Fly Safe! Bob Miller, ATP, MCFI Master Certificated Flight Instructor Buffalo, NY rjma@rjma.com 716-864-8100

The plan was for him to propose marriage to her in an airplane over Niagara Falls.   After that, they were to fly home and join in celebration with family and friends.  Anyway, that was the plan. 

What was supposed to be a happy event turned into instant tragedy this past weekend as the happy couple and their pilot completed the first part of their plan and headed back over Lake Erie to their waiting family backyard celebration. 

Details are sketchy at this point.  So far, the only thing that has been found is an oil slick and pieces of the airplane on the Lake Erie surface.

Without witnesses or any significant ATC communications to review, it's impossible to determine what happened.  But this tragic accident does remind us of a unique phenomenon that can occur when flying over large bodies of open water.  That phenomenon is the sudden loss of a visible horizon.   This occurs when the blue/gray color of the water suddenly blends in with the blue/gray color of the sky.  If the water surface is glassy or smooth,  it becomes difficult to tell up from down!  The non-instrument proficient pilot becomes disoriented . . . and tragedy soon follows.

Again, we have no way of knowing if this was a contributing factor in this fatal accident . . . but it is a plausible scenario.

The loss of a visible horizon over open water was shown to be a major factor in the JFK, Jr. crash several years ago.  Early morning or late afternoon haze obscures the horizon.  Hence, if only one distant light is observed from the cockpit, the pilot may not know whether that light is a boat or a star!

The insidious nature of the sudden horizon loss over open water is another reason for all pilots, primary or advanced, to become skilled on the gauges . . . in actual instrument weather conditions!  And if they are not instrument proficient, they should avoid flying over large bodies of open water under any weather conditions.

Scenario based training with a qualified instrument instructor, rather than rote simulated instrument work, takes the student pilot out over a large open body of water and lets him see for himself just how insidious this conditions can become . . . often without warning!

We have hard landings, bounced landings, ballooned landings, porpoised landings, wheelbarrow landings, and numerous combinations of each.  The data clearly shows that there are more accidents during the landing phase of flight than in any other.  Fortunately, most pilots and passengers survive these metal bending events!

In short . . . landings remain a problem for everybody from new flight students at the local aerodrome to weather-scared air warriors flying hundreds of paying passengers to big city airports.  Bad landings occur far, far too often.  And they occur for a reason!

The reason for bad landings is simply . . . . an error in either (1) landing pitch attitude, (2) sink rate, or (3) airspeed.  If any one or more of these parameters are off the mark, a bad landing will likely result.

If the landing pitch attitude is too low, the nose wheel will strike the runway first.  Being the furthest point from the center of gravity (CG), the nose wheel will bounce likely a rubber ball, driving the airplane into a precarious nose high attitude on the edge of stall.  If struck too hard, the nose wheel, particularly in a retract, can easily collapse.  In short, landing on the nose is bad form!

Landing with an excessive sink rate causes the airplane to plop down hard on the runway.  It is typically caused by either flaring too high or too late.  Flare too high and the airplane plops like a heavy shoe.  Flare too late (or not at all), the airplane attempts to fly right down through the runway surface.  

Landing with excessive airspeed results in a vain attempt to land the airplane before it is finished flying.  Airplanes will not land until they've finished flying!

The secret to good landings . . .

Yes, Virginia . . . there is a secret to good landings every time!  That secret is found in the final approach segment of the landing sequence.  If the final approach segment is stabilized with the proper power setting dialed in, airspeed nailed, desired pitch attitude set, and correct descent (sink) rate established, a smooth landing will result every time . . . even in a gusty cross-wind.  Sound easy?  It really is.

Do you know EXACTLY what these landing parameters should be for your airplane??

Practice at altitude . . . on cross-country flights!

Unlike most flight training programs, my first few lessons with a new primary student typically involves cross-country flights to some neat location (to demonstrate the value of learning to fly).  Along the way, I have the student practice a simple little exercise designed to plant the seeds for proper landing technique.  This seed planting exercise has the student use both power and pitch to descend and maintain an assigned altitude, plus or minus 20 feet. 

The little secret is . . . I don't tell them that we're learning how to land!  Instead, they grow comfortable in simply managing the various aerodynamic forces to achieve and maintain an assigned altitude and airspeed.  Once they develop this skill, transitioning to the airport and learning to land is a simple walk in the park for them.  It all happens very naturally!

While we do not have hard data, AOPA and other industry groups estimate that only one out of every three primary flight students complete their training and receive a pilots certificate.  Various reasons are offered to explain this absurdly high drop-out rate.  Most seem to focus on, well . . . lousy flight instruction! 

We hear of flight school diploma mills who do everything wrong short of physically abusing students.  We hear of CFIs who simply "endure" the teaching process in order to log hours for that airline job.  We hear of flight instructors, with zero interpersonal skills, who teach by intimidation.

There are other reasons, too, why flight students quit.  Some of these reasons revolve around poor curriculum design that condemns the student to boring, repetitive exercises in the practice area.  What began as a highly anticipated joyful experience quickly deteriorated to an agonizing struggle between man and machine overseen by a cantankerous instructor with an executioner complex!  Then we have instructors who simply cannot teach! 

Like every other professional endeavor, there are both good and bad in the certificated flight instructor ranks.  Personally, I have known more good than bad CFIs.  With few exceptions, my experience with colleague CFIs has been positive.  These fine instructors are really flight educators.  Then again, I have known instructors who should be doing something else.

In preparing for a larger article on this topic, I queried some of my friends inside AOPA and the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) about the current state of flight training.  I received a general consensus that, on the whole, there are significant shortcomings.  Unfortunately nobody has any concrete data.  "It's difficult to access and receive feedback from those who quit," said one source.  "We simply cannot track these disappointed people."

Your flight training experiences are invited . . .

Nobody knows better about the current state of flight instruction in their area than YOU.  For this reason, I am asking you to share with me either your own personal flight training experiences or those of people you know.  Please use first names or initials only.  My aim is not to incriminate or to point fingers at specific problems or locations.  Rather, I am looking for consensus regarding the major kinds of problems impacting the entire flight instruction process.

You can send me your observations by clicking HERE and completing the brief comment form.  Or you can email your comments to me at rjma@rjma.com.

Please note that there has been no research on this subject that I can find.  Your comments, anecdotal as they are, could be the first such informal, non-scientific survey attempted.  Hopefully, the results will prove useful in helping to improve the overall quality of flight instruction.  Again, I will strip any personally identifying information from your responses.  Thanks.

"Today, student, we're going to learn about in-flight fires and engine failures."

Surprise, surprise . . . the dutiful student has been told that a fire and an engine failure will occur in their flight today.  It then happens and, voila' . . . the student, following his or her instructor's example, recovers satisfactorily!

This is such a sad commentary on the way most flight instruction is carried out.  Why?  Because such rote training bears little resemblance to the real world of flight hazards.

Unfortunately, most flight training is conducted this way.  Fires and failures are among the skill elements listed in the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS).  And any cursory review of most published flight training curricula, Jeppessen and Gleim included, reveals that these curricula were patterned right from the PTS.   Every FAA approved, Part 41 flight school is required to follow an FAA approved training curriculum.  Similarly, most independent (Part 61) flight instructors follow similar curricula.  The end result . . . rote instruction where no real learning occurs!

The absence of human factors, not rote skill deficiencies, are what kills pilots!

Human factors include judgment, risk assessment skills, and problem-solving ability.  In airplanes, sudden, unexpected events often produce the incorrect (sometimes fatal) response from the pilot.  For example, a simulated engine fire often results in the pilot pitching to best glide speed!  Duh!  See a problem here?  Our pilot provides the correct skill for the wrong problem!

As with most things in flight training, the airlines discovered and aggressively adopted human factors training with their flight crews.  Certainly if human factors training works with seasoned pilots, it will work with primary flight students as well.  Why limit it to those very few private pilots who make it to the ranks of airline pilots?

So what's the solution?

The solution for private pilot training is to get out of the practice area and into the system on cross-country flights from day one of training!  In fact, we could begin by shutting down the practice area altogether!

Human factors say, that among other things, learning to fly must be kept entertaining to the student.   Learning steep turns is boring . . . unless you learn them at 3,000' AGL over Niagara Falls or some similar attractive site while enroute to a place like Toronto's Class B airspace.  By the way, over Niagara Falls is a great place to suddenly experience either an engine failure or fire!  This training scenario sort of changes the rules a bit.

How about that second dual cross-country flight where we hone those radio navigation skills?  I always save that training for a good IMC day.  Shortly after take-off, I give the student a revised altitude to fly . . . that takes him right into the clouds (with a pre-secured instrument clearance, of course).  Shortly after that, I cover the attitude and heading indicators.  Yes, Virginia, right in the clouds, partial panel, with a primary student!

Scenario-based training is less costly!

The second cross-country dual training mission described above accomplishes several training tasks simultaneously.  They include: (1) cross-country flight; (2) radio navigation; (3) instrument flight; (4) partial-panel instrument work, (5) aeronautical decision making; (6) risk management assessment; and (7) emergency procedures.  Again, these are all accomplished in a single (real world) flight rather than in multiple practice area flights in simulated conditions.  Sure it's a lot, but it is both challenging and fun.

Training costs are not only reduced at the primary level.  Students trained this way will breeze right through their instrument rating!

How sad it is to continue reading about fatal stall/spin accidents, especially when, with proper training, they are ABSOLUTELY preventable!

Case in point . . . a pilot and two passengers in a Mooney M20J (like the one pictured left) were making a "normal" landing to Olney Municipal Airport in Olney, Texas.  For some reason, the 2,700 hour, commercially rated pilot elected to make a 360 degree turn while on the final approach leg.  As he realigned himself on the runway heading, witnesses said that the airplane, ". . . rolled inverted, the nose dropped, and the airplane descended vertically until it impacted the ground."

The aircraft impacted the ground 0.2 miles short of the runway leaving a creator only 2 feet by 3 feet wide.  The pilot and his two passengers were killed upon impact.  The NTSB probable cause finding was, "the pilot's failure to maintain airspeed sufficient for flight resulting in the inadvertent stall/spin. A contributing factor was the prevailing tailwind."

One of the raging debates in aviation continues on the subject of spin training.  Opponents, of which there are many, say that the best way to prevent a spin is to teach students to avoid a stall.  Then, rather than actually demonstrating a full stall, these same opponents bring their students to the very earliest stages of an incipient stall, then recover at the first chirp of the stall warning horn.  The student never actually experiences a fully developed stall . . . much less anything remotely akin to a spin.

"See that," asks the cautious instructor? 

"See what," replies the student.

"That was a stall!"

"Huh," replies the student. "I felt the wings buffet a little.  Was that really a stall?"

The above illustration of incomplete stall/spin training is simply not convincing.  The student comes away from this exercise with a "oh - hum" attitude regarding the insidious nature of the stall/spin scenario.  Lacking an awareness of just how fast a stalled wing can fall out beneath him, he treats the whole matter rather casually.  Before long, he forgets all about it.

My first real training experience with stalls and spins came in an Extra 300, a first-class aerobatic aircraft.  The instructor pilot asked me to gently pull the airplane up into a power-off stall.  I did so, casually, expecting the airplane to go through the same buffeting I had experienced numerous times before in Piper Warriors, Archers, and Cessnas.  What I experienced took my breath way!

When the Extra 300 wing reached its critical angle of attack, my seat (with me in it) seem to fall right out the bottom of the airplane!  There was no warning buffets, no stick shaking, no warning.  Bam . . . right out the bottom I fell!

Taken by surprise, I allowed the Extra 300 to yaw slightly to the left as I attempted to recover.  Instantly, the left wing fell out below me, leaving the airplane inverted in a nose down attitude.  I struggled to regain control but my head was spinning as fast as the airplane!  The ground below was coming up fast and revolving so quickly that I couldn't regain my senses . . . nor control of the airplane.  Fortunately, I had a qualified instructor pilot in the back seat to take over the controls. 

After two more such experiences, I finally learned how to both prevent and instantly recover from spins in the Extra 300!

This experience carved a memory in my brain that I will NEVER forget!  I saw first hand just how quickly a spin can result out of an uncoordinated stall.

You can acquire the same spin recovery skills in your Warrior, Archer, or Cessna.  A qualified flight instructor  can duplicate the same stall/spin scenario I experienced in the Extra 300.  The airplane is pitched to a full stall.  The rudder is simultaneously kicked in the direction of the desired spin.   Performed properly, the inboard wing will suddenly drop off.  It is then recovered before completion of the first full turn of the spin. [Caution: consult your airplane's POH before attempting any unusual maneuvers and try this first with an experienced instructor on board.]

It is as simple as that.  And with this experience, the student learns just how quickly a spin can occur . . . and how easily the application of the proper control inputs can instantly recover from the spin.

Answer:  It can't!  Spins occurring down low in the traffic pattern are essentially non-recoverable.  There simply is not enough altitude remaining to recover. 

The real question should be, "Will a spin proficient pilot permit an airplane to even approach a stall/spin attitude at traffic pattern altitude?  

Answer:  NO!  Anybody who has had actual experience with spins and their recovery will NOT permit his or her airplane to even come close to the flight parameters (pitch/yaw) at pattern altitude that will produce a spin. 

Such was clearly not the case in the stall/spin accident described above.

Unless you operate around grass fields or fly larger airplanes into and out of smaller, non-towered airports, your chances of needing good short field landing and take-off techniques are minimal.  For many, the last time a short field operation was performed was on a private or commercial pilot checkride.

Contrary to commonly observed practice, particularly around big city airports with wide and long runways, short field take-off technique should be the preferred technique EVERY TIME,  on EVERY runway, for EVERY pilot!  When you do, your margin of safety will be dramatically improved.

Why are short field take-offs safer?

First and perhaps most obvious, a properly executed short field take-off technique will carry you higher sooner, thereby putting the most possible altitude between you and obstacles along your departure course.  Less obvious but perhaps more significant from a safety perspective, achieving a higher altitude sooner provides you with more emergency landing options should you encounter an engine failure on take-off.

Third, I like short take-offs because they help to instill a better understanding of the relationship between parasitic and induce drag and Vx and Vy speeds.  When performed properly, the short field take-off technique achieves maximum advantage of these four aerodynamic factors.  In so doing, we achieve the maximum operational performance from our airplane.  

Let's look at each of these four factors . . .

In summary . . .

The short field take-off technique enables us to ignore the effects of parasitic drag while at the same time minimizing or removing the adverse effects of induced drag until reaching rotation speed.  The requires holding the nose on the ground (or low in a tailwheel aircraft) until reaching Vx speed.  Upon reaching Vx, we pull sharply on the yoke or stick and pitch immediately to maintain Vx speed until crossing any obstacles along the departure course. 

Upon clearing the obstacles (or 50'AGL - which ever is higher), we pitch the nose slightly downward to achieve and maintain Vy speed until reaching our cruise altitude.

All in all, the short field take-off technique secures for us the airplane's greatest performance capability all for the purpose of maximizing our margin of safety throughout the take off roll, climb above obstacles, and our climb to cruise altitude.

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. 
 

Past Issues of 

Click HERE to open any previous issue(s) of Over the Airwaves and to search for any past articles.