Sunday,
March 19, 2006
Vol. III No. 6 |
Sunday,
March 19, 2006
Vol. III No. 6 |
Welcome
to the
Over the
Airwaves
aviation journal. This complimentary bi-weekly e-mailing
is being sent to pilots and aviation enthusiasts around the
world. 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:
Nobody talks about it in public. Some bravely whisper about it in the midst of trusted friends. General aviation organizations often deny its very existence. Here is this dirty little secret . . . . Despite a very slight reduction in the fatal accident rate this past year, general aviation can be a dangerous endeavor for the less than proficient pilot. Given the fact that, in 2004, 78.6 percent (up 2.6% over the previous year) of these fatal accidents were attributed to pilot error, one might reasonably conclude that poor flight instruction and anemic pilot qualification and proficiency requirements, as prescribed in FAR Parts 61 and 141, remain a large part of the problem.
The fact that at least one fatal GA accident occurs, on average, every day of the week throughout the year is something no respectable GA proponent likes to talk about. Sadly, we experience one fatal stall/spin accident every week. The fact that the typical GA pilot subjects himself and his passengers to a fatal accident risk that is 100 times greater than a ride in an airliner is never even whispered.
Contrary to popular belief, not even the weather is dangerous. Weather factors, like railroad trains, do not jump out and slam unsuspecting little airplanes into the ground. Similarly, other than a suddenly active volcano, no known terrain or obstacles have the ability to leap up into the paths of airplanes in flight. It is not the airplanes, nor the weather, nor the towers or mountains that make general aviation dangerous. Instead, it is us . . . the pilots, often poorly taught, terribly in need of recurrent training, and lacking the aeronautical decision making and risk management skills to avoid doing something stupid in an airplane. Imagine, nearly 4 out of every 5 fatal GA accidents, according to the 2005 Nall Report published by AOPA's Air Safety Foundation, are officially attributable to pilot error. This is the dirty little secret nobody likes to talk about. So what are we doing about this dirty little secret? Few of us pilots are doing much about it. We continue flying year after year remaining compliant with the basic recurrent training requirements set forth in FAR Part 61, e.g., biennial flight reviews, three takeoff/landings every 90 days, and 6 instrument approaches with course intercepts and holding every 6 months. No more, no less. Others of us, however, recognize the inherent risks of general aviation and the fragile nature of our flight proficiency. We in this group train like our airline and corporate pilot brethren. We subject ourselves to rigorous flight training workouts every 6 to 12 months with a qualified, experienced flight instructor who safely expands the size of our operational envelopes. We enroll in emergency upset training, aerobatic skills development, and advanced instrument instruction. And we get out and fly frequently, all year round. When we do this, we rise above this dirty little secret. General aviation support organizations are likewise divided in their approach to this dirty little secret. Unfortunately, some of these organizations are content to put a positive spin on the relative safety of GA flight. They lobby for less burdensome pilot qualification and recurrent training requirements. Others, like the folks at IFR and Professional Pilot magazines, entertain meaningful discussion on the shortcomings and safety needs of general aviation. Then we have the GA insurance industry. Their influence comes in the form of escalating insurance premiums and stringent training and experience requirements to fly anything other than a basic trainer. This group is quickly pricing complex, high performance, and multi-engine airplanes right out of the market for many GA pilots. Rising insurance premiums are making flight instruction substantially more costly. Sadly, they have also forced some flight schools right out business.
These non-flying people also send and recall their congressmen and senators to Congress where GA's ultimate future is legislated. This is, perhaps, our greatest threat. Yes, we do have a dirty little secret. And it is time that we pilots recognize and do something about it. This change is not going to come from GA organizations. We can send them our money, receive their monthly magazines, and some, like AOPA and EAA, will work hard to protect our flying rights and publicly defend us against our own ineptness and transgressions. Nor is the change likely to come from the FAA. Their minds and hearts are in the right place but meaningful change within large government bureaucracies comes painfully slow. Instead, as far as our dirty little secret
is concerned, we must change ourselves. We have
to do something about our own initial and recurrent flight
training needs. Like war, it is far too important to
leave it to the generals! Or as Pogo said, "We
have the met the enemy and he is us."
According to the NTSB report, the student pilot said that his approach to runway 33 was normal until the airplane "...ballooned up...became unstable and the wing tilted left and right." He further stated that the airplane did not maintain level flight and turned to the left. He attempted to correct the problem with right rudder input. He further stated that the rudder input, "...was not in time and the plane dropped to the ground turning to the left sliding into the fence." Was the student's control input correct? This accident scenario illustrates what is, arguably, the most challenging part of any flight for both students and veteran pilots. It occurs during the final seconds prior to touchdown. The trick, of course, is to allow the tires to kiss the concrete at precisely the right airspeed. Touch down too fast, the airplane balloons back up; hover too slowly above the runway, the nose drops, and the nose wheel and/or propeller can smack the runway. Landing too fast or two slow or drifting across the runway requires instant corrective action! The aircraft on the far right in the graphic below illustrates precisely where this problem occurs.
In this accident case, the student pilot likely found himself in a nose high, pitch up attitude as he hit the runway a bit too fast. Now "hanging" maybe 30 or 40 feet above the runway and in the midst of an incipient stall and drifting sideways, one wing dropped. The pilot had less than a second or two to make the proper corrective control inputs. Unfortunately, his control input was both wrong and late. What would you do? What would you do? Sure, firewall the throttle, pitch forward to achieve a positive rate of climb and go around! I call it "applying the erasure." Just like paperwork, we use erasures to correct our misdeeds! The erasure for nearly all landing misdeeds is the throttle! Remember, airplanes are designed to fly as well as taxi, but they do not handle the transition between flight and taxi very well on their own. They require skillful intervention by a proficient pilot process to make this transition smoothly. Unless the pilot is too far down the runway and facing obstacles, a timely go-around is the best solution for a botched or unstabilized landing.
Our accident pilot, for some reason, apparently tried to resolve his sudden landing problem with rudder only. Fortunately, aside from a bruised ego and a damaged airplane, he walked away to fly another day! Bad landings are good . . . from the instructor's perspective! Personally, I welcome opportunities for pilot's I am flying with to make bad landings. This gives me opportunity to observe their corrective control inputs. In fact, my students know that I will often deliberately "upset" what appears to be a good landing just to be sure he or she knows how to fix the problem. Is more of this kind of training needed? In 2004, nearly 40 percent of all pilot-error related GA accidents occurred during the landing phase of flight! Fortunately, landing accidents are seldom fatal. Maybe we are spending too much time teaching students how to make good landings and not enough time teaching them how to properly correct the bad ones . . .
What this means is that pilots need to be paying more attention to flying the airplane than to other cockpit tasks during these critical phases of flight. We should have learned this from the airlines! Following a 1974 air carrier accident, the NTSB wrote, “…the extraneous conversation conducted by the flight crew during the descent was symptomatic of a lax atmosphere in the cockpit that continued throughout the approach.” The NTSB listed the probable cause as “…the flight crew’s lack of altitude awareness at critical points during the approach due to poor cockpit discipline in that the crew did not follow prescribed procedures.” In 1981, the FAA issued Parts 121.542 and 135.100, Flight Crewmember Duties, commonly referred to as “sterile cockpit rules.” Here is a summary of those rules:
The sterile cockpit rule can be equally
effective in the general aviation cockpit. Once
If your audio panel has the capability of isolating the pilot from other persons in the cockpit, use it during these critical phases of flight. This allows them to converse among themselves without interfering with your critical flight duties.
Have you ever wondered how pilots of B-747s can return home from a 14 hour trans-pacific flight, grab a couple hours of sleep, then go out to the local drome, buckle up in their two seat RV-4 and fly lazy circles in the sky? It seems that transition would be a major challenge! My good friend and pilot colleague, Dan Maloney, a Northwest Airlines B-747 captain and RV-4 builder/owner, does this every chance he gets. He says the transition is "a piece of cake" as long as you think about the energy differences inherent in each of these airplanes at each stage of flight.
Arguably the best pilot in the history of aviation, Bob Hoover, ably demonstrates importance of managing aircraft energy in a short but compelling video. Click HERE. Play it several times. It could change the way you fly! Thanks to OTA reader and pilot friend Lee Rousselle from Buffalo, NY for passing this along.You don't have to be a Bob Hoover to master airplane energy management! In addition to practicing landings and takeoffs or taking an occasional flight to your favorite breakfast haunt, try something far more challenging. Practice 360 degree power-off landings as depicted in the graphic below.
This is how the FAA's Airplane Handbook, FAA-H-8083 suggests this maneuver be performed: The 360° approach typically begins at 2,000' AGL over the approach end of the landing runway or slightly to the side of it. Remember, the wind may vary significantly from that at lower altitudes. This must be taken into account when maneuvering the airplane to a point from which a 90° or 180° power-off approach can be completed. With the throttle closed over the intended point of landing, the proper glide speed should immediately be established. A medium-banked turn is initiated in the desired direction so as to arrive at the downwind key position opposite the intended landing spot. At or just beyond the downwind key position, the landing gear may be extended if the airplane is equipped with retractable gear. The altitude at the downwind key position should be approximately 1,000 to 1,200 feet above the ground. After reaching that point, the turn should be continued to arrive at a base-leg key position at about 800' AGL. Flaps may be used at this position, as necessary, but full flaps should not be used until established on the final approach. The angle of bank can be varied as needed throughout the pattern to correct for wind conditions and to align the airplane with the final approach. The turn-to-final should be completed at a minimum altitude of 300 feet above the terrain.
This maneuver is not included in any of the Practical Test Standards (PTS) and thus may not be included in many Part 141 flight training programs. Nonetheless, it is an essential safety skill. Its usefulness comes to play in any in-flight engine failure scenario where a power-off landing will be required. Talk with your flight school or CFI about this maneuver. It may serve you well someday!
The last issue of "Over the Airwaves" summarized the events leading to the fatal crash of a King Air 200 while on an instrument approach to the Martinsville/Blue Ridge Airport. Recall, the two professional mistook the various fixes on the instrument approach plate resulting in incorrect altitudes. This accident tragically reminds us to NEVER descend below your current altitude in instrument conditions without: (1) being absolutely certain of your position, and (2) knowing precisely the altitude to descend to per the chart or ATC assignment. If there is ANY question, DO NOT descend!
The illustration above depicts the basic components of most instrument approach procedures. Typical approach procedures contain one or more feeder routes, an initial approach fix (IAF), and a final approach fix (FAF). Each is linked by a published segment (black line on the approach plate), e.g., initial approach segment, intermediate approach segment, a final approach segment, and a missed approach segment. The beauty of instrument approach procedures is that they safely guide us down from the comforts of the enroute phase of flight, through visibly obscured, often hazardous terrain and obstacles, to the waiting runway below. Published instrument approach procedures work - if we abide by their every requirement, including the proper altitude along each segment of the procedure.
Together, you and I have an opportunity to prevent maybe just one serious aviation accident or just one life. That, alone, is sufficient justification to forward "Over the Airwaves" to any pilot you know. Simply forward the email message I send you every two weeks containing the active web link to the current OTA issue. Or you can cut and past the following URL into your own email message to your pilot friends: http://www.rjma.com/flight/airwaves/vol3-06b.htm Bookmark "Over the Airwaves" directory page as a favorite in your internet browser. This way you will always have immediate access to the latest and previous OTA issues. Invite your pilot friends and fellow flying club members to sign up for a free subscription and be sure to mention "Over the Airwaves" in your favorite online forums.
Please note: Subscriber email addresses will NEVER be sold, distributed, or loaned to any other organization or person.
The weather is IMC. You are enroute to MSP, PHL, STL, SFO, ATL, JFK, or CLE and the ATIS informs you that simultaneous close parallel ILS PRM (precision radar monitoring) approaches are in use. You are ready and qualified to fly these approaches? Wait a minute! How many of us really ever expect to operate in these mega Class B airports, particularly in IFR conditions? Answer: Hey, you never know. As our sailing brethren say, "Any port in a storm . . ." You just might find one of these big airports to be your port in a storm! So let's be sure we know how to fly ILS PRM approaches.
The first thing to remember is that just not any IFR rated and current pilot can fly these approaches. Special training and qualification are required. The good news is you can meet this training and qualification requirement right here in "Over the Airwaves." Simply follow the guidelines and web links below: Here are the training requirements:
If you are qualified but you'd like to check your memory of what to do, take this questionnaire.
The table below shows the results of this search. The full NTSB report for each listed accident is accessible through the links in the Synopsis column of this table. Admittedly, this is merely a
snapshot of fatal accident data. Nonetheless, it does
illustrate that many fatal accidents are attributable to factors
not specifically addressed in the Private Pilot Practical Test
Standards (PTS). In this data snapshot, for example, the
majority (60%) of fatal accidents were caused by flying too low,
e.g. collision with power lines, trees, and terrain. The
remainder, except for one stall/spin fatality, was attributable
to fuel management problems. Ten Most
Recent Fatal GA Accidents with
Curiously, the hazards of low level flight and fuel management issues are not specifically mentioned in FAR 61.105 (aeronautical knowledge) and FAR 61.107 (flight proficiency) required for certification of private pilots. The Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS), which is derived from these two portions of FAR 61, also fail to specifically address the risks of low level flight and the matter of improper fuel management. Yep . . . FAR 61.105 (12) includes "aeronautical decision making and judgment" among the required knowledge requirements. How low level flight and fuel management is handled in the context of aeronautical decision making and judgment is left entirely to the flight instructor. Whether or not the designated pilot examiner (DPE) includes the hazards of low level flight and fuel management issues is purely optional. Teaching to the Practical Test Standards
In this context, it should be remembered that the practical test standards book is a testing document rather than a teaching document. In truth, the PTS is nothing more than the minimum standard of performance that the framers of FAR Parts 61 and 141 had in mind when it came time to determining pilot qualifications. Like a passing grade, e.g., 70%, on the private pilot knowledge test, satisfactory demonstration of each PTS element represents the bare minimum level of required flight proficiency. No more, no less. Now, overlay the PTS on a Part 141 flight school which, in some instances, must achieve an 80% student pass rate within a specified period of time and predetermined total instructional hours, and you have a sure-fire formula for achieving the minimum standard of flight proficiency, no more, no less! Many Part 141 flight schools and independent flight instructors are able to rise above this minimum standard of flight proficiency, but it requires strong and experienced leadership and a staff of exceptional flight instructors to achieve. Many exist throughout the United States but you have to shop carefully. One such school in my area here in Western New York is operated by Dunkirk Aviation Sales and Services, Inc. in Dunkirk, NY.
I and airplane buddies Keith Harlock and Kelly Brannen will be winging down to Sun 'n Fun in my T-210. We'll be arriving Friday, April 7 and will remain through Monday, April 10. Look for us in the aircraft camping area! As always, I'll be sending back daily on-site email reports to each of our "Over the Airwaves" subscribers.
With limited time and money, where should a general aviation pilot focus his or her recurrent training? The AOPA Air Safety Foundation's Nall Report (Accident Trends and Factors for 2004) can help us to answer that question. The table below comes from this report. It is titled Lethality Index. It illustrates the kinds of accidents that are most likely to be fatal. Clearly, weather related accidents are most often fatal (93.5%). Therefore, if we GA pilots wanted to attack our greatest risk of the worst possible flight outcome, we concentrate our recurrent training efforts on weather flying.
Does this mean avoiding flight whenever weather risks are present? Like most answers in aviation, it depends! Ultralight and powered parachute pilots look for near perfect weather conditions before launching. Light sport pilots and other purely recreational pilots broaden their weather envelopes to include 8 to 10 knot crosswinds and overcast skies with bases above, say, 2,000' AGL. What about the rest of us? Can we avoid flight whenever weather risks are present? Unfortunately, in most cases, no! Cross-country flight often involves unpredictable weather variables having the potential of ruining our day. Even local areas have unique and often unpredictable weather conditions. Florida, Kansas, and Nebraska in the summer; Buffalo and Cleveland in the winter; San Francisco and the LA basin, year around. If you operate in these areas, unpredictable weather is often unavoidable. So how do you train for weather without undo risk? A good place to start is right on the ground . . . by
becoming a amateur meteorologist. Read
Next, there is no escaping the fact that to become proficient in weather flying, you must train in weather. This, by the way, is one requirement that often distinguishes one flight school and/or instructor from another. Some will train in challenging weather while others will not. Weather factors that can hurt us: Declining Visibility: This is often the most insidious of all hazardous weather
conditions. As poet Carl Sandburg said, ". . . it comes
on catlike feet." Here, the hapless pilot launches on
a cross- Training Solution: Find an experienced CFII and train in actual IFR conditions . . . often! You do not have to be an instrument student or even instrument rated to develop instrument skills. Note, I said actual IFR! Hoods or other view limiting devices were invented for Florida and Arizona pilots who rarely have IFR conditions. Hoods are better than nothing, but not much better! Training under a hood in the northern climates is like bringing a sandwich to a banquet! For instrument pilots, train to the published minimums for your airports. Some Part 141 flight schools are restricted by the operating policies and procedures from launching when the weather is at instrument landing minimums for their airport. This is another example of what distinguishes one flight school and/or instructor from another. It only makes sense to train to the same standard that you will be expected to operate in after receiving your rating. Icing Conditions: This is one of the least understood weather phenomenon of all
flight risks among GA pilots and flight instructors. This
is because icing conditions basically occur where
Many hapless instrument rated pilots launch in wintertime with the objective of remaining clear of freezing clouds. Operating in non-known ice certified airplanes, these pilots remain confident that the risk of icing is non-existent when flying between cloud layers. Suddenly, the layers collapse. Rime ice begins to form on the leading edges of his wings. What does he do next? Others operating in IFR conditions take comfort that their outside temperate gauges display above freezing temperatures. Their flight then takes them out of the unsuspected temperature inversion, through a cold front, and they find themselves losing airspeed and altitude due to a sudden encounter with severe icing. Do they fly up or down to escape it? The wrong answer will likely be the last question they ever answer! Training Solution: Admittedly, this is a tough question. For good reason, the FARs have boxed us in with strict prohibitions against flying into known icing conditions in non-known ice certified airplanes. Unfortunately, these same FARs do not define precisely what they mean by known ice as evidenced by decades of debate at all levels of the FAA enforcement system. So where does this leave us from a training perspective? The best solution would be to secure the services of an experienced CFII and train in an aircraft certified for flight into known ice. Short of that, instrument pilots should do lots wintertime flight training in IFR conditions where known icing does not exist. And, in the event that the you do encounter icing conditions, be sure to have immediate "back doors." As a minimum, pilots should become knowledgeable of the factors that contribute to airframe icing. Click on http://aircrafticing.grc.nasa.gov/courses/inflight_icing/main.html for an example of an effective online ice training resource. Thunderstorms: If pilots did not fly anytime the word "thunderstorm"
appeared in a weather forecast, many of us would remain grounded
during the summer months. This is because the
So what do we do? Ignore thunderstorm forecasts??? Answer: We NEVER ignore reports of thunderstorms, but the weather savvy pilot may be able to negotiate himself around them. Remember the difference between air mass thunderstorms and frontal line thunderstorms? Big difference! There is also a very big difference between towering cumulous thunderstorms and embedded thunderstorms. The former can be seen and avoided; the latter can wreck your day. Training Solution: Owning an airplane with both stormscope (WX-500) and onboard live radar affords many of my students and pilot friends opportunity to experience the benefits of onboard weather avoidance technology. This technology enables us to gain first-hand experience navigating through an area of air mass or circumventing a line of thunderstorms. This happens on nearly every flight from Buffalo to both Sun 'n Fun in Florida and AirVenture in Oshkosh.
We GA pilots have three basic choice regarding weather flying: (1) We can remain on the ground anytime threatening weather exists or is the forecast; (2) We can launch naively into troubled weather and hope for the best; or (3) We can become weather savvy pilots through dedicated study and responsible recurrent flight training in various weather conditions.
For example, FAR 91.407 (requiring maintenance logbook entries whenever adding water to the battery or replacing GPS data cards) is a purely administrative regulation. FAR 91.175, on the other hand, holds the key to survival on an instrument approach to published minimum weather conditions. We are required to comply with ALL FARs, but if we have either limited time or intellect to memorize federal aviation regulations, we best know which FARs will save our life! A regulation-savvy pilot knows which FARs to pay very close attention to! Taking a closer look at FAR 91.175 (Takeoff and landing under IFR), we see an excellent example of a regulation that requires absolute compliance. There is no wiggle room in this one! FAR 91.175 sets forth a series of specific conditions that MUST exist before a pilot can descend below the decision height (DH) or minimum descent altitude (MDA) on an instrument approach. If these conditions are not present at DH or MDA missed approach point, the pilot has no choice but to execute an immediate missed approach. Here are those conditions:
Sadly, the fatal accident database is littered with accounts of pilots who tried to find wiggle room in FAR 91.175! There simply is NO wiggle room in FAR 91.175.
There is no question that pilot participation in FAA sponsored safety seminars is an excellent way to keep abreast of current training and regulatory issues. Pictured is Rochester, NY FSDO Safety Program Manager, Guido Hassig, left, with Gene Benson, featured speaker at a March 15 safety seminar held at the Genesee County (NY) Airport. The topic was TFRs and ADIZs. Gene Benson is an FAA safety counselor with 14,000 flight hours with over 8,000 hours of flight instruction given. He has also served as a flight crew training instructor on B737-300/400s for USAir. Gene speaks frequently throughout the US on various general aviation topics. You can learn more about Gene by clicking HERE. Boshart Enterprises Receives FAA Aviation Technicians Training Program Diamond Certificate of Excellence Award!
The Diamond Award is given to aircraft maintenance organizations where 50 percent or more of their full-time aviation maintenance technicians each received 100 or more hours of recurrent training. You can learn more about Boshart Enterprises by clicking HERE.
A quick review of each approach procedure . . . The contact and visual approach procedures have unique compliance rules and each offers benefits and risks. As always, the responsibility for satisfactory completion of each procedure rests exclusively with the pilot in command (PIC). The Contact Approach: This frequently under-utilized procedure is a real gem in the proficient instrument pilot's toolbox. In effect, it converts the airspace between aircraft and airport into something equivalent to Class G. As such, all you need is 1 statute mile visibility and remain clear of clouds. If you meet those minimum weather conditions and you can find the airport on your own, go for it. Obviously, the airport must have a published instrument approach procedure before you can request a contact approach (otherwise you would not be going there in the first place!) Here's a couple of things to remember. Only the pilot can request a contact approach. ATC cannot offer it to you, though there are ways that ATC can "hint" that you request it. For example, "Nxxxx, expect delays for the ILS 23. Contact us if would like to expedite your arrival." Contact Approach Benefits: The obvious benefit of this approach is that you can expedite your arrival to the airport. Since you retain your instrument clearance throughout the procedure, ATC continues to provide separation services between you and other IFR and special VFR (SVFR) traffic. If you get lost on the way to the airport, pop back into the clouds, or if you must execute a missed approach, you are still "in the system" and ATC can issue you vectors back a safe haven. Contact Approach Risks: The greatest risk to this approach is that you are on your own with regard to obstacle and terrain clearance. Don't forget that minimum safe altitudes per FAR 91.119 still apply. You are also on your own with regard to other VFR traffic. For more information on the contact approach, refer to the AIM, Section 5.4.23. The Visual Approach:
Time saved is the primary benefit. Once cleared for the visual approach, the pilot is authorized to proceed directly to the landing runway remembering, of course, that he still requires a landing clearance before landing a at tower controlled airport. Note that since this is an instrument procedure, cloud clearances required by FAR 91.155 are not applicable to visual approaches. Visual Approach Risks: While the visual approach is an instrument procedure, it is NOT an instrument approach procedure. It has NO missed approach segment and the pilot is responsible for his own separation from other aircraft. One significant risk inherent in the visual approach is landing at the wrong airport. It can and has happened!!!! Philadelphia, for example, is ringed be a dozen satellite airports nestled in densely populated suburbia. A pilot might report visual contact with what he mistakenly believes to be his destination airport. ATC then clears him for a visual approach to the correct airport. See the problem??? Another risk occurs when visual contact with the airport becomes suddenly obscured by clouds or other weather phenomenon AFTER the visual approach clearance has been received. Or, suppose the landing has to be aborted due to a runway obstruction. In all likelihood, ATC has turned its attention to other aircraft after issuing the visual approach clearance. Since there is no published missed approach procedure associated with a visual approach, where does the hapless pilot go in the unlikely event of 2-way radio failure? Technically, he still has an IFR clearance but no clearance limit. Chew on that for a while!! For more information on the visual approach, refer to AIM 5.4.21. Both the contact and the visual approach procedures offer distinct advantages and some risks. Like everything else in aviation, be certain you can distinguish between the two.
Click HERE for Boeing's convincing response to the September 11 terrorists! Thanks to OTA reader Jack King for sharing this with us.
While reliably designed and constructed, meticulously maintained and inspected, modern general aviation engines can fail . . . and at the worst possible time! This worst time is immediately after takeoff. When this happens, the pilot is faced with two basic choices. He can either land straight ahead, or he can execute an immediate turn back to the departure airport. Which is better? The answer, of course, depends. Turn back or straight ahead? Let's say that you have taken off and climbed to 300 feet AGL when the engine fails. After a typical 4 second reaction time, you elect to turn back to the runway. Using a standard rate (3° change in direction per second) turn, it will take 1 minute to turn 180°. At a glide speed of 65 knots, the radius of the turn is 2,100 feet, so at the completion of the turn, the airplane will be 4,200 feet to one side of the runway. You must turn another 45° to head the airplane toward the
runway. By this time, the total
Now let's say you climbed to pattern altitude when your engine quit. To get back to the takeoff field, a downwind turn must be made. After turning downwind, the apparent increase in groundspeed could mislead the pilot into pitching up to slow the airplane. A fatal stall could result. Also, consider the fact that the airplane will be losing considerable altitude during the turn. If still in the turn when the ground is contacted, a lethal cartwheeling is likely to result. Who owns the airplane anyway? When asked why they attempted a return to the airport after
the engine quit, most pilots say they were trying to save the
airplane. After all, a runway is always more
inviting
In truth, a controlled emergency landing straight ahead, even in heavily congested areas, offers more favorable outcomes than an attempt to return to the field as illustrated in above. A four lane highway, a golf course, a vacant school playground, a shopping center parking lot, even a forest could be a far better choice than a possible stall/spin occurring in a tight, low altitude power-off turn back to the runway. When facing the unpleasant choice of protecting the airplane versus the prevention of serious injury or death of pilot and passengers, the answer should be obvious. Keep in mind that once the engine quits in flight, title to your aircraft instantly switches to your insurance company. It just became their airplane, not yours! A word about stretching the landing Many pilots of disabled aircraft have passed up perfectly good emergency landing sites to reach an airport, any airport. They motored on despite rapidly declining oil pressure, rough running engine, or whatever just to "save" the airplane. The safest course of action at the first sign of engine or airframe malfunction is to get the airplane on the ground as soon as practicable.
General aviation will soon be making one of its biggest leaps since Clyde Cessna marketed his first all metal airplane. Single and twin engine jet aircraft will soon be in the hands of low time private pilots, many with more dollars than piloting skills. Will these pilots be ready for these wonderful new airplanes? That question has yet to be answered. Unfortunately, FAR Parts 61 and 141 pertaining to
private pilot training requirements remains largely
unchanged since since Clyde Cessna's proud day in 1947!
And the prospects for significant updating of these
regulations are not likely in our lifetime. Hence, per
the FARs, we could be
Remember how Bonanzas and Mooneys were regarded as "doctor killers." Wait till these birds appear in the showroom! Fortunately, both the aviation insurance industry and the aircraft factories, which appear to have a far better than most handle on the relationship between hours of flight experience and accidents, will dictate substantially more hours to qualify as PIC on a VLJ. Will a type rating required? Yes, but remember, type ratings focus primarily on aircraft systems, not basic aviating and aeronautical judgment skills. How about a multi-engine rating? No! The new personal jets such as the Diamond Jet have only one engine.
Unlike traditional flight training guidelines, these new safety management system (SMS) guidelines are intended to create a proactive safety culture. Central to this effort is the establishment of processes and procedures to identify hazards and risks in advance of every stage of flight. The most unique component of the SMS is flight data monitoring or flight operational quality assurance (FOQA). This is a powerful risk management tool that allows VLJ pilots to measure their own adherence to SOPs and aircraft limitations and to uncover threats and errors that would otherwise go unnoticed. This, coupled with the FAA's FITS training, is the way we should be conducting primary flight training in the first place! After all, flight safety transcends aircraft class, category, and type. Why not get it codified in Parts 61 and 141? Agreed, steep turns, short and soft field technique, and turns around a point are basic fundamentals that must be learned by every emerging pilot. In fact, mastery of every maneuver in the current Practical Test Standards (PTS) should be achieved before any pilot rating is conferred. What is missing from traditional training, however, is the inclusion of reality-based training requirement and the development of effective aeronautical decision making (ADM) skills and a proactive safety attitude. I am already a pilot. What should I be doing?
The first mindset change is NOT to rely upon the recurrent training requirements prescribed by the FARs. Please read carefully. I did not say, "Disregard the FARs!" Rather, regard FAR Parts 61 and 141 and the associated Practical Test Standards (PTSs) as minimum standards, sort of like saying that you must achieve a "D" to pass the course and graduate! The second mindset is to explore all available advanced flight training opportunities. Design a personal flight training program tailored to your specific needs and primary flight mission requirements. As a basic minimum, complete a professionally administered emergency maneuvers recovery course; secure your instrument rating with an experienced instructor who trains "in the system," in the weather, and who incorporates real life emergency scenarios in actual IFR conditions. The third mindset is pursue ANNUAL recurrent training. The traditional biennial flight review (BFR) is laughable in terms of maintaining proficiency. I conduct at 10 to 12 BFRs every year and seldom do I observe minimally safe pilot proficiency in a one, two, or three hour workout! Lastly, fly frequently. Remember, however, that practice does NOT make perfect; instead, perfect practice make perfect!
Click HERE to view what other readers have had to say about "Over the Airwaves."
|
Tragically,
many in the general aviation establishment, while actively
encouraging safe flight, are doing their dead level best to
protect this secret. For if this secret ever gets out,
our pilot ranks might shrink, our political influence will
be weakened, and the gross domestic product of general
aviation goods and services will tumble.
Curiously,
it is not that little airplanes, themselves, are inherently
dangerous. GA airplanes are NOT dangerous.
Aircraft design and FAA certification and oversight have
produced a fleet of remarkably safe and reliable airplanes
capable of enduring the punishment of even the most
ham-fisted pilot.
Lastly,
we have the unwashed masses of people we call the general
non-flying public. These people are pandered to by a
cynical electronic and print media who capture larger market
shares each time they dramatize another private pilot
screw-up, from ADIZ incursions to flaming crashes.
Every such event, of which there are several thousand each
each year, serves to drive another nail in the GA coffin.
Everything
was going fine for this student pilot on the third leg of his
long cross-country solo flight. The automated Weather
Observing System (AWOS) reported winds at his destination to be from 030 degrees at 9 knots.
Regretfully, his landing was less than he and his instructor had
hoped for.
The
erasure (throttle) enables the pilot to instantly add or reduce
tiny bits of thrust and lift necessary to cause the airplane to gently
settle to the runway surface. This is why we keep our hand
on the throttle throughout the entire landing process.
In
what phase of flight do most FATAL accidents occur? According to
the recently released 2005 Nall Report, compiled by AOPA's Air
Safety Foundation, 15.8% of all pilot-related fatal accidents in 2004 occurred
during takeoff and climb; 15.3% during descent and approach; and
4.0% during landing. Another 22.8% occurred during some
form of maneuvering. Only 4.0% occurred during the cruise
phase of flight.
your
passenger(s) are strapped in prior to takeoff, instruct them to
remain quiet until reaching your cruise
altitude. Similarly, provide similar "hush" instructions
when you begin your descent for landing until safely in your
tie-down area.
While
the physics of mass and velocity may be more than most pilots
want to know, having a basic understanding of this at the
private pilot level can go a long way in making us all better
pilots. 
I recently ran a search of the
NTSB accident database to find the 10 most recent fatal general
aviation accidents involving non-experimental airplanes for
which a probable cause finding had been issued. 
The
Practical Test Standards (PTS), unfortunately, have become the
presumed "gold standard" of pilot proficiency. Every
flight school and independent flight instructor has well-worn
copies of the PTS tucked neatly in their flight bags.
Every designated pilot examiner (DPE) follows a practical test
outline mirroring the PTS. So that is where most
flight students set in their sights - the PTS. 
country
flight in CAVU (clear and visibility unlimited). Enroute,
he encounters haze and slowly experiences a loss of ground contact.
Believing the weather will improve, he motors on.
Suddenly, he finds himself enshrouded in scud. He panics.
Local newspapers later report the story.
you
find them. Despite recent advances in meteorological
reporting, it is impossible to predict with virtual certainty
when and where airframe icing can occur. 
National
Weather Services (NWS) often reports the possibility of thunderstorms
anytime the dew point is above 70d F. and there is some kind of
upper air disturbance. That pretty much covers the
continental United States from July 1 through August 31.
What
is your weather training plan?
If
only we had a better handle on which FARs pertain to
aeronautical housekeeping matters versus those which impact our
basic survival as pilots. 
(2)
The flight visibility is not less than the
visibility prescribed in the standard instrument
approach procedure being used; and
Regional
safety seminars also provide an ideal forum to publicly
recognize outstanding achievement in the aviation community.
Picture right is Jeff Boshart, owner of Boshart Enterprises and Aircraft
Services, FAA certified aircraft repair station at the Genesee
County (NY) Airport, is congratulated by Guido Hassig for
earning the FAA Aviation Technicians Training Program
Certificate of Excellence Diamond Award.
The
larger the aircraft the more expensive each minute it spends in
the sky. That's why instrument pilots often take advantage
of contact and visual approaches. Each of these approach
procedures can reduce time the air by foregoing sometimes long
journeys to the instrument approach procedure (IAP) approach
gate located a couple miles beyond the final approach fix (FAF).
The
visual approach
is unquestionably the most common instrument procedure in the
book. In essence, both the pilot and ATC agrees that the
airport is in good VFR conditions (1,000' ceiling and 3 miles
visibility). Unlike the contact approach, ATC often
initiates the visual approach procedure, though it can also be
requested by the pilot. Either way, the pilot must agree
that he or she either has visual contact with the airport or is able to
follow another aircraft to the airport.
Murphy's
law says that if anything can go wrong, it will. A
corollary to this rules says that if it can go wrong, it will go
wrong at the worst possible time! Such is certainly the
case with general aviation aircraft. 
than
the off-field terrain just ahead . . . especially when it
involves trees, water, or obstacles.
seeing
pilots with just 35 to 40 hours of primary flight training,
some with little more than three hours of simulated
instrument experience and, say, a couple hundred hours of
actual flight experience stepping up to these sleek aircraft
and sharing the upper flight levels with other very serious
people-hauling airplanes. 
All
of us who came through the traditional training environment
can pursue our own pre-VLJ form of training, but it requires
a series of mindset changes.
Sign
Up for "Over the Airwaves"