 |
|
Sunday, February 13, 2005 Vol. II No. 4
Prepared by Bob Miller, ATP,
MCFI |
|
|
|
Sunday, February 13, 2005 Vol. II No. 4
Prepared by Bob Miller, ATP,
MCFI |
Welcome to the
Over the Airwaves
aviation newsletter. This complimentary bi-weekly e-mailing is
being sent to pilots and aviation enthusiasts throughout the United
States. Its aim
is to promote flight
safety, encourage students and new pilots, and to build enthusiasm
for aviation in general.
Dear Pilots and Aviation Enthusiasts:
A sad and disheartened student pilot who was being trained by another local instructor called me recently to say that he had just gotten "pink slipped" on the private pilot oral exam. He told me that he made it through the first hour or so of the oral when the examiner called it quits and told him to come back when he was better prepared. Understandably, the student pilot was disappointed in himself, but he was also angry with both the examiner and his instructor. He felt he had received a bum deal all around. Perhaps he did, but I wasn't there to see for myself. I do know this, however. The examiner, who I have known for many years, is one of the best in the area. He is conscientious, highly experienced, and is one of the most knowledgeable guys around. If he "pink slipped" somebody, the guy wasn't prepared. Case closed! There is a bigger issue here than a simple "pink slip" scenario. That issue is . . . expectations. The student had expected to pass, otherwise he would not have gone for the test. His instructor also expected him to pass, otherwise he would not have signed his FAA Form 8710. These expectations proved wrong . . . and the student was sent home to come back another day. Expectations are curious things, particularly as they apply to aviation. When a pilot takes to the air, he or she expects to return safely to the ground. In better than 99 percent of the time, this expectation hold true. Similarly, when an instructor signs off a student pilot for a flight test, he or she expects the student to pass and go on to experience a full life of safe flight. Here again, these expectations nearly always ring true. So what happened in this case? What happened is, the world of flight is changing. And it is changing faster than many of our traditional flight instruction methods and procedures (and expectations) have been able to keep up. For example, the sheer volume of aviation science that a student pilot is expected to know cannot be drilled into his head sitting at a desk or table. Nor can he make this information stick by going home and reading chapters and taking practice tests. Instead, the student pilots' learning experiences must be made more relevant by taking him into the system, into the weather, and into the busy airspace where he can instantly translate what he sees on a weather depiction chart and radar summary chart to what is going on outside his window. More importantly, he needs to experience changing weather over long distance cross-country flights. Four hours of this with a pile of aviation weather charts on his lap is worth forty hours of home or office study . . . and the resultant learning will last! The good news is that at least a part of our current pilot preparation system is working. In this case, the examiner discovered the student's lack of required knowledge and, as a result, could possibly have prevented another bump in the general aviation fatal accident rate. The bad news is that the student and his instructor's expectations were not fulfilled. In summary, good students, properly prepared by their instructor (mine included), have suffered a "brain lapse" and blown an oral exam or check ride. This stuff happens, and it could have been the case here. Regardless, the message is clear. It is a brave new aviation world out there. Airplane manufacturing technology is keeping up with the changes; the air traffic control system is keeping up with the changes. It is now time that the methods we use to prepare future pilots change as well. The time for teaching to minimum standards addressed in the PTS has come to an end. Our emerging pilots as well as those pursuing advance ratings deserve more than this. They deserve the kind of training that will keep them safe when things do not go as expected.
The temptation to try and salvage a botched instrument approach can be overwhelming, especially when down low and close to the runway. This is what a Cessna 182 pilot discovered on January 10, 2005 in Little Rock, Arkansas. Sadly, it cost him and his passenger their lives. Weather at the time of the accident was reported as calm wind, visibility 3/4 statute miles, mist, sky obscured at 200 feet.
The pilot indicated that he had the runway in sight and replied, "Oh I see the runway now. Uh, how about giving me a vector around it." A witness said that the airplane was "approximately 100 feet above ground level, flying at a high rate of speed. He made a drastic pull-up and a steep bank of at least 45 degrees." The FAA inspector, who responded to the accident site, reported that the aircraft impacted the Arkansas River. Despite search and rescue attempts, the aircraft has not been located and is presumed destroyed. Click HERE to view the Instrument Approach Plate for Little Rock's Runway 22R ILS. Was the guy stabilized on the approach? It was evident from the transcript that the pilot was having difficulty getting stabilized on this approach. Things had gotten so bad that the controller suggested that he break off the approach, climb, and try it again. Then, instead of flying the published missed approach procedure, it appears that he commenced a circling approach with a 200' ceiling. Piecing together the final events, it is likely that he climbed and turned back 180 degrees, then entered a stall/spin and crashed into the river. Being low and slow and unstabilized on the approach is no place to be. It is absolutely no time to be busting circling minimums or creating your own instrument procedures! What should have been the solution? Many airlines impose a 1,000' AGL rule for their pilots when conducting instrument landings. That rule says, "If you are not stabilized at the 1,000' AGL point on the approach, go missed!" This 1,000' AGL mark typically occurs just inside the final approach fix (FAF). For these airlines, trying to salvage an unstabilized approach beyond this point is not authorized, nor is it considered safe or prudent. This rule is good advice for all pilots. The final approach segment (FAF to the MAP) is no place to be chasing the needles around! If either the glideslope or localizer needle swings full scale inside the FAF (or at the 1,000'AGL point), go missed! A Word about Stall/Spin Scenarios . . . A pilot's rush to get turned around often leads to the use of either excessive rudder (skid) or excessive yoke (slip) input. Either way, the airplane is in uncoordinated flight. When combined with an excessive angle of attack (from flying slow), the result can suddenly result in a stall/spin . . . close to the ground! Avoiding this combination of control errors can be difficult when in VFR conditions. In IFR conditions, it takes consummate proficiency on the gauges to prevent! In short, KEEP THE BALL CENTERED during all stages of flight Click HERE to view the preliminary NTSB report of this crash including the communications transcript of this crash.
Meet John F. Lipiarz of Cheektowaga, NY. John is part of The Greatest Generation of military heroes who valiantly participated in World War II. John is a P-47 pilot who flew a remarkable 113 missions with the 524th Fighter-Bomber Squadron of the 27th Fighter-Bomb Group. He was stationed outside of Anzio Beach, Italy. His efforts to help win the war brought him the Distinguished Flying Cross, an Air Medal with 6 Oak Leaf Clusters, a Theater of Operations Ribbon with six Bronze Stars and a Distinguished Unit Citation Badge. The six bronze stars were for the following campaigns: Rome, Arno, Northern Apennines, Southern France, Central Europe, Northern France and Rhineland. John entered military service at Fort Niagara in 1943. He traveled immediately to Maxwell Field in Alabama for pre-flight training, then to Door Field in Florida for primary training, then to Gunter Field in Alabama for more training. He received his wings and commission in Marianna, Florida. He went on to Eglin Field in Florida where he transitioned to P-40s, then to Fort Meyers, Florida for air combat training in P-47 Thunderbolts. Click HERE to learn more about the P-47 Thunderbolt.
John is a long-time, active member of the Aero Club of Buffalo. He and Lorraine attend every meeting. The quick wit and constant smiles makes them easy to spot! Next time you see John, shake his hand and say "thanks." John, like all of the WWII veterans I know, is so modest that it is difficult to extract information about his heroic participation in the war. They considered it their duty . . . . no questions asked, they stepped forward and served! Note: It is a sad but true fact that we are losing our WWII veterans at the rate of 100 a day! It was their courage against impossible odds in Europe and in the Pacific during those dark days in the early 1940s that made our nation free. Many of our remaining local WWII veterans are active members of the Aero Club of Buffalo. Lets all come out to these monthly meetings and show our appreciation for their noble efforts.
On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States. Only 35 percent, or just over 30,000 of those flights are commercial airliners. On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights, 24,548 air taxi flights, 5,260 military flights, and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.). At any given moment, roughly 5,000 planes are in the skies above the United States. In one year, controllers handle an average of 64 million takeoffs and landings. If you add all of this up, in 2002 U.S. air traffic controllers handled 158,167,995 total operations! [Source] Air traffic controllers perform their jobs very well. And because of their extensive training, re-training, close supervision, and day after day involvement in the system, it is no stretch to conclude that controllers perform their jobs better than many of us general aviation pilots. By comparison, the average GA pilot flies less than 100 hours a year compared to the over 2,080 hours per year by each working controller. Even busy GA pilots seldom fly more than 600 hours a year. Despite these disparities in training and experience between controllers and GA pilots, the system works exceptionally well. Nonetheless, the system continues to experience 6.7 operational errors (loss of required separation between aircraft, terrain, etc.) per 1 million flight operations. And these are only the ones that get reported. Source While the causes of these errors exceed the scope of this publication, we can assume that a significant number are attributable to controller/pilot communications issues. Missed calls and failure to abide by clearance limits (FAR 91.123 errors) likely are responsible for many operational errors. Here again, we have to get out of the practice area! Over 15,000 air traffic controllers work in 266 control towers, 21 air route traffic control centers (ARTCC), 185 terminal radar approach control facilities. Despite enormous efforts to standardize procedures between each of these facilities, people are different and procedures are different. Workloads vary widely as do controller and pilot patience levels. Remember what they say about "A New York minute!" The only way to become proficient in the national airspace system is to GET INTO the national airspace system. This means leaving the comfortable familiarity of the home drome practice area!
Okay, call me a fanatic but I cannot imagine a more enjoyable way to spend a week (excluding Oshkosh, of course) than picking up a seaplane rating and learning how to operate off of glaciers or dry river beds in Alaska. There a dozens of excellent training facilities through the United States that provide quality specialty training - most of which are much easier and more convenient to get to than those located in Alaska.
But there is something about Alaska that suggests this could be where some of the best training of this kind can be found! Coincidently, one of our "Over the Airwaves" readers from Alaska told me about his unique flight training operation. Click HERE to check out his website. If you go, tell him you learned about here!
Aside from knowing and being able to explain the instrument approach structure to the Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) on the instrument checkride, there is one very important practical reason for knowing this system. It is this reason that will prevent you from hitting either obstacles or terrain on your way down to the runway. Here is the reason: Each of the four segments, plus the inbound feeder route or vector route has a prescribed altitude. Never, ever . . . repeat . . . never descend below the specified minimum altitude for the segment you are on. AND, never descend to the next approach segment until you are absolutely certain that you are ON that segment! Sounds easy, right? Sadly many pilots have failed to keep these two important things in mind . . . and died as a result! The follow description of the instrument approach structure comes from the AFS-420 Instrument Procedure Handbook. It provides an excellent review of what all instrument pilots should know. Ea Feeder Route: By definition, a feeder route is a route depicted on instrument approach charts to designate courses for aircraft to proceed from the en route structure to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF). Feeder routes, also referred to as approach transitions, technically are not considered approach segments but are an integral part of many instrument approach procedures (IAPs). Initial Approach Segment: The initial approach segment begins at an IAF and usually ends where it joins the intermediate approach segment. Course, distance, and minimum altitudes are also provided for initial approach segments. A given procedure may have several initial approach segments. When more than one exists, each joins a common intermediate segment, although not necessarily at the same location. Intermediate Approach Segment: The intermediate segment, normally aligned within 30° of the final approach course, begins at the IF, or intermediate point, and ends at the beginning of the final approach segment. In some cases, an IF is not shown on an approach chart. In this situation, the intermediate segment begins at a point where you are proceeding inbound to the FAF, are properly aligned with the final approach course, and are located within the prescribed distance prior to the FAF. An instrument approach that incorporates a procedure turn is the most common example of an approach that may not have a charted IF.
Final Approach Segment: The final approach segment for an approach with vertical guidance or a precision approach begins where the glide slope intercepts the minimum glide slope intercept altitude shown on the approach chart. If ATC authorizes a lower intercept altitude, the final approach segment begins upon glide slope interception at that altitude. For a nonprecision approach, the final approach segment begins either at a designated FAF, depicted as a cross on the profile view, or at the point where the aircraft is established inbound on the final approach course. When a FAF is not designated, such as on an approach that incorporates an on-airport VOR or NDB, this point is typically where the procedure turn intersects the final approach course inbound. This point is referred to as the final approach point (FAP). The final approach segment ends at either the designated MAP or upon landing. Missed Approach Segment: The missed approach segment begins at the MAP and ends at a point or fix where an initial or en route segment begins. The actual location of the MAP depends upon the type of approach you are flying. For example, during a precision or an APV approach, the MAP occurs at the DA or DH on the glide slope. For nonprecision approaches, the MAP is either a fix, NAVAID, or after a specified period of time has elapsed after crossing the FAF.
Click Here [requires RealPlayer to view] to see a Korean Air B-747 make a less than stabilized approach to landing at Hong Kong's old Kai Tak airport, now closed. When commenting upon this video, reader Dan Maloney, a B-747-400 captain said, "This approach is a true seat of the pants maneuver. You have to have a little extra speed for the steep bank, and then pull a lot of power off as you roll wings level. I would definitely have gone around on this. If you look closely he never really lined up before touchdown, landed in the right half of the runway, and his bank angle at touchdown was almost enough to drag his engine pod." The video certainly shows the remarkable stick and rudder skills required, even in the jumbos, to maneuver into this airport!
Do you get confused over the differences between DPs (departure procedures) and SIDS (standard instrument departures)? If so, join the rest of the aviation community! The problem generating this confusion occurred in 2000 when the fed tried to clarify things. The Big Change Prior to 2000, instrument departure procedures (DPs) were published in two separate formats: IFR departure procedures (DPs) and standard instrument departures (SIDs). IFR departure procedures were textual obstacle clearance procedures published by the Office of Aviation System Standards. SIDs were graphically depicted, preplanned departure procedures produced by the FAA Air Traffic Service. In December of 2000, in an attempt to bring the creation and development of departure procedures into a common processing system, the FAA shifted responsibility to a single creation group and also changed the associated terminology.
So now everything is nice an clear - right? Just in case you're still confused, don't worry. More changes are in the works! The important thing is that, whichever directions the feds elect to go on this, we use whatever course guidance we have to remain clear of obstacles and terrain on every airport departure . . . whether IFR or VFR.
How do I know if there is a departure procedure for the airport I am departing from? The answer can be found in the upper left corner on any NACO instrument departure plate. The presence of a "T" in an upside down pyramid indicate the presence of either non-standard take-off minimums and/or a departure procedure. If the "T" appears, flip to the front of the book (NACO Charts), and look up the necessary information.
What about VFR - only pilots? Here is a solid example where VFR-only pilots would be wise to familiarize themselves with IFR procedures. Always bring along the instrument approach procedures book for unfamiliar airports you may be traveling to . . . especially those in mountainous terrain. Look up the airport and runway you plan to use. If you see a "T" in the upper left corner of the approach plate, be sure to know how to read the published departure procedure.
If you are like me and suffer serious withdrawal symptoms any time illness, injury, or weather keeps me grounded for more than a day or two, you can vicariously fly by listening to live ATC/PILOT communications right through your computer. Reader, Bob Race, instrument pilot from Akron, NY passed along a very entertaining web link to these live feeds. You can access it by clicking HERE. You need to have Windows Media Player to hear these feeds. Thanks for sharing this great site with us Bob.
The story is sadly the same. A low time instrument pilot who received most of his training in simulated (non-actual) instrument conditions loses control of his airplane in the clouds . . . and dies. This tragic incident occurred on January 15, 2005 in Florida.
The pilot received his instrument rating on October 6, 2003 and his commercial certificate on March 25, 2004. He had logged 483 total hours of flight time, with 405 hours in SR-22s. The pilot's logged flight time included a total of 15 hours of actual instrument time and 61 hours of simulated instrument time. The chilling transcript (see link below) reveals the pilot's apparent confusion over what may have started with a problem with his primary flight display (PFD). His actions and the controller's efforts to assist him, again, sends us an important message. Distractions and partial panel scenarios in IMC can lead a less than proficient IFR pilot to a tragic outcome. It also reinforces the importance of frequent training and flight experience in actual IMC in order to remain calm, cool, and proficient on the gauges. Hood work and GA flight simulators are effective in teaching IFR procedures, but they do not come close to simulating the human dynamics that occur in the clouds.
The aircraft's ballistic parachute was found 40 feet from the impact site, still in the bag with no evidence that the pilot tried to activate it. Click HERE to read the preliminary NTSB crash investigation report including the chilling pilot/ATC transcript. Word to the wise . . . Pilots operating an airplanes with a new glass panels should turn them off and fly on the "steam gauges" to maintain their partial panel proficiency. The same partial panel work is just as important for those of us who fly with traditional steam gauges. But remember, partial panel is easy when flying under the hood or in a stationary flight simulator. It is a whole lot different when you are being tossed around in the clag and warning lights and horns are distracting you. Sadly, pilots seldom become a true believers in this kind of training until they have experienced a "for real" partial panel event in IMC. We often underestimate the importance of partial panel review. Human nature suggests tells us that if we never lost vacuum or electrical power, we never will. Sadly, when it does happen, the outcome is tragic for those who do not practice partial panel on a regular basis. Flight Instructors: Consider doing all of your IPCs under partial panel conditions. Also be sure to include partial panel exercises in your BFRs, especially for instrument pilots taking a BFR.
There are lots of aviation chat groups on the Internet, but none compare with the proud heritage and tradition of AVSIG (Aviation Special Interest Group). Recognized as the longest continually running aviation forum on the Web, AVSIG is populated by some of the most experienced professional pilots, air traffic controllers, FAA-types, and general aviation pilots in the business. AVSIG is divided into a dozen or so special interest sections ranging from Training & Proficiency, to Instrument Flight, to Accidents, to FAA topics. If you have a burning question that nobody can seem to answer, or if you a professional opinion on some aspect of aviation, click HERE. You'll enjoy what you find!
On the instrument check ride, you can bet the farm that the examiner will ask the following question: "Bob, what unsolicited reports do you, as an instrument pilot, have to give to ATC and when?" The little table below will help you remember these reports.
We active instrument pilots are well beyond the check ride phase. So why should we clutter our minds with this bit of trivia? After all, if we're careful and we keep instrument current, NOBODY is likely to ask us again about those pesky mandatory reporting requirements again, right? Wrong! Each of these mandatory calls have significance in the overall IFR scheme of things. For example, early in my IFR career I recall making an instrument approach to Atlantic City, NJ one Friday night in my C-210. It was the eve of AOPA's annual convention and the weather was dreadful . . . right down to IFR minimums. There must have also been a beauty pageant or a Don King sponsored heavy weight fight scheduled that evening because I found myself in a conga line of a dozen biz jets being sequenced for the same approach. Change in true airspeed of 5 percent or 10 knots, whichever is greater While still about eight miles out and not wanting to be rushed though the approach, I put the brakes on by reducing power, lowering the gear, and dropping 10 degrees of flaps. My cruise airspeed suddenly plunged from 170 knots to 120 knots. Moments later the Atlantic City approach controller shouted in my ear, "Centurion 4720 Yankee, say airspeed!" There was something about the tone of his voice to suggest that he was not a happy camper! You guessed it. I literally crippled the controller's effort to set up an orderly flow of arrivals that rain-soaked evening. He spared no air time in reminding me (and everybody else on the frequency) of the need to advise ATC of any significant change in airspeed. I also received an immediate 160 degree vector which took me out over the very cold and inhospitable Atlantic Ocean long enough for him to re-string his pearl necklace of incoming arrivals! Unable to climb at 500 feet/minute Later during those same rookie years as an instrument pilot, I was on the climb-out from Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, again on a low IMC night. My daughter, then just a toddler, was strapped in the co-pilot's seat. She was my only passenger. Knowing ATC's need for a rapid climb to avoid nearby Newark's arrivals, I put the proverbial "pedal to the metal." The lightly loaded C-210 barreled up at nearly 2,000 feet per minute. Passing the first 1,000' mark, my daughter started screaming due to a serious ear-block. A head cold prevented her from clearing her ears during the fast climb. I lowered the nose to reduce the climb rate to a gentle 200 to 300 feet per minute in hopes of relieving my daughter's ear pain. Within moments, the NY approach controller called and said, "Centurion 4720 Yankee, say altitude!" His apparent expectation was that I would be clear of Newark's arrival course did not pan out. He dealt with my offense by giving me a new heading about 90 degrees off my desired course for about 35 minutes. Was this my punishment for not filing the required report about not being able to maintain a 500' or better climb rate? You be the judge! Each mandatory report has specific significance in the controllers' planning process. He or she is amenable to making a change in plans . . . but not if you surprise him!
What good is an airplane and an IFR ticket if you do not feel comfortable operating in and around the cultural, business, and entertainment centers of the nation. This is especially true in the extremely busy east coast corridor. It is here where busy air traffic controllers turned the "New York minute" into a basic way of doing business! If you haven't experienced this challenging part of IFR flight, find a qualified, experienced instructor and begin widening your operational envelope. If you will permit a bit of shameless self-promotion on this topic, click HERE.
We have a designated pilot examiner (DPE) here in Western New York who has a reputation for "pink slipping" students who fail to perform a brake check within the first 30 seconds following aircraft movement on the ramp!! Yep, the DPE tells the hapless student to "shut her down, trip is over, come back another day!" As the title of this article suggests and as the picture (right) reveals, too many pilots begin to taxi without first performing a brake check. When is the best time to perform a brake check? "The airplane better not move more than three feet before those brakes are checked," says our DPE (who wished to remain anonymous)!
You've heard the debate . . . . the folks who say that turbochargers are expensive to maintain, that turbocharged engines burn more fuel, that turbocharged airplanes are only useful when operating in the mountain west. Well, I am here to debunk these "Old Wives' Tales (OWTs) and to shed some light based upon my own experiences owning and operating a turbocharged Cessna 210 for the past six years.
A normally aspirated, non-turbocharged engine relies atmospheric pressure to force air into the cylinders, where it is mixed with fuel for combustion. The higher we fly, the lower the atmospheric pressure and the less the dense the air (fewer molecules of air per unit of volume). Thus, as we fly higher, fewer air molecules get into the engine cylinders thereby producing less power. Most normally aspirated (non-turbocharged) general aviation airplanes begin to poop out above 10,000 to 14,000 feet. Some high performance, normally aspirated singles can make it up to 16,000 to 18,000 feet, but that's it . . . . and it is struggle for them to reach the final 2,000 to 3,000 feet of their service ceiling. A marvelous solution . . . Engineers solved the problem of declining atmospheric pressure by creating a separate air pump to force compressed air into the induction system. A variety of air pump systems were used over the years, but the one in widespread use today is illustrated below. This system, simple in design and use, diverts the engine's exhaust gasses through a turbine. This turbine is attached to an impeller that compresses (boosts) the pressure of the incoming air going into the engine's induction system. The turbine and impeller are housed in the turbocharger unit.
On the ground or at low altitudes no boosting of the incoming air pressure is necessary. As the airplane climbs, however, the need for boosting steadily increases. There is a mechanism within the system called a "waste gate" (actually a simple butterfly valve) that allows the exhaust gas to by-pass the turbocharger unit. By closing the waste gate, more and more exhaust gas is sent through the turbocharger unit which, in turn, causes the impeller to spin faster which boosts the pressure of the induction air. What controls the waste gate? A position of the waste gate, hence the amount of exhaust gas it diverts into the turbocharger unit, is controlled by the turbo actuator and turbo controller. Sensing changes in the barometric pressure (altitude), these components work together to adjust the position of the waste gate. They also allow the pilot to over-ride this automatic process with the throttle. What about the debate . . . are turbocharged engines more expensive to maintain, do they burn more fuel, and are they useful only in the mountain west? More expensive to maintain? No! I ran through my first turbocharged engine (Continental TSIO520-R) all the way to TBO without putting a nickel into the turbocharging system. I am now one-half way through my second turbocharged engine, and again no problems. The turbo setup on this engine works great. Do I burn more fuel? On a mile per gallon basis, absolutely not! With more air being pumped into the cylinders, more fuel is required to maintain the necessary 15 to 1 air to fuel ratio. But I am also traveling through air much faster than I would with a normally aspirated engine. For you engine wonks, I run my engine lean of peak with GAMIjectors. This is a whole story onto itself. By doing this, my cruise fuel burn rate is between 13 and 14 gallons per hour. Conventional operation of this engine, per the POH, requires 17 to 18 gallons per hour! Turbos useful only in the mountain west? This is the biggest bogus argument of them all! Most bad weather, including ice-laden clouds, top out at between 15,000 and 18,000 feet. With a turbocharged engine, cruise flight at 19,000 to 24,000 feet eliminates 90 percent of all adverse weather issues! I have solved many more potential icing issues by virtue of turbocharging than I have with my known-ice certified deicing equipment. Turbocharger systems on new airplanes is a costly enhancement . . . about $30,000 for the system. On the used market, turbocharged airplanes command about $15,000 more than the same normally aspirated airplane. From sheer utility, this is a justifiable expense!
Despite our best training efforts, and even frequent recurrent training, the temptation to initiate an immediate return to the airport following an engine failure on take-off can be hard to resist. This is what a Piper Malibu pilot experienced in June, 2002 when lifting off from the Naples, Florida Airport. Witnesses told the NTSB that the engine quit shortly take-off. The pilot put the airplane in a steep turn back towards the airport. Further findings by the NTSB revealed that the airplane entered a stall/spin and impacted the ground in a steep, nose-down attitude. This particular accident reveals the dangers associated with making turn backs to the airport following an engine failure on takeoff. The Fatal Turn Back Decision . . . There are numerous risks associated with a decision to make an emergency return to the airport after an engine failure on take off. They include:
Recommended Solution With very few exceptions, landing straight ahead offers a better outcome than attempting a return to the airport from a low and slow flight attitude. Search for the most suitable emergency landing site, troubleshoot the failed engine, make a may-day call, and secure the airplane and passengers for a hard landing, e.g., fuel selector off, mixture idle cut off, master switch off, seatbelts/harness secure, unlatch the door. Mentally rehearse these steps prior to every takeoff! A pilot with a failed engine has one goal in mind . . . to insure that he and his passengers are able to walk away, uninjured, from the landing. Saving the airplane is a non-issue! As soon as that engine began sputtering, it belonged to the insurance company, not you! The good news is that engine failures on takeoff are very rare. But when they do happen, their outcome is determined almost exclusively by the direction the pilot points the crippled airplane. Regarded as one of the fastest and safest ways to land the squadron, particularly when in close proximity to hostile ground fire, the overhead approach is again coming into vogue. War bird pilots, RV drivers, and assorted other high performance wannabes like to demonstrate their piloting skills by making this crowd-pleasing type of approach. Overhead approaches are fun . . . but be careful when doing them at non-towered airports. This week's issue of AOPA's e-Pilot describes a near-miss that occurred in the traffic pattern when a T-28 pilot was performing an overhead approach at a non-towered airport.
How the overhead approach is performed . . . The arriving aircraft makes a straight-in approach to the landing runway, but descends no lower than 500' to 1000' above the pattern altitude. A point three to five miles before the runway end is designated the "Initial Point." Here, the pilot announces, "Nxxxxx, over the initial." He continues inbound, still 500' to 1,000' above the TPA, until reaching the runway end. At this point, he announces "Nxxxxx, on the break." At this point, the pilot drops the gear, lowers the flaps, and chops the power as he initiates a 360 degree steep, descending turn so as to arrive over the runway threshold in a normal position to land. A word of caution . . . Don't attempt an overhead approach in a busy traffic pattern! While it is a perfectly legal maneuver that is described in section 5-4-25 of the AIM, it is not a standard traffic pattern entry. Be certain that you have the airport to yourself when doing this maneuver. And when performing this maneuver at a non-towered airport, make active use of your radio to explain what you are going to do . . . then listen carefully for others in or near the pattern. The overhead approach is more safely performed at a tower controlled airport where the tower can help to keep things sorted out. When requesting an overhead approach from ATC, don't be surprised if the controller says, "Huh?" All the older, military-trained controllers along with those who regularly work military arrivals certainly know this maneuver. But some of the younger, less experienced controllers (who learned but soon forgot overhead approaches in controller school) may have to be brought up to speed a bit before they will approve it. I know a controller who recently retired from the Chicago's O'Hare tower. He tells the story of when the Navy's Blue Angels were returning from a nearby air show. He cleared the formation for a landing at O'Hare not realizing they would be making an overhead approach to landing. O'Hare was running simultaneous departures from an intersecting runway. Tragedy was narrowly averted as two of the Blue Angles flew under a departing airliner and the remainder of the formation flew just above it! No joke . . . the captain of the departing airliner was heard to say on the radio, "I've always wanted to fly with the Blue Angels and today I have!" A Wonderful Emergency Maneuvers Technique: Practicing overhead approaches builds valuable emergency maneuvers skills. These skills can save the day should you lose an engine and have to make an emergency descent from directly over an airport. It is also a useful maneuver in low fuel emergencies. In this instance, rather than making a normal descent to the airport and risking an engine loss short of the runway, maintain your altitude until directly over the airport, then make an overhead approach to landing. (It's also useful if your approach to landing over-flies hostile territory!) Remember the most important thing . . . Keep the descending turn coordinated [keep the ball centered] Find an instructor skilled in overhead approach, then go out and master them!
Yes . . . you WILL need to understand and be able to explain to the examiner the same four black and white weather charts shown in the table below in your pursuit of every pilot rating from the Private Pilot to Airline Transport Pilot (ATP). While still useful, perhaps to the weather forecaster and the FSS briefer, today's pilots have a much more dynamic array of colorful, animated weather products available to them on the web. Nonetheless, if you are going for a knowledge test or check ride, you better brush up on these relics. Begin by reviewing the below summary table, then click on each chart label for a fuller explanation and example of each. Student pilots pursuing any rating, you might want to print each of the expanded sites and keep them handy.
Aviation Safety Magazine recently completed a survey of its pilot subscribers. Their aim was to produce some hard numbers to the question of perceived risks. The survey design consisted of 30 questions in six topic ranging from weather, to regulation, to aircraft performance. Over 900 responding pilots revealed what they think about risk and what challenges they consider too hazardous to undertake. The results were correlated with pilot experience in the following four groups: (1) under 500 hours; (2) 500 hours to 1,000 hours; (3) 1,000 hours to 500 hours; and (4) over 5,000 hours. The survey findings are not very surprising. They concluded that "the way you assess risk derives from a sum total of your fundamental attitudes shaped by your training and experience." They also confirmed that "the more your confidence and skill erode, the more likely you'll be unable to handle the inevitable odd novel situation when you're confronted by it, say a stiffer crosswind than you expected or worse-than-forecast weather." In drawing its conclusions from this study, Aviation Magazine says "there's nothing wrong with being too careful. But there's a price to pay for it, too." The most conservative pilots remain on the ground when the winds kick up, the ceiling and visibility lowers, and when there is a chance of thunderstorms or icing anywhere in the forecast. Ain't nothing wrong with that! If they stick to these limits, they will live to fly another day. But they do pay a price for their conservative attitudes. That price ranges from being seriously delayed on a cross-country trip on one end of the scale to possibly costing them their lives on the other end! The Pros and Cons of Aeronautical Conservatism . . . Like every other pilot, the conservative pilot is not immune from unexpected weather changes and unforeseen events that can occur while aloft. Winds kick up, or visibility drops, or severe turbulence associated with an unexpected thunderstorm is encountered, or the temperature drops and the windshield turns opaque by ice. If you do not believe these unexpected events happen, then you might consider turning your aircraft keys over to a "designated pilot" who has a more realistic view of the world.
In his original pre-flight briefing he failed to understand the significance of a slow moving warm front coming up from the south (or maybe he didn't receive a briefing at all). It will be days, perhaps a week, before the weather comes up to his conservative standards. He becomes increasingly impatient. The days go by and now he is receiving threatening calls from his wife and his employer. The well-known syndrome called "get-home-itis" reaches enormous proportions. He begins to weaken. He starts comparing the risks of a marginal VFR flight with the pain of an angry wife or the possible loss of his job. He elects to go to the airport for a first-hand look at the current weather. Hmmmm, he sees a ray of sunshine through the misty rain that has been lingering for the past six days. Visibility is up to two miles and the ceiling is 1,400 feet. "Gee, I could depart if I stay down low," he says to himself. He elects to launch. So far, so good . . . he's made it about half way home. Suddenly it becomes bumpy. The ceiling begins to lower. He drops down to barely 500 feet above the ground. There's no airport within 50 miles. He's out of options. Our man puts down in a farmer's field. He takes out two power lines and flips over before coming to a stop. He pushes the door open, miraculously unhurt. He pulls out his cell phone and calls his wife, then his boss. Our conservative pilot paid a very dear price for limiting his flight activity to near-perfect weather conditions. It seems that he had never experienced marginal VFR conditions before. Nor had he realized that marginal VFR can go down to IFR in minutes. The good news is, he lived to fly another day. And, after six months of looking, he did find a new job, and a new wife, and a new airplane. And he replaced his ultra-conservative flight instructor with one who helped him to increase his operational envelope! Tragically, 500 people die each year in general aviation accidents. That's an average of 10 week! Most of these accidents are weather related, and nearly three-quarters of them are attributed to pilot error. As Aviation Safety Magazine observed in the above reference survey report, some pilots may consider hand-propping a Cessna 172 to be too risky to attempt. Others, who learned to fly in Piper Cubs, think otherwise because they have the training and experience to do it properly. It all comes down to that: training and experience! Word to VFR-Only Pilot . . . Operating under visual flight rules is a tremendously exhilarating experience. You have the freedom to swoop, soar, and cut lazy circles in the sky. On occasion, I will take my T-210 out over the rolling hills south of Buffalo and practice the full array of commercial maneuvers. I especially like doing high performance Lazy-8s. I keep the airplane rolling to the limits of its performance envelope. Great fun. And that is just what VFR flight is all about - having fun. But if your flying plans call for something other than just going out and having some fun, then consider the value of having current IFR skills. I am not suggesting that you change your flying profile from a sunny skies, VFR pilot who flies solely for enjoyment. What I am suggesting is that the skills afforded you in the IFR training process will make you a better, safer, and more flexible VFR pilot! Rather than being grounded by a thin cloud layer nesting itself 800 feet above the airport, you simply file a quick IFR plan. You can then pop up through that sucker and find clear, smooth air above. The alternative is to remain on the ground - or worse, scud-run your way to your destination! For the VFR aficionado, think of the IFR training process as a way to build the meteorological skills you need to assess cross-country weather; think of it as a way of making you a smoother, more proficient VFR pilot. Hey, think of it as a way to keep your insurance premiums in check! And having current IFR skills just might save your job and your marriage (how's that for a stretch!).
Click HERE to view a powerful three minute video clip honoring our men and women in uniform. Be prepared to shed a tear as it reminds us of the human sacrifices, yesterday and today that have been made to guarantee us the freedoms that we often take for granted. One of those freedoms is to take the controls of an airplane and to fly pretty much where we want and when we want. [Thanks to reader Bob Race for sharing this with us.] You will need to have RealPlayer installed on your computer to view this clip. Click HERE for information on RealPlayer.
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. An email buddy
who is a pilot referred me to your page. I read it and loved it.
Thanks. Hello, Robert -
very nice work. This has to be
the absolute best newsletter/website devoted to flying and flight
safety available. I don't know how you do it on a 2-week basis but
please, please keep it up as long as you can.
A
great site with some good practical information, of which you
can never get too much! I stumbled
upon this site whilst browsing the
Piperowner.org web site and even though I’m way down
here in Australia,
the
information is very relevant. Keep up the good work. After
retirement from the airlines suddenly realized how much I had
forgotten about about general aviation...boy am I stupid....with
over 20,000 hours of "bus driving" now I have to do it all by
myself, quit GA flying in 1966 things have really changed...Love
your site, found out about it on the International Comanche net. Great news
letter with lots of tips and help. Great pub, keep
up the good work. I have a pilot
friend who sent me a copy of your newsletter and I just loved it.
SO-I signed up to receive it. The info in this newsletter is by far
the best I have seen and intend to use the info for safer flying
habits. Incredible
job! I've passed your link on to a few other aviators that could
use a dose of your knowledge, too! Thanks for sharing your
experience and information -- that's the kind of unselfish
"all-for-one and one-for-all" attitude that keeps me in awe of
the aviation community! Someone from
the Cherokee Pilots Assoc. posted the web address to your site. WOW!
very impressive and loaded w/ real useable info. I will be passing
your site URL on to others... Love your
articles. I saw a note about
your newsletter on the Pacific Northwest Chat Room and certainly am
impressed with the content and format. It's great! Saw your great
e-newsletter on the internet just by chance. Great stuff!
You're focus on safe is exemplary. Click HERE to view the entire file of reader comments.
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.
|
The pilot was
apparently having difficulty getting established on the
localizer. He reported passing over the river located less
than 1/4 mile before the runway threshold. The controller
immediately replied saying, "I believe that the runway
is well to your left
sir. I think you need to start a climb go around."
Following the war, John returned to Buffalo
where he met and married Lorraine Narloch . . . his wife of 56 years!
He has spent the ensuing years working for Trico Products, Buffalo Tool and Die
Company, and the Ford Motor Company where he retired as a Supervisor in Ford's
Tool and Die Department. He and Lorraine have three children and four
grandchildren.
Once
this change was made, all departure procedures were termed DPs, with IFR
departure procedures renamed obstacle departure procedures (ODPs), and SIDs
renamed system enhancement DPs. Additionally, the creation and publication
of DPs was given to the National Flight Procedures Office. Due to
the confusion both internally among pilots in the U.S., and externally among
foreign pilots (the term SID is used abroad), the FAA has decided to return to a
modified version of the original naming convention.
First, a little science . . .
Do
I really need to understand those old black and white weather charts? 
The
conservative pilot is also subject to the frailties of human nature.
Let's assume that our conservative pilot is enroute home from a long
cross-country trip. The sky begins to look a bit ominous.
He makes a precautionary landing at a non-descript airport in an
unfamiliar rural town with only one overnight facility called The
Bates Motel. 
Sign
Up for "Over the Airwaves" . . . . .
