he said with confidence. With that, he reduced power to idle, neglecting the obligatory clearing turn, then trimmed airplane for slow flight. As the airplane slowed, he maintained altitude by applying steadily increasing back pressure on the yoke. What happened next surprised me.

As the stall horn began to chirp, my student pushed forward on the yoke and added power. "How was that," he asked?

He then gave me the classic response. "That's the way my instructor taught me to do it. He told me that I should recover just as soon as I hear the stall horn." [Note: In the real world, one should begin stall correction as soon as possible . . . but for training purposes, it is important that a pilot know what a full stall feels like.]

Okay, let's try it again, but this time wait until the airplane actually stalls before beginning the recovery technique."

He repeated the maneuver - this time with the required clearing turns. He reduced power to idle and slowly pitched up. Again, the stall horn sounded, but I told him to wait until the stall actually occurred before recovering. The airplane began a gentle buffet. WHAM, he shoved the yoke forward and applied power.

"It didn't stall," I replied! "The outboard portions of the wings were still developing lift."

"Let's try it again, but this time I will demonstrate what a true stall feels like . . . so that you'll know what to do if it ever happens for real," I explained.

I reduced power to idle and applied steady back pressure on the yoke to hold altitude. At about five knots above stall speed, I gave the yoke an aggressive tug rearward. This pitched the airplane sharply upward, well above the critical angle of attack for the entire wing . . . not just the inboard sections. With that, the bottom fell out from under us. The airplane took on the flying characteristics of a Volkswagen. The right wing dropped sharply forcing us into a 40 degree bank!

My guy waggled the yoke in an opposite but ineffective direction to level the wings. I felt no rudder inputs. Our right-hand roll increased to 60 degrees. I was tempted to take back the controls, but instead, I let the airplane roll over into the first turn of a spin before I took the controls to recover.

"You are a private pilot . . . but you've never stalled an airplane before, have you," I asked? I wondered how he could have completed the private pilot curriculum and, even more astonishing, how he could have passed the checkride!

It is a well known fact that spin training is no longer required for the private pilot rating. The rationale is that if pilots are taught to prevent a spin, they won't have to worry about recovering from one. My concern is that instructors are approaching stall training with the same rationale. That is, if students are taught to recognize and recover from an impending stall, either by the stall horn or by wing buffeting, they'll won't have to worry about recovering from a fully developed stall.

Curiously, these same pilots are taught to believe the best way to prevent weather-related accidents is to remain on the ground when the winds kick up a bit. This is a dangerous rationale - simply because the "unexpected" sometimes happens in aviation. Windshear, wake turbulence, disorientation, improper control inputs - this stuff happens to ALL pilots.

Proper (and complete) stall training teaches that a stall begins [in a straight vs. swept wing aircraft] at the wing root, then moves outward toward the wing tip. By definition, an airplane is not stalled until the entire wing, from root to wing tip, exceeds its critical angle of attack. The speed at which this stall moment moves from wing root to wing tip increases as the performance design of the airplane increases. In training aircraft, the stall moment moves slowly. In high performance airplanes such as the Cessna 210, it moves more quickly. In very high performance airplanes such as the EXTRA 300, it moves almost instantly! Curiously, in swept wing jet aircraft, the stall moment moves in the opposite direction, e.g., from wing tip first, then toward the wing root.

If you can identify with the pilot in the above story - by virtue of minimal or non-existent stall training - you owe it to the safety of your passengers or to the family you might leave behind someday to obtain meaningful stall training from a qualified CFI.

Caution: Follow your aircraft's POH instructions carefully when conducting any performance maneuvers!

Give us an excuse and an opportunity to get out of the flight training practice area and we'll do it in a heartbeat! That opportunity came with a pair of tickets to the Army/Navy game in Philadelphia this past weekend. The tickets were given to me by Joe Geddes, father of my former student, Jason Geddes, who is a freshman midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD.

The flight training opportunities provided to my student and me included Class B operations at Philadelphia International Airport and, since President Bush would be attending the game, it involved maneuvering in and through a PFR (Presidential Flight Restricted area). This particular trip into and out of KPHL involved complicated day and night taxiing between and around two active runways with numerous simultaneous arrivals and departures.

As I've mentioned in previous articles, the pilot only has so many brain cells with which to operate his or her airplane. The process of manipulating the controls takes some of those cells. Weather factors, particularly single pilot IFR, takes the majority of remaining cells. Add unfamiliar, busy airspace to the mix and you can find yourself in a cognitive overload condition. This all assumes that aircraft is performing okay. Add an in-flight mechanical problem to an already overloaded mental status and your brain could shut down altogether!

Unless you get out of the practice area and into some busy airspace, you'll never develop the multi-tasking piloting skills necessary to operate safely in today's complex national airspace system.

According to the AOPA's Air Safety Foundation's 2003 Null Report, 20 percent of all fatal accidents are caused by mid air collisions . . . and over one-half of these involve pilots in their first 100 hours of flight experience! Surprisingly, more than one-half of all mid air collisions occurred at altitudes less than 500' AGL - at final approach leg altitude!

The fact that most mid air collisions involve very low time pilots and students suggests that too much time is spent on cockpit activities rather than looking out the window for other traffic. Why is this???

Mid air collisions remains a very serious risk, particularly in and around non-towered airports. The simple adherence to each of the six points listed above will go a long way in reducing this risk.

Click Here for a very patriotic animated seasons greeting shared with us by Col. George Waskowski, ANG 107th Air Refueling Wing. You'll need a high speed internet connection with sound to get the full impact of this message.

If you are like most general aviation pilots, you look with admiration at those sleek bizjets on the FBO ramp or the large Boeings over at the airline terminal. You know that the guys who fly those kerosene burners exist somewhere up high on the pilot food chain. You secretly wonder if you would have the piloting skills necessary to fly one of those beauties.

Before you answer that question, let's take a closer look at the differences between those heavy iron airships and our little bugmashers.

Looking first at the big planes . . . understand that there are always two pilots and a sophisticated autopilot up front in the cockpit. The grizzled, four-striper in the left seat typically has many years of hard-earned experience. His (or her) job is to run through the procedures while the junior guy in the right seat programs the nav boxes, tweaks the flight director, sets up the autopilot, and requests the captain's coffee from the FAs in the back.

And when it comes to the actual flying part, both of these pilots spend most of their time simply keeping their eye on things. The flight crew is connected by radio to the company dispatch office who performs the actual flight planning function, e.g., routes and altitude to fly, weight and balance, etc. What's more, the big airplanes typically have weather detection and avoidance options that most GA airplanes couldn't even dream about. And they have the performance capability to climb over or around most weather systems with ease. Most even have automatic "stick shakers" to warn of impending stalls.

Let's not forget crew qualifications. The big plane pilots have all the pilot ratings with thousands of hours in their logbooks. They underwent a thorough screening process and skill assessment [in most cases] before getting hired on. They undergo mandatory recurrent training every six months and regularly scheduled line checks.

Now, let's look at the typical bugmasher operation. All we have is YOU. All by yourself in an under-powered airplane that has older radios, minimal navigation equipment, no flight director or autopilot . . . and no radio connection to a flight planning department. If something mechanical goes awry, you have no company maintenance base standing by to help. As for weather detection and avoidance options, you don't have much more than an outside temperature gauge and, hopefully, a low altitude hole in the clouds you can bolt through. And coffee? Yeah, right!

Both the kerosene burners and the bugmashers fly high and fast enough to cause serious bodily harm should an accident occur. Both operate in the same national airspace system. ATC gives no preferential treatment to either type of airplane. Big plane and bugmasher pilots perform the same general activities. They fly, talk, decide, configure..

It requires a lot of brain cells to fly an airplane. When something goes wrong, many of those brain cells are diverted to solving the problem . . . leaving a reduced number of brain cells to fly the airplane.

Let's assume, for argument sake, that the big jet jockies and GA pilots are endowed with the same relative number of brain cells. Since there is only one pilot required to fly most GA airplanes, we operate with one-half as many brain cells as the two pilot beasts flying overhead. Even when things are going well in the sky, this places the GA pilot dangerously close to the edge of the human performance factors envelope. When things go wrong in the sky, the GA pilot often goes over the edge. His or survival then depends exclusively on instinct.

I recently conducted a bi-annual flight review (BFR) for a high time private pilot. I put him under the hood and asked him to close his eyes. I then slowly raised the airplane to a high angle of attack and rolled the wings into a left hand 60 degree bank. As the airplane rolled, I asked the pilot to open his eyes and recover. His "instinctive" response was pretty scary!

He yanked back on the yoke and twisted it in the opposite direction of the turn. There was no perceptible rudder input. Within seconds were in a fully coupled spin and the pilot was yelling at me to take the controls!

The likelihood of this scenario happening today in kerosene burners is extremely remote. After all, they have two proficient pilots keeping their eyes on a $1.3 million autopilot system in airplanes with control design limits built in to prevent extreme flight attitudes and ample warnings of impending stall . . . coupled with many hours of multi-million dollar simulator training to create instinctive pilot responses.

But what about you and me? Our little airplanes are like Styrofoam cups in the ocean. It doesn't take much to pitch them into a stall or steep bank angle. How developed are our pilot instincts to recover from sudden extreme maneuvers? Are we convinced that we'll never experience a sudden upset? Are we immune to vertigo or disorientation in the clouds? Will we never encounter a wake turbulence situation?

Do we have a solid core of training to call upon? The accident data suggests we do not! Remember, 72.6 percent of all GA fatal accidents are caused by pilot error.

Curiously, option 3 does not require formal aerobatic training nor does it require any maneuvers that exceed the performance limitations of your airplane, e.g., bank angles or pitch attitudes. It does, however, require training by a CFII

who is proficient in extreme attitude recovery. The same training can be acquired through schools such as Fighter Combat International (FCI) I went through the FCI extreme maneuvers course several years ago. Click HERE to open a chapter from my book titled "Adventures in Flight" where I describe my own experiences at FCI.

As every commercial pilot knows (and private pilots should know), private pilots operating under FAR Part 91are permitted to do certain things that commercial pilots (Part 135) and airline pilots (Part 121) cannot do. Let's take a look at a couple and then consider the wisdom of exercising these freedoms:

1. ZERO/ZERO Take Offs: Believe it or not, private pilots operating under FAR Part 91 are legally permitted to take off with absolutely no forward visibility! Legal . . . yes, but certainly not a good move.

2. Initiating Instrument Approaches to Airports Below Minimums: Commercial operators and airlines are prohibited from commencing an instrument approach if the reported weather at the airport is below the minimums required by the approach procedure. Pilots operating under Part 91 ARE permitted to commence the approach regardless of the reported weather. In other words, they are permitted to go on down and take a look.

3. Inoperative Landing Light: Even though it is permitted for non-commercial pilots operating under Part 91 to fly at night without an operative landing light, it certainly does not make sense to do so.

4. No 100 Hour Inspections: All general aviation airplanes are required to undergo an annual inspection. Only those that are used for hire are required to all undergo inspections after every 100 hours of flight.

5. Flight Reviews Every Two Years: Private pilots undergo a flight review every two years. Airline and corporate pilots undergo mandatory recurrent training every six months. This disparity, alone, goes a long way in explaining why 72.6 percent of all general aviation accidents are attributed to pilot error.

This is a continuation of a feature begun in the previous issue of Over the Airwaves. It addresses those age-old practices we perform without either knowing why or . . . because that was the "way we were taught!" Old Wives' Tales (OWT) live on through generation after generation even though there is no objective rationale or data to support their use.

Let's try to debunk another OWT that has grown into widespread acceptance by both pilots and aircraft mechanics alike. That OWT is the mistaken belief that excessive leaning damages engines! Proponents of this mistaken belief will argue that excessive leaning leads to burned valves, detonation, and heat damaged cylinders.

As you can see from the graph below, the exhaust gas temperature or EGT (shown on the vertical axis) increases at as the mixture (shown on the horizontal scale) is leaned from the full rich setting. The EGT temperature continues to increase until about one-half way through the leaning process, then the EGT starts to decrease. Thus, excessive leaning causes the EGT to decrease, not increase as suggested by the OWT! In other words, after reaching peak EGT, the leaner the mixture gets, the cooler the engine operates. Pretty neat, huh? EGT Spread — Typical Stock TCM Engine

It got started by pilots who leaned their mixtures to peak EGT, but not beyond. By operating at peak EGT, their engines did run hot. It was this high EGT that produced burned valves, heat-induced cracked cylinders, and the other bad things that happened to engines.

All they really had to do was continue leaning beyond peak EGT. If they did this, the EGTs would drop and their engines would run comfortably cool.

Actually, there were two "rubs." The first was that most aircraft built before 1980 were not equipped with EGT gauges. So pilots never really knew when peak EGT was reached.

The second and more troublesome "rub" was the fact that most engines, then and today, do not run smoothly with mixtures set on the lean side of peak EGT. This is due to vagaries in the air induction system that results in differing or unbalanced fuel/air mixtures reaching each cylinder. When operating on the lean side of peak, one or more cylinders would be running so lean that they would quit firing!

Aeronautical engineer George Braly solved the problem of unbalanced fuel/air mixtures by designing unique fuel injectors appropriate for each cylinder. Thus by balancing the fuel/air mixture going to each cylinder, engines could run smoothly throughout the entire leaning cycle, both on the rich and on the lean side of peak EGT. This solution applies only to fuel injected engines, of course.

If you want to do your fuel injected engine a great big favor, purchase and install a set a GAMIjectors. Then operate your engine at least 50 degrees F. on the lean side of peak EGT. To do this properly, you should have a multi-cylinder engine monitor with fuel flow installed on your airplane. You can lean your engine as excessively lean as you like. Your EGTs will run cooler and cooler as you lean beyond peak EGT. . . until the engine stops.

Contrary to the fears promoted by the OWT supporters, excessive leaning produces the following benefits:

Somewhere in the annals of aviation history, pilots were incorrectly taught that leaning is not necessary below 3,000 feet! Read what the POH actually says. The power charts for cruise power at all altitudes state clearly that it is with the mixture leaned. The leaning procedures in the POH do not set a minimum altitude for leaning, so lean anytime you are flying level.

Yes and no! If your airplane is fuel injected, YES, lean aggressively on the ground. If your airplane is carbureted, don't bother leaning on the ground because leaning has no effect on an idling carbureted engine.

Fortunately, it doesn't happen very often, but when it does, the results can be catastrophic.

In-flight fires can occur for a variety of reasons. A loose exhaust manifold, a break in the fuel line, defective fuel pump, a cracked or broken cylinder, an oil line failure, or an electrical short-circuit can suddenly turn a routine flight into the most challenging event of your life.

The December, '04 issue of Aviation Safety describes the sad outcome of pilot of a Piper Saratoga II who reported smoke in the cockpit. It was a night VFR flight out of Rutland, VT enroute to the Farmingdale Airport on Long Island. Had the pilot taken IMMEDIATE proper corrective action, he and his passenger may have survived this tragedy.

The airplane was in level flight at 6,500' MSL when the pilot contacted the NY Approach controller and reported smoke in the cockpit and an engine fire. It was at this precise point that the pilot's INCORRECT action spelled the fate of the flight! Rather than descending immediately with the intent of putting the airplane on the ground, anywhere, the pilot accepted radar vectors to the Waterbury-Oxford Airport, some five miles away. By the time he reached the downwind leg, a witness reported seeing the engine on fire and he a observed a "red glow." He said that the engine was not running.

While the NTSB report provides insufficient information to determine the precise cause(s) of the crash, we can infer several important lessons. First, even though it took only four minutes for the pilot to reach the Waterbury-Oxford Airport, studies have shown that an in-flight fire can burn through a wing spar in less than three minutes. Thus, the available time to get a burning airplane on the ground is measured in seconds, not minutes.

The proper corrective action at the first sign of smoke or fire would have been to immediately pitch the airplane downward with the intent of getting the airplane on the ground as soon as possible. Selection of a suitable landing site is SECONDARY to getting the airplane on the ground. This action should have been followed by turning the fuel selector switch to the off position, pulling the mixture to idle cut-off, issuing a quick MAY DAY call, and turning off the electrical master switch.

One might reasonably debate the wisdom of a controlled crash in hostile terrain versus stretching the landing of a burning aircraft to a nearby airport. No one knows if the pilot in this case considered each of these options. The important thing to remember is that an in-flight fire can render an airplane totally useless in less than three minutes!

The second lesson learned from this crash is the critical importance of quality aircraft maintenance and thorough preflight actions. The NTSB report offered two very plausible maintenance issues that could have caused the fire. The first was cross-threaded screws holding the turbocharger oil line check valve (a definite maintenance error). The second was loose fuel pump fitting screws. This problem had been addressed in an earlier issued airworthiness directive (AD).

Regarding the second lesson - maintenance issues, one of the best flight safety decisions a pilot will ever make is to insure that his or her airplane receives the highest quality maintenance possible. A meticulous aircraft mechanic is the pilot's greatest friend! Choose your aircraft mechanic with same considerations that you choose your doctor, dentist, or lawyer. Once you have found one, stay with him (or her). Make that person fully accountable for the quality of professional maintenance your airplane receives.

In addition to a meticulous mechanic, if you are an aircraft owner, you need a solid maintenance plan. For example, think twice before deciding to perform oil changes yourself. Sure, changing the oil is a relatively simple process, but it forces the airplane into the shop at regular intervals. This is a good time to have a professional not only change your oil but to also give everything else under the cowling a very a good look.

I've long believed that what is good for commercial operations is also good for me. This applies to everything from weather minimums to the frequency of required inspections. Thus, my T-210 undergoes 100 hr inspections even though it is never used for hire or otherwise engaged in commercial operations. Considering the hours I fly the T-210, this occurs about four times a year.

The absence of proper pilot reaction to smoke in the cockpit and engine fires is evident in nearly every flight review I conduct. For example, I will inform the pilot that I smell smoke and see engine flames. Most pilots respond with a questioning look on their face. Some, incorrectly, slow to best glide speed. Others search for a suitable landing site. I reiterate my announced fire and smoke by saying that fire is now burning my feet. Still flustered, most pilots fumble around the cockpit with no immediate fire response plan in mind.

There is a simple fact of life in aviation that few experts will disagree with. That is, the vast majority of all in-flight emergencies are non-events assuming correct and immediate pilot response! Or, stated another way . . . choose your flight instructor carefully . . . then regularly practice what he or she has taught you.

Kids at the Akron (NY) High School who pursue post-secondary studies in aviation can soon look forward to receiving scholarship support to help underwrite their studies! Aviation-related organizations such as Mercy Flight will likewise be receiving contributions from the area's only aviation-related charitable foundation now forming at the Akron Airport.

A longstanding dream of the founders' of Christian Airmen, Inc., owner/operators of the Akron Airport, legal papers are now being prepared to create the Christian Airmen Aviation Foundation (CAEF). "We have long recognized that aviation can be a costly endeavor for individuals and organizations alike," says Larry Cummings, President of Christian Airmen, Inc. "So we want to remove at least some of these economic barriers."

"Our success in making this all happen will depend upon gifts and charitable contributions we hope to receive from the many companies doing business with the Akron Airport as well as our growing membership in the "Friends of Akron Airport," says Dave Gray, Vice President of Christian Airmen, Inc.

I am proud to be contributing the resources of my grants development and fundraising consulting firm (Robert J. Miller & Associates, Inc.) in support of this worthwhile endeavor. Our firm will be putting together all of the required paperwork to form the foundation. We will also develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to secure the grants, charitable gifts, and contributions to fund the foundation.

There was a time before satellites, cable TV, and personal computers when private pilots would look at the skies, kick the tires, light the fires, and launch. Sometime later, the feds gave us Automatic Flight Services Stations (FSSs) to provide weather briefings to these same pilots. It now appears that we're moving quickly into the next generation of powered flight. The feds giveth, and the feds taketh away . . . as we will likely see with the Flight Service Stations.

Oh yes, the feds will continue to provide us with some sort of FSS support, but we in Buffalo could be receiving our weather briefing from a tan skinned specialist residing in Sun City, Florida. Try asking that guy about lake effect induced mixed icing over Dunkirk! "Yikes," he'll exclaim! "Put your airplane away 'till June."

There is another alternative. We may be required to provide our VISA Card number prior to receiving our briefing. Let's see, if you want a standard briefing . . . that will be $19.00. Maybe we could get by with just current and forecast conditions at our destination airport. Hmmmm, that will be $5.90 for current and another $7.00 for the forecast (except during non-peak times when the charges will drop in half!

Like so many other things in life that remain totally out of our control, there is little we can do about how the FAA influences our actions as pilots. We can and should, however, alter our own behavior in response to these changing influences. For example, if the feds reduce the availability and accessibility of pilot weather information, we should bolster our own weather assessment skills.

Listed below are a series of web links that provide us with much of the same information supplied to us by FSS briefers. I regularly use these websites in my own pre-flight planning. While not intended to eliminate the need for a full standard flight service briefing, I find that with this information in hand, I am able to ask more intelligent questions of the briefer. I also recognize that, in time, these links could be my sole source of pre-flight planning weather information.

Try click on each of these links and explore the pre-flight briefing information each provides.

These are powerfully rich websites that provide preflight briefing information on a near-real time basis. None of these tools are specifically referenced in FAR/AIM, nor are they addressed in the private and instrument pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS), and nor are they addressed in the various FAA prepared knowledge tests. Here, again, is an example of where the regulatory flight training requirements differ substantially from the real world needs and opportunities of today's pilot.

With an increasing number of my former flight students now off to an aviation college, I thought it would useful to include a section titled "College Reports." This section is reserved for these students to share their unedited comments about their college experience. Hopefully, our readers - particularly high school readers - will gain insight into the various aviation opportunities that await them following high school graduation.

The first of these reports was sent in by Ginamaria LaMendola from Buffalo, NY. Gina transferred into the sophomore class Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida from Buffalo State University this past September. Here are Gina's words:

Embry-Riddle is a great school. You get the best instruction and it was voted number 1 in the country again for aviation. So my expectations were high. There are about 1500 students in the flight program so its hard to fly a lot, but you get up about 3 times a week. The good thing about the program is that the flight line is opened 7 days a week from 5am to about midnight. What you have to do is get the early morning flight block. I get up at about 5am almost every morning but it doesn't matter because I know that I'm going to fly.

Flying at Riddle is very different from home. There are many procedures and rules that you have to learn and it's a lot at first but it gets easier.

It has been kind of hard for me to really see what its been like down here for a whole semester because we started a month late due to the hurricanes. We are trying to make up all the work we missed, but so far I love it here. Although it seemed a little intimidating at first, especially being the only girl in two of my classes and one of four girls in my other three classes. Some of the guys think that they know everything and answer the question even when the teacher calls on me. I learned how to deal with them and tell them to shut up.

The teachers here are great. If you ever have a problem with anything, they are very willing to help you. The teachers are very knowledgeable. They make the material easy to understand. As of now I live on campus. At first I was very apprehensive because I was 21 and most of the people who were dorming were 18. I was assigned a great roommate who was actually older than me so it worked out.

Right now there are three dorms on campus and one off campus. The one that I live in is an old motel and its fun. You meet so many people from all over. I would say that half of my friends are international.

Another great thing about this school is that its located in the spring break capital of the world. I started to learn how to surf and its always nice weather, especially for flying. We go to the beach a lot. We also have the Daytona 500 which is huge. We also have Bike Week and Biketoberfest, which if you're into motorcycles is fun.

Gina is currently working on her multi-engine rating and planning to be an airline pilot. Thanks for sharing, Gina.

Those who have become frequent readers of Over the Airwaves have no doubt noticed that I often challenge the way we do things in aviation . . . particularly in the area of flight training.

I am particularly gratified by the fact that many of my colleague flight instructors have expressed their support for change. They, too, express frustration over the fact far too many aviation accidents are due to pilot error. Yet there is the occasional flight instructor who still defends the status quo, resists change, and who proceeds on the basis of what they, themselves, were taught. Unfortunately, the likelihood of changing the views of such narrow-minded instructors is remote.

My articles have admonished status quo CFIs to depart the practice areas and to get their students into "the system" where the real, relevant learning takes place. I have frequently ridiculed the preferential use of view limiting devices and simulators to train instrument students - particularly given the abundance of actual IFR weather we have here in the northeast. Several of my most egregious articles point to the absurdity of canceling flight training when the winds kick up or when the ceiling and visibility drops below some arbitrary limit well above applicable minimums.

These folks won't change - because that was the way they were taught! The only hope for the status quo CFIs is that the word gets out . . . and their list of students drops to zero!

I have also challenged private and instrument pilots to secure meaningful high wind, extreme maneuvers recovery, and spin recovery training. It is only then that they will have the skills necessary to extricate themselves from a sudden upset in the clouds or to survive an unexpected cross-wind gust on landing just as their tires kiss the runway. I have made examples out of errant pilots who made right-hand entries into left-hand airport traffic patterns.

Even the FAA has not been immune from my protestations. I have said, for example, that the private and instrument pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) do not measure the judgment skills required when things really get tough. Heavy on maneuvers, but light on human factors, risk-management, and decision-making skills, the PTS simply needs to be updated - now!

So why take this contrarian approach in Over the Airwaves? I do it . . . because I can! There are over a dozen well-written, editorially cleansed, politically correct, aviation publications out there that are paid for, in part, by an advertiser or two having vested interests in the status quo. Even our several large, well-meaning and political influential membership organizations publish magazines that have to weigh carefully what they print so as not to disturb more than a handful of their member readers. I notice a lot of the status quo in these publications . . . or, perhaps there is simply too much status and not enough quo!

My goal IS to disturb pilots and aviation decision makers to the point where they will stop and think critically about the issues I raise. This process, alone, has an enormous educational value. I have no pretense that the opinions I express in Over the Airwaves are the only true way. To believe that is naive. No, it's dangerous. I see myself more as a coach who prods his talented athletes into better performance.

We all remember the teachers' pets and the egg-head students who always sat in the front row of the classroom and brown-nosed the teacher. That's not me . . . it never was. Instead, you could generally find me in the back of the class shooting spitballs at the nerds up front. Spitball shooter? Yes. But I am no Michael Moore. I do not build up by tearing down. Rather, my aim is to simply challenge the status quo by being a bit unreasonable.

I choose this approach because we should all be appalled by the fact that about 100 general aviation airplanes crash with serious consequences every month, and that 72.6 percent of these crashes are attributed to pilot error. This outrageous accident rate continues despite the fact that general aviation airplanes are inherently safe. They fly reliably. Sadly, pilots do not.

Our flight training system isn't broken, but it is not yet running correctly. As a flight instructor, if I adapt myself completely to the current flight training system, then I will make no progress in improving it. Thus, I choose to follow G. B. Shaw's words and to remain a bit unreasonable.

P.S. There is a person in a very big aviation organization who recently shared this Shaw quote with me along with a message of encouragement. Thanks!

This section, which will appear in every issue, recaps the positive and negative reader responses to the contents of previous issues of Over the Airwaves. It would intellectually unfair of me to reprint only favorable comments and to disregard the negative ones. (Note: Anonymous comments will not be printed.) So, friends, have at it. Share your thoughts with all of us . . . both pro and con.

Once again, great job! I look forward to getting every issue and when I do, my computer screen and I are inseparable for the next 45 minutes or so. Thanks again! - - Greg Barnhard, Student Pilot

Regarding Old Wives' Tales - Performing Engine Run-ups into the Wind: Thanks Bob. It's about time someone addressed this OWT. Keep up the good work. - - John Whitford (Owner/operator, Whitford Airport, Weedsport, NY)

* * *

"Again, another great issue. Over the Airways should be circulated nationally to all pilots!" -- Jim Kaletta, FAA Safety Counselor, Corporate Pilot.

I just read your article on not timing ILS approaches. As usual it was insightful and informative. I'd like to relate what happened to me recently while practicing ILS approaches into BUF. I did (2) full ILS 23 approaches and when ATC asked what I'd like to do next I told him the localizer only to 23. He responded that BUF does not have a localizer approach. I then said I'd be doing the ILS 23 the without glideslope. Did I ask for something foolish? I agree with you, if the glideslope goes out- go miss and do the localizer only. But listening to this controller you'd think that if the glideslope went out the entire procedure would be cancelled. I'd appreciate your thoughts. -- Bob O'Neill, Private Pilot

Reply: First, I'd like to thank air traffic controller, Brian Blazey, for helping to answer this question. Basically, the Buffalo controller was correct. The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), para 5-4-6 says: The name of an instrument approach, as published, is used to identify the approach, even though a component of the approach aid, such as the glideslope on an Instrument Landing System, is inoperative or unreliable. The controller will use the name of the approach as published, but must advise the aircraft at the time an approach clearance is issued that the inoperative or unreliable approach aid component is unusable. Thus, the controller could NOT clear you for a localizer approach to Buffalo's Runway 23 because the word "Localizer" does not appear in the approach title.

I should also point out that the question of continuing the ILS approach in the event of a glideslope failure generated enormous discussion and debate in a recent AVSIG (Aviation Special Interest Group) forum on the Internet. Over 200 replies were posted on this question from aviation veterans around the world. The jury is still out!

* * *

Reply: Unfortunately, insurance issues prevent me from instructing in my Cessna 210, though I frequently bring flight students along on my frequent business flights. This puts them into the "system" for a first hand look at serious weather and high altitude issues, often in busy Class B airspace.

As for your remaining options, flight schools at the Buffalo, Genesee County, and Dunkirk Airports have a complex aircraft for training. Each of these schools operates excellent equipment and offers first-rate training facilities. Let me suggest, however, that you carefully investigate the qualifications and experience of the complex aircraft instructor you select. Being a frequent of Over the Airwaves, you know what I mean. Your training should include far more than basic orientation with complex aircraft systems, e.g., gear and prop. For example, you should receive extensive instruction in fuel and power management issues including lean of peak (LOP) operations and scenario-based emergency procedures including partial gear failure, emergency gear up landing techniques, and propeller icing issues. And stay away from anybody who starts talking with you about avoiding "over square" operations. This is another classic Old Wives' Tale. If you were to force me to recommend the best place to go, my personal experience suggests Dunkirk.

* * *

Another great issue of "Over the Airwaves"! Of course people seldom take the time to write to compliment you on the great work you are doing with the web site unless something in it provokes them. In "Let's Stop Timing Those ILS Approaches" you mention a couple of things contrary to my understanding. I'm not saying your article is incorrect, just different from my understanding. I'll explain and you can judge. When you are dealing with government rules and regulations, it is not always easy find the correct answer. If a position cannot be supported with published data then we rely on the expert opinions of those tasked with enforcing the regulations. Often, in the absence of direct references, the FAA relies on case data. Legal precedents, so to speak, that resulted from enforcement hearings are examples of this. Below is an FAA interpretation based upon case data:

FAAO 8260.3B INOPERATIVE COMPONENTS: A complete Category I ILS consists of the components specified in paragraph 910. When the localizer fails, an ILS approach is not authorized. When the glide slope becomes inoperative or is not available, the ILS reverts to a nonprecision approach system. In this case, obstacle clearance from paragraph 954 and the nonprecision minimums from paragraph 350 apply. When other components become inoperative, the ILS may continue in use with the landing minimums as prescribed in paragraph 350. - - Brian Blazey, Air Traffic Controller, Rochester, NY.

Reply: In preparing this article, I posted the question of whether or not to time the ILS on AVSIG, the nation's oldest aviation Internet forum whose members include air traffic controllers, airline pilots, FAA officials, flight instructors, and professional aviators from all sides of the industry. The question drew over 2,000 visits and over 200 replies. Surprisingly, opinions on whether to time or not to time the ILS were divided nearly equally among the respondents, often with forceful justification offered in support of both sides of the debate. The scale was tipped in favor not timing by comments made by Chip Wright in the December, 2004 issue of IFR Magazine - which credits itself as "being the publication for the accomplished pilot." Wright's point was, timing the ILS approach adds another workload chore whose possible benefits are outweighed by the burden on the pilot it creates during this precise landing process. He says, "If your glideslope flags on the approach, abort the approach or fly the missed approach procedure."

To me, the most compelling argument for not timing the ILS was, if the glideslope needle suddenly flagged on an ILS approach I would conclude something is amiss with my nav radio. To continue down to localizer minimums in the clag with a questionable nav radio is a risk that I would not want to assume. Instead, I would either abort the approach or fly the published missed procedure. On the other hand, if the glideslope failed on the airport side, rather than in the aircraft, AND the controller re-clears me with a statement like "Cleared ILS approach, glideslope unusable," I would be comfortable continuing on the approach to localizer minimums.

Thanks, Brian, for weighing in on this debate!

* * *

Bob: As always I read your newsletter from beginning to end. The ILS article struck my attention and I had a question. The AIM states:

5-4-19.MISSED APPROACH: "Therefore, when an early missed approach is executed, pilots should, unless otherwise cleared by ATC, fly the IAP as specified on the approach plate to the missed approach point at or above the MDA or DH before executing a turning maneuver."

If you don't time from FAF how do you know when to turn so you don't turn into rising terrain or other obstacles.

- - Dale Llewellyn - Instrument Student

Reply: If the glideslope failure occurs early in approach, you can abort the procedure rather than flying the published missed. For instance, if your glideslope isn't working, chances are you will see the flag before reaching the FAF (final approach fix). Should this occur, advise ATC per the failed components provisions of the FARs. They will ask your intentions. You can either fly the localizer procedure - remember to start the clock at the FAF, or you can select another approach.

If the glideslope failure occurs inside the FAF, climb (per the first word of EVERY missed approach procedure. Remain on the final approach course. You'll have a good idea where the DA is when the localizer needle begins to shake.

Note: Two key points in the original article were: (1) the necessity of minimizing your workload when shooting an ILS approach . . . particularly to minimums, and (2) the possibility that if you suddenly lost the glideslope function in your nav radio, the localizer could be next! Should the latter case occur, you do not want to remain down and low on the ILS procedure!

"The Night Before Christmas . . . . Aviation Style!"

Click HERE to read the traditional "The Night Before Christmas . . . Aviation Style." Thanks to reader/pilot Allan Kidder for sharing this with us.

If this issue of Over the Airwaves was forwarded to you by a friend, you can order your own free future copies of this e-publication by simply clicking HERE and completing the very brief signup form.

Over the Airwaves is not intended to be your typical training, official news, or club-type social journal. Instead, its intent is to stimulate thought, enhance aviation critical thinking skills, to encourage the strong pilot, and to disturb the weaker pilot. With this breadth of scope, Over the Airwaves will evoke a number of reactions. Please feel free to share these reactions with me by clicking HERE.