Today is Sunday.  You are planning a flight to Lakeland, FL later later this week.  You're wondering what the weather will be like at both your departure point and at your destination.  The answer is just a couple of keyboard clicks away. 

Simply click HERE and save the resultant page in your web browser favorites.  As you explore this page, you can quickly put all of the weather forces into motion by clicking on "LOOP."  You can also click on any location on the map and bring up that location's predicted weather for the next 7 days!

This single website provides a wealth of instant weather information that should be accessed several days BEFORE any planned flight. 

Note - Blackberry graphics capable cell phone users:  This is a great website to access by phone while on the road!

Take a 60 year old aircraft that survived countless hours of flight and pair it up with an ATP, multi-engine rated pilot and you have a formula for the classic psychological factor known as "invincibility."  Pilots exhibiting this factor believe themselves to be immune from the things that wreck airplanes and kill pilots and passengers!

In this instance, it was an IFR day this past October.  The ceiling was down to 500' with 3 miles visibility at the Sevierville, TN airport.  The airplane was a restored WWII vintage Grumman F6F Hellcat.

The mission on that fateful day was to fly the airplane to Little Rock, Arkansas.  For unknown reasons, the pilot elected to make this trip under visual flight rules.  His apparent plan was to scud run along Interstate 40.

Off we go . . .

A motorists traveling on I-40 stated that he observed the airplane directly over the westbound lanes at an altitude of approximately 100 feet above the ground.  Another motorist reported that the airplane flew directly over him just east of the 290 mile marker in Cookeville, Tennessee. He also noted that the Cumberland Plateau was marked by extremely rough mountainous terrain, with visually obscured 500-700 foot peaks on either side of the highway.

According to this witness, as the road curved slightly to the left, multiple high tension wires came into view running across the westbound lanes. He observed the airplane attempt to pass under the wires and strike the lowest wire and the severed line fell across the roadway.  Other witnesses stated similar observations noting that the airplane crashed and burned in a wooded area.

NTSB findings

Examination of the wreckage on scene found the airplane consumed by fire with the engine separated from the airplane and resting against a tree. Examination of the engine found high tension cable wrapped around the crankshaft between the prop and engine case. 

Assuming the accuracy of the NTSB report and the multiple witness statements, the only local conclusion we come away with is that the pilot likely violated the most important but undocumented regulation we all fly by.  That regulation says, "Pilots shall avoid doing anything stupid!"

Here is a guy, however, who was abiding by the rules when he departed.  Operating in Class G airspace, his required weather minimums were to have one mile visibility and remain clear of clouds.  So far, so good.  It is at this point where many experienced pilots go wrong.

One of the most common statements by pilots heard around FBO flight briefing areas is, "I'll take off and sort it all out in the air."  Feeling comfortable in the air, these pilots believe they have all of the skills and resources necessary to sort out almost any in-flight issue.  In most cases, they do.

This pilot lacked only one resource when he launched into a 500' ceiling.  He lacked a "back door!"  Surrounded by rising peaks on both side of I-40 and a hard ceiling above, did he anticipate the possibility of rising terrain along the highway that would, in effect, cause a lowered ceiling?  If that occurred, could he turn around?

Sure, he could descend, but that would run afoul of  FAR 91.119(c) which restricted his minimum altitude in a non congested area to 500' above any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.  From a hindsight perspective, this guy likely knew the rules.  Missing in his skill set, however, was aeronautical decision making 101.  Had he pondered the various "what ifs" in this flight, would he have launched?  Certainly you wouldn't!

ADM and Backdoor Analysis

One of my favorite exercises is to challenge private, instrument, and commercial pilots with realistic ADM scenarios.  I will describe a flight such as the one above, then ask pilots to identify all possible "back doors" that the pilot can exit through if things do not go as planned. 

Curiously, many of these pilots point to the various FARs that clearly show that the pilot should not have gotten himself into that predicament in the first place.  "Gee, Bob, had the guy paid attention FAR 91.9 (civil aircraft operation limitations), he wouldn't have gotten himself in trouble in the first place!"

I concur and compliment the pilot for his familiarity with the FARs.  "Aside from that," I reply, "where are his back doors?"

As this exercise unfolds, my pilot colleagues quickly come to observe that the absence of backdoors often signals a pending violation of the FARs.  From a lifesaving perspective, however, good "back door" analysis skills can make up for a lot of FAR knowledge shortcomings!  This is what aeronautical decision making is all about.

Many of my flight school and CFI colleagues are fond of espousing blind compliance with the federal aviation regulations.  There is nothing wrong with this as long as we remain confident that we actually know and, more importantly, can remember all of the rules.  In point of fact, we cannot!  Sad but true.  Most of us knew more about the rules on the day of our checkride than anytime thereafter in our subsequent flying career!  From that day forward, memory of the rules begin to fade.

Here is where the importance of ADM and risk management assessment comes to play.  If we apply the "back door" test to every flight, we gave a tool that can save our life!

Industry observers estimate that two out of every three people who sign up for flight lessons never succeed in obtaining their private pilot certificate!  And those that do, either have an exceptionally high level of personal motivation or a very talented flight instructor.

One of the reasons for this deplorable drop-out rate is the CFI's failure to adequately address and prepare his or her students for motor skill development plateaus. 

According to the FAA's Aviation Instructors Handbook [FAA H-8083-9], a motor skill plateau "is normal and should be expected after an initial period of rapid improvement." 

The one maneuvering skill that plateaus first is landing.  After a series of controlled crashes, new students often appear to get it together and go on to perform a series of acceptable landings.  Just about the time that both the student and his CFI are confident that solo flight is possible, the student's landing performance begins to stumble.

Fixing the problem!

Understanding that learning plateaus are a natural occurrence and that they are experienced by nearly every flight student is the first step in fixing the problem.  The next step is to move work around it by moving immediately on to another phase of training.  This keeps the training both positive and enjoyable.

When landing plateaus occur, I usually move directly into the cross-country phase of training.  Included are frequent stops at airports along the way to a planned destination where a meal and ground instruction takes place.  Before long, the plateau'd student's skills and confidence are restored and they move ahead aggressively in their skill development.

Whenever receiving flight instruction, DO NOT accept any form of negative attitude or behavior from your instructor . . . EVER!  If he or she cannot keep the entire learning process positive and moving forward in a pleasant fashion, find another instructor!

Keeping the learning process fun!

Learning plateaus sometimes go unnoticed by the student when the overall instruction process is fun and entertaining!  Unlike military flight training programs where students are motivated by fear of washing out, we in the civilian sector pursue flight training to enjoy ourselves.  The checkride and receipt of the pilot certificate are simply bi-products of an otherwise enjoyable learning process.

I continually inherit students from traditional flight training environments where I am told horror stories of instructor abuse.  One marvels how such flight schools continue to attract students?

Instructors . . . make the learning process as entertaining as you can.  Plan cross-country trips to airports with the best restaurants.  Fly to exciting Class B airports and take a crew car to the best place in town for lunch or dinner.  Demonstrate the benefits of flying by private air.  When you do, your students will stay with you right up through their highest ratings.  And they will become better pilots as well!

The NTST just released its preliminary report of accident statistics for 2005 and the news is not good!  The total number of GA accidents increased from 1,617 to 1,669.  Either way, that works out to about five per day!  The number of fatal accidents also increased in 2005 from 314 to 321.

Perhaps the best indicator of the accident trends is the fatality rate per 100,000 hours.  This rate, too, increased from 1.26 to 1.31.  Sadly, GA continues to experience a fatal accident rate about 100 times higher than the airlines!

Our homebuilder readers understand the challenge of getting their airplane from the garage or basement to the airfield and the final assembly tasks necessary to make their couple year project airworthy. 

The big guys have the same challenges but on a larger scale.  Click HERE for an example!

The Buffalo Niagara Falls International Airport (KBUF) recently shut down its runway 5-23 for a six month reconstruction process.  Its only remaining option is runway 14-32, which is oriented about 90 degrees to the prevailing winds.  And those prevailing winds can easily build up to gale force following their eastward track along the entire length of Lake Erie.

So what do Airbus 330 and Boeing 757 pilots do when winds are blowing 45 knots directly across Buffalo's only runway?  Divert to another airport?  I asked that question of one of Buffalo's friendly TRACON controllers during a late evening training flight.  His answer surprised me.

"Some land, some go elsewhere," he replied.  Just then, a passing UPS B-757 pilot came up on frequency and said, "Yep, we landed on runway 32 last night in a 45 knot direct crosswind, no problem."

So how are your x-wind landings?

Okay, so you are not at the controls of a 400,000 pound, fire-spewing beast, the principles of crosswind landings remain exactly the same.  Boeings, Airbuses, and light singles and twins have several design features in common. 

Those common  features are the: (1) vertical stabilizer (tail); (2) fuselage; and (3) wing.  Crosswinds affect these features exactly the same whether you are flying a B-380 or a Cessna 152.  That's what makes x-wind landings so challenging! 

We can quickly see what happens when all three of these effects exert their influence on an airplane, jumbo or light, when landing (or taking off) in a x-wind.  The nose begins to point in the direction of the x-wind, not the runway.  The airplane begins to drift across the runway rather than remaining aligned with the white centerline.  And the upwind wing suddenly lifts up, causing the airplane to begin a banking turn away from the x-wind.  This is all very predictable!

So what is a girl supposed to do?

Knowing precisely how x-winds influence landing airplanes, the proficient pilot needs merely to enter the proper control inputs just as the airplane is settling over the runway numbers. 

The graphic below illustrates the wing down (leaning into the wind) flight attitude.  While not apparent in this graphic, aggressive opposite rudder is necessary to prevent the aircraft from turning into the wind.  Remember the follow through!

How much crosswind is too much?

This is my favorite of all x-wind questions.  Many instructors insist that x-wind landings should be restricted to the demonstrated x-wind component listed in the POH.  Part 141 flight schools often restrict flight training to only those days where the x-winds are less than this same demonstrated POH published x-wind.

Cinch up your seatbelts.  I am about to post a statement that will likely irritate these very same instructors and flight schools (as well as the Internet police).  Here it goes . . . the practice of restricting flight training to conditions at or less than the published demonstrated x-wind capability of the training aircraft is largely responsible for the numerous landing accidents occurring in general aviation today!

Do the risk factors increase when making high crosswind landings?

Answer:  Depends!  If a pilot has received effective x-wind training from a competent flight instructor and he or she remains x-wind proficient, such landings reflect the same degree of risk of any landing. 

On the other hand, if a pilot's x-wind training was limited to the demonstrated x-wind component of this airplane, YES . . . such landing reflect a high level of risk!

Going down for a look-see!

Here's the key to risk avoidance when contemplating a high x-wind landing.  NEVER commit to landing in any x-wind (or any landing, for that matter).  Instead, a proficient pilot will go down and take a look.  He or she conducts a normal approach to landing.  He then applies the necessary x-wind control inputs and tracks over the runway at, say, 30' to 40' AGL.

If he is able to track the runway centerline, despite the high gusty x-winds, he moves quickly to the next step by gently allowing the upwind wheel to touch the runway.  If he still has things fully under control, he allows the other main to touch the runway.  So far, so good?  Yep, he then allows the nose wheel to settle to the pavement and rolls to a controlled stop on the runway.

Now . . . IF anywhere in this "look-see" x-wind landing process, things are not going precisely as planned at any stage of the landing sequence, what does the proficient pilot do?   That's right, he or she applies full power and goes around for either another try to the same runway or to another runway or airport where the winds are more aligned with the winds. 

This, of course, takes proper training and lots of recurrent practice.  On the other hand, teaching students not to land in x-winds approaching or even exceeding the demonstrated capability of the airplane is nothing more than a "head in the sand" philosophy that has contributed significantly to GA dismal safety record! 

These "head in the sand" flight schools and independent CFIs further exacerbate this tragic safety problem by producing future generations of CFIs lacking any meaningful x-wind training experience!

Spring may be here but the freezing level is still within the easy reach of light airplanes here in the northern climates.  Imagine planning a cross-country flight from Sioux Falls, South Dakota to Boston in a non known-ice certified Cirrus SR20.  You better have a very good understanding of icing meteorology and the aerodynamic characteristics of an iced up airplane.  And you better have rock-solid "back doors" along the entire route of flight.

Never Again experience . . .

This was the mission of a 5,000 hour commercially rated pilot with a flight instructor certificate as reported in the April, 2006 issue of AOPA PILOT Magazine.  Unfortunately, the reported actions of this pilot suggested that he lacked the essential icing knowledge to safely complete this flight.

While we can commend the pilot for coming forth publicly with his harrowing account of this flight and AOPA PILOT's decision to publish this story, we can use this account to illustrate the sorely lacking proficiency of many general aviation pilots when it comes to wintertime flight.

First, the facts

According to this pilot's first hand account of this flight, he climbed up through what he knew to be an ice-laden layer that began around 4,000 feet.  He was cleared up to 9,000 feet.  While having such knowledge and proceeding into this known ice is clearly a violation of FAR 91.9, this issue of "legality" is no longer relevant when it comes to whether or not this pilot had the icing skills to prevent possible disaster.

Here he is leaving clear VFR conditions at 4,000 feet and immediately noting the formation of frost on his wings.  Unsure of where the tops were, he continued with his climb.  Apparently within minutes the ice began accumulating at a faster rate on the narrow wings of the Cirrus SR20.  His airspeed dropped to 100KIAS and his controls were acting "sloppy."

See a problem emerging here?

Here he is, still in the clouds with airframe icing causing a serious deterioration of airspeed.  With "mushy" controls, he must know that he has reached the limits of his airplanes ability to carry the ice thus far accumulated.  He knows that he has clear, ice free air below at 4,000 feet, yet he continues his climb to an uncertain cloud top.

Within minutes, his ice-laden airplane refuses to climb.  Now approaching an incipient stall, he decides to "cheat" and gives another final tug on the side stick to persuade his craft to struggle up to what he believes to be blue skies just 500 feet further up. 

Naturally, the Cirrus stalls just as the customary icing intensity reaches its greatest level as one approaches the cloud tops.  He's now in a very bad place and he knows it.  He gives a hurry up call to ATC and demands an immediate lower altitude.  With sufficient tail plane ice now on his little craft to jam his elevator, he begins to worry about making a safe landing!

Fortunately he lives to fly another day!

Again, we want to compliment this pilot for bravely risking public ridicule for his actions by writing his story in a popular general aviation magazine.  His experience will no doubt cause many pilots to rethink their defensive ice skills.  But this guy is no student.  He is a 5,000 hour, commercially rated flight instructor.  His handling of this flight illustrates just how unprepared GA pilots are for a chance encounter with icing!

20-20 Hindsight . . . What should he have done?

Yes . . . the first he should not have ignored FAR 91.9 (aircraft certification limitation prohibiting flight into known ice).  Putting that aside and simply examining his flying strategies, he punched into the cloud base at 4,000 feet and instantly saw ice forming on his wings.  He had a golden "back door" immediately below.  All he had to do was reduce power and descend back into the 4,000 feet of clear air below.  A quick call to ATC would have given him an almost certain clearance to descend a couple of hundred feet.

He passed up that "back door" and elected to continue his climb up through the clouds with an unknown tops altitude.   With ice still accumulating on his wings, he apparently did not know that super-cooled water droplet size, thus icing intensity, typically increases as one climbs higher in the clouds.  With his airplane operating at MCA (minimal controllable airspeed) and moving further and further away from his back door below, he gives in one last stall-inducing tug on the stick to eek out the final 500 feet to clear air above.  What did he expect would happen??

Yep . . . the dreaded stall in IMC with an airframe shape altered by ice-laden wings and tail surfaces.  This is a clear example of pilot bravado with deficient knowledge, which is a very dangerous combination of attributes!

Fate was not hunting this pilot on this day.  He managed to get the airplane safely on the ground and to fly another day. 

Teaching point

Much of the traditional flight instructing community views sub-freezing clouds in the same risk context as thunderstorms.  They say, "penetrate either one and the outcome is not good!"  In reality, most sub-freezing clouds are not conducive to airframe icing.  On the other hand, ALL thunderstorms are dangerous.  To treat sub-freezing clouds and thunderstorms the same from a risk assessment perspective is irresponsible instruction.

Had the Cirrus pilot understood the nature of icing and had a better handle on "back door analysis" and when to exercise that backdoor, he would have had a better flight on that particular day.  

There is no question that having redundant back up systems in our airplanes is a definite safety feature.  Surprisingly, however, not all dual systems are as redundant as we might think.

Magnetos:

We all know why aircraft come equipped with dual magnetos.  Should one magneto fail, the other will carry on, right?  Well, not always.  Some Lycoming engines spin both magnetos through one single common drive shaft.  If that shaft fails, the engine quits!

Vacuum Pumps:

How about backup vacuum pumps to keep the gyro instruments spinning in the event one pump fails?  Redundant?  Not always.  These two pumps often share some part of the vacuum system plumbing.  A bad check valve, a leak in the system, or a blocked air intake filter can leave the gyro instruments without air!  

Many heavy singles like the known ice certified Cessna 210 depend upon deicing systems that have single point of failure points, thus no true redundancy.

The twin engine fallacy

Who can argue against a twin over a single for improved redundancy?  Looking at older Beech Baron B55s, for example, you will note the presence of two alternators and two voltage regulators.  In an interest case reported in the February, 2006 issue of Aviation Safety, a Baron B55 pilot flying in IMC, observed the simultaneous illumination of both Alternator Out annunciators. 

Following his POH procedures, he concluded that one of the two voltage regulators had failed.  He switched to his other voltage regulator, which solved the problem but for only several seconds.  Both Alternator Lights again illuminated.  The pilot diverted to a nearby airport and landed on the ILS to 300' and one mile visibility on rapidly dwindling batter power!

Voltage Regulators:

What the Baron pilot did not realize was what caused his first voltage regulator to fail.  An out-of-tolerance alternator fried his first alternator.  When he switched to the second voltage regulator, the same out-of-tolerance alternator fried that one, too!

Many light twins have redundant vacuum pumps, one on each engine.  Pressurized air from each pump runs through a common pneumatic manifold.  If one engine or the vacuum pump on that engine fails, a check valve inside this manifold prevents pressurized air from the good pump from going to the unpressurized line leading to the dead pump instead of to the instruments where it is needed.  Guess what happens if this this check valve is stuck in the open position?

How about the two engine redundancy factor?  In most light twins, when one engine fails, the resultant loss of net aircraft thrust is reduced by 80%.  This is because of adverse yaw and the added drag caused by the dead engine and prop.  This leads many to believe that the reason twins have two engines is because they NEED two engines! 

The most spectacular redundancy failure!

When Captain Al Haines, pilot of United Airlines flight 232, DC-10 over Sioux City, Iowa in 1987, reported to his maintenance base that he had lost all three independent hydraulic systems, the maintenance experts insisted that this could not happen.  The odds against it were a million to one.  

It seems that there is only one place in the DC-10 where all three hydraulic system lines come together.  That one place is directly beneath the number two engine mounted in the tail.  When the number two engine self-destructed in flight, pieces of the turbine severed all three hydraulic lines, leaving the airplane powerless to control using conventional control surfaces.

Solution . . . is there one?  You bet!

The most important thing we as pilots can do is to fully understand the systems of any airplane we fly.  Remember, not all aircraft systems are the same, even in the same make and model aircraft. 

Next, always (I mean always) have "back doors" to bolt to when system troubles occur.  Be imaginative.  What kind of back doors do single engine aircraft have when flying over large bodies of water?  Two that come readily to mind are: (1) an inflatable raft, and (2) life jackets for each occupant.

Every pilot operating in IFR conditions should have a backup portable GPS up and operating.  The Garmin 296/396, for example, not only provides moving map information, it can also display the six flying instruments with sufficient accuracy to keep an airplane upright in the clouds should the entire instrument panel toast.

Imagine a beautiful, sunny day.  You take-off in a light sport or ultralight aircraft and begin flying a short route you've covered many times before.  Now, imagine your reaction when that reliable engine suddenly stops turning.  Click HERE to see how this pilot handled this very situation.

Thanks to OTA reader, Thom Riddle of Buffalo, NY for sharing this with us.

Who would ever believe that an ATP rated CFI with 25,000 hours in his logbook and who is type rated in an Airbus 330, Boeing 727, 737, 757, 767, McDonald Douglas DC-9, and a YS-11 would ever succumb to a simple fuel management mistake and die as a result!

That is just what happened last October 15 in Mocksville, NC.  This veteran pilot took off in a North American AT-6D.  Suffering an engine failure while climbing through 500' AGL, he initiated an immediate 90 degree turn back to the airport.  Witnesses saw the airplane hit trees and immediately become consumed with fire.

The NTSB issued its probable cause findings saying citing "the pilot's improper fuel management resulting in a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation and an in-flight collision with trees and the ground."

NTSB investigators found no evidence of any fuel in the left wing tank or sump nor was there any evidence of a fuel tank rupture.  The right tank had sufficient fuel remaining to support an extensive post-crash fire.  An examination of the engine revealed no evidence of mechanical failure.  The fuel tank selector valve was also examined and found to be working properly.  It was found in the right tank selector position.

Fuel starvation versus fuel exhaustion

It is one thing to run out of fuel;  it is quite another to deny the engine fuel from an otherwise full or partially fuel tank.  This is what apparently happened in this fatal accident.  Unfortunately, the pilot's likely final attempt to switch tanks after the engine failure was too late.

While not raised in the NTSB report, one might also reason why this experienced pilot elected to make a 180 turn (actually a 270 degree) back to the airport instead of landing straight ahead.  Perhaps the presence of non-negotiable obstacles ahead prevented this. Or he could have been preoccupied trying to re-start the engine.  Or it could have the pilot's simple desire to minimize damage to this classic WWII trainer by returning it to a runway.  We will never know.

Of the many roles performed by flight instructors, one of the most interesting is to help steer their students into promising aviation career opportunities.  For young people just beginning their flight instruction, the message usually goes something like this:  "Get your ratings, get your four-year degree, get your hours . . . then go look for a flying job."

For others contemplating a mid-life career change into aviation, providing the proper steer is a bit more challenging simply because the options are fewer.  This did not deter Tom Corey of Buffalo, NY!

Tom is a 50 something ex-restaurateur who completed his commercial training with me recently and is now working on his CFI.  He said, "Bob, I want to do something full-time in aviation.  I'm willing to fly for food if that is what it takes!"

We discussed a lot of options, but many were out of Tom's reach because of his "thin" logbook hours.  One area that did appeal to Tom was beginning an "on-demand" air taxi business under Part 135.

While intrigued by the possibility, single engine Part 135 has some drawbacks due, primarily, to the public's perceived lack of safety of single engine airplanes.  Part 135 is tough enough without having to overcome that hurdle, so we decided to explore light twins.

Cessna 310's are great airplanes but somewhat expensive to operate and maintain.  That could cut into his fledging first-year profits.  What do do?

Bingo . . . how about the Diamond DA42 Twin Star?

We scheduled a training flight from our home base in Akron, NY in the rental Cessna 172 to the Diamond plant in London, Ontario, Canada.  An hour later we were being hosted by the Diamond representative who arranged a demo flight in the Twin Star.

We took-off in the Twin Star with Tom in the left seat and climbed quietly and quickly to 3,500 feet.  The Twin Star's dual 270 HP diesel powered, full-feathering three bladed, engines each sipped an amazing 5.5 gallons per hour shortly after level-off at 170KTAS!  Cabin noise and vibration were nearly nonexistent.

We put the Twin Star through its paces including slow flight, stalls, and one engine out operation (see photo right).  In many years of flying, I've never experienced an airplane as capable, for the money, as the Diamond Twin Star!  At just over $450,000, this machine is going to give both the Cirrus SR22 and the Columbia 400 (my two other favorite airplanes, besides my T-210) a genuine competitive challenge!

With an 814 pound payload (with full fuel), the Twin Star can easily carry four 200 pounders.  With its known ice certification, the Twin Star makes an ideal Part 135 flying machine!

So now Tom has a realistic dream and a very realistic airplane to fulfill it in.  All he has to do is "ink" the deal with Diamond and he is off on his new career.  Let's wish him lots of luck!

Somewhere in the annals of flight training history, a minimally motivated flight school or instructor came up with a new term.  This term was "The Practice Area!"   This practice area became defined an area not far from the home airport that is free of menacing obstacles and far from any high traffic airways where simple maneuvers could be repeatedly taught and practiced. 

CFIs liked these areas because few, if any, unpredictable things ever happened there.  If weather closed in unexpectedly, he or she could instinctively bolt to their nearby home airport.  Obviously, they would never get lost.  They knew the controllers, often by their first names.  Comfortable in a radar environment, neither they nor their students spent much time looking out the window for other traffic. 

And when it came time to practice landings, familiar airports were never far away.  And there is no need to study the weather forecasts.  Instead, simply look out the window.  TFRs?  Never!  So why bother looking?

Most importantly, busy CFIs like the practice area because they know they could always get back to their home airport just in time to start the clock on their next student!  If you want to crank out lots of new students, the practice area is the place to remain!

It's comfortable, but the practice area is no place to learn how to fly safely!

If you review enough NTSB accident reports, you will soon discover that it is the "unexpected" that often contributes to a pilot's undoing.  An improper pattern entry leads to a mid-air collision; confusion over runway numbering results in landing on the wrong runway;  unexpected rising terrain results in a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accident; unusual wind patterns resulting from trees or hills contributes to a stall/spin on short final;  unfamiliar airspace leads to a "Class E bust" (know what that is, right?) and a near miss with an IFR arrival.

For instrument pilots, it is often unfamiliar, complicated approach procedures that lead them astray.  SIDs, STARs, and the most lethal of all IFR oversights, the overlooked "departure procedure," can lead to the early demise of low time instrument pilots who spent their entire training time in and around their home airports.

These are just a handful of the many "unexpected" encounters we may face whenever traveling to an unfamiliar airport.  Thus, if these are the risks we face, why hang out in the familiar "practice area?"   This compelling question was already answered above!

Try something new . . . get out of the practice area!

Using a standard three-hour flight training session, even a Cessna 152 traveling at 90KIAS can fly 90 miles away from the home airport and return within two hours.  This still leaves one hour for preflight and post-flight debriefing as well as some ground instruction and a quick bite to eat at the distant airport!

You can revolutionize your flight training by taking a sectional chart and scribing a 90 mile arc around your home airport.  List every public access airport (including grass strips, where appropriate) within that 90 mile arc.  Make it your goal to fly to each one of those airports sometime during your training!  Do not fly to the same airport twice before landing at least once at all the other airports within this 90 mile arc!

"Can't cover the required PTS maneuvers with this method," you say???  Think again!

Trimming, slow flight, steep turns, ground reference maneuvers, lost procedures, engine fires and failures, short and soft field operations, and whatever else you would like to cover can be performed along these x-country legs to distant airport.  In addition, pilotage, dead-reckoning, and radio navigation procedures and ATC communications are covered right from lesson #1. 

If you reside next to an international border as we do here in Western New York, plan training flights "over the border" to familiarize students with different ATC procedures as well as customs requirements. 

Make EVERY flight a new adventure to a new location.  Be sure to include large Class B airports where possible.  And don't forget well-maintained grass strips.  Scope out the best airport (or near airport) restaurants within 90 miles of your home drome.

What if the weather is IMC?

What if the weather is below VFR?  Hold on your hat . . . revolutionary training recommendation coming!   Primary instructors, file an IFR plan and launch!  All primary students require a minimum of 3 hours of instrument training.  IMC is the best place to conduct this training (throw away the foggles and unplug the simulators!)   And remember, you can always climb above the clouds, cancel your IFR, and perform the required training maneuvers enroute to your destination.  Be creative!

Okay, agreed, you cannot do this if you or your training airplane is not IFR capable.

What if your flight school or instructor refuses to leave the practice area?

Remember, it is your time, your money, and your training needs that come first.  If your flight school or instructor insists on restricting your training to the practice area or to the same couple of nearby airports, you are being short-changed!  It is as simple as that.    So, the next time you hear your instructor say, "let's go to the practice area," beware!!!!!

So what do you do about it?  Get on the telephone.  Search out other flight schools or independent CFIs and tell them what you want to do.  If they do not wish to comply, keep shopping! 

Part 141 school students note:  Don't let your flight school convince you that the training time logged at their school does not count anywhere else, don't believe them.  This is NOT true!

It is time that all of us in the flight training community recognize that the standard training syllabus does NOT restrict us to any specific "practice area."  As the Southwest Airlines advertising slogan says, "We are free to roam about the country."

Our objective is to prepare pilots to operate safely in the national airspace system within the limits of their airman's certificates and weather limitations.  There is no way we can accomplish this by spending most of our training time in some practice area.

If you want to see the future of aviation, look at the beaming face of young Greg Barnard from East Aurora, NY! 

It was exactly 16 years, 6 hours and 14 minutes after leaving the warmth and security of his mother's womb that young Greg Barnhard spread his wings and flew solo around the local aerodrome.

Standing with young Greg is Dan Maloney, CFII and B-747 captain for Northwest Airlines.  

Talk about expert instruction!  Greg began his flight training at age 14 with Peter Treichler, CFII and B-737 pilot for Continental.  Peter brought Greg to the pre-solo level, then into his instrument training - even before soloing.  Greg then flew with me in my T-210 where he received his high performance endorsement while on long x-country trips including Oshkosh last year.  After that, Greg went through a variety of aerobatic exercises with Dan Maloney in his RV-4 before Dan Maloney signed him off to solo this past week. 

When asked how he enjoyed his first solo, Greg said, "It was the most exciting thing I've ever done in my entire life.  Think about it, I flew an airplane solo before I even received my driver's permit.  I have just knocked down one more brick wall on my path to my dream!"

Greg's training plan is to complete his private, instrument, and commercial ratings, and then take all three checkrides on his 17th birthday.  If anybody can accomplish this, Greg surely will!

Pilot readers of "Over the Airwaves" have been increasing at the rate of 10 percent a month since it was first published.  If this 10% new sign-in rate continues, a simple bit of number crunching reveals that this geometric progression will reach all 700,000 pilots in 61.5 months!

Unreasonably optimistic? 

Perhaps, but it has been working for the past two years and if our readers continue to pass OTA on to their pilot colleagues via email forwarding, posting it on online chat groups, and word-of-mouth, it is entirely possible!

No other aviation publication, print or online, is focusing squarely on GA flight safety as is "Over the Airwaves."  Unencumbered by politically sensitive sponsors and not dependent upon subscriber revenues, "OTA" is able to call the proverbial spade a spade.  In the process, if a single reader is impacted with an OTA-initiated thought that saves his or her life, the entire effort is worth it. 

Now multiply those OTA-initiated thoughts by our growing number of readers.  You can quickly see the impact each of us can have on GA flight safety! 

What makes OTA unique?

OTA's editorial style is intended to be quick and poignant.  Rather than bringing readers through wordy narratives designed to fill pages, OTA shoots for the heart.  While piloting techniques are addressed, its focus is on pilot attitudes and aeronautical decision-making and risk management skills development. 

Technical jargon is left to more lofty aviation publications.  We include enough to make a point;  beyond that, we're not overly impressed with undefined acronyms and other insider terms. 

When faced with a conflict between rules and regulations versus properly nurtured gut instincts to the save the day, OTA will always focus on the latter.  The basis for this unique perspective is simply a recognition that NO two in-flight scenarios are the same.  You cannot promulgate a single rule that applies to all situations.  But you CAN develop piloting attitudes and ADM skills that DO cover all situations. 

"FLY THE AIRPLANE" is a classic example of one such ADM skill that must take precedence  over all other responses to in-flight emergencies.  If that message could be imparted to all GA pilots, the accident rate would drop precipitously!  The other classic example is, "Don't do anything stupid."  If we could eliminate that attitudinal problem, the GA accident rate would be reduced to mere trickle! 

Lastly, OTA annoys status quo advocates and it freely and openly shines light on the deplorable way many GA pilots are trained and their cavalier approach to recurrent training.  That is the final bridge to cross in making GA as safe as a ride on an airliner!

So . . . let's spread the word about "Over the Airwaves."

One of the most incredulous arguments I hear from flight schools and independent CFIs who are opposed to spin training goes something like the: 

"Since 80% of all fatal spins occur below 1,000' AGL, where they are essentially unrecoverable, it makes no sense to engage in this form of training."  

The fact that we continue to experience one fatal stall/spin accident per week suggests that ignoring this form of training is not really the answer!

So what should we be teaching?  Stall/spins or not?

First, let's correct the spin training opponents' mistaken point of view.  Agreed, 80% of fatal stall/spin accidents do occur below 1,000 feet.  It is also agreed that stall/spins at this altitude are unrecoverable.  What the opponents fail to understand is that a pilot with spin training and experience would never, other than when settling down to the runway surface, allow his or her airplane to approach its critical angle of attack below 2,500' AGL!   Similarly, a pilot with spin training and experience understands the effect of various flight attitudes have on an airplane's stall speeds.

He knows, for example, that a 60 degree bank angle effectively doubles his stall speed.  Similarly, he knows that a spin is simply an aggravated stall that can occur only when the aircraft is in uncoordinated (yawed) flight.   Not only does he know this, the spin proficient pilot intentionally makes it happen at a safe altitude.  He reinforces his intellectual awareness of pre-spin characteristics including his kinesthetic senses. 

For example, my good friend and pilot mentor, Lou Nalbone, DPE has an uncanny ability to detect (with his eyes closed) when the inclinometer ball is 1/8th inch off center.  He can "feel" an almost imperceptible yaw.  And it is this imperceptible yaw that can convert a low, slow steep turn in the pattern into a fatal stall/spin in less than a heart beat!  Our aim as pilots is to develop this same kinesthetic sensitivity to yaw.

How do we do it?

We do it and we teach our primary students to do it by climbing up to a safe altitude, usually  4,000 feet AGL or more.  With the airplane trimmed for traffic pattern speed, we slowly reduce power while pitching up to maintain altitude.  We then wait for the four stages of a stall to occur.  These stages are show below:

  The progress of the wing as it moves through these four stages is illustrated below:

The stall break spin entry

We wait until the airplane has reached the 4th stage of the stall (full stall break), then we apply full left or right rudder to create the yaw necessary to produce an incipient spin.  At this point, one wing drops and the aircraft instantly begins to turn on its vertical axis.  The nose drops and the windshield suddenly fills with a view of the turning earth below.

When performed properly, it typically takes three full rotations or more to produce a fully developed spin.  Since most of our training airplanes are prohibited per FAR 91.9(c) from performing spins, we recover from the incipient spin before one turn is completed, e.g., power, aileron, rudder, elevator.

This incipient spin exercise is remarkably effective in instilling the intellectual awareness and kinesthetic senses of the flight attitudes that preface a stall/spin.  Equally important, this exercise instills the skills necessary to instantly recover from a spin.  Once mastered, no spin proficient pilot will ever permit a flight attitude, when low to the ground or in the traffic pattern, to approach a stall/spin condition! 

That, by the way, is how we eliminate the weekly fatal stall/spin accident we are currently experiencing.   This is a far more effective way than telling pilots not to allow a stall/spin to occur!

I received a curious e-mail this past week from a friend and colleague in the flight training business.  He operates a flight school here in the northeast United States.  In his message, he recounted an interview he had with a person applying for a job as a flight instructor.  Below is the essence of this interview:

"I recently interviewed an instructor from one of the Florida academies who had her CFI, CFII, MEI, 250 hours total, and had never been in a cloud.  I flew with that flight instructor and, at best, found her not worthy to be a private pilot let alone a flight instructor.  I asked her to answer 30 questions from the Private Pilot knowledge test book  The questions came from each subject matter.  She only answered two correctly.  In subsequent discussions, she said that "the motor makes the airplane fly," until I mentioned gliders.  Instructors with no actual experience, never been in any kind of weather, had not worked in the busy airspace system, had never flown in Class B airspace, etc.  This is ludicrous.  How about the instructors that have no conception of the FAR's or even their own required endorsements."

Hmmmm. . .  this makes one wonder how such a poorly prepared flight instructor got through the certification process?   Perhaps she was good at "memorizing" test question answers.  Perhaps she caught her designated pilot examiner (DPE) on one of his busier days.  Maybe the DPE was employed by her flight school!  Who knows?  But she is certainly not alone.

The real tragedy is that the person who trained her was likely equally inept!  In what is nothing less that the blind leading the blind, many young flight school graduates not only lack basic aeronautical skills, they often inherited the same bad attitudinal habits of several generations of inept instructors who taught them! 

A similar experience

Several years ago, I inherited a new primary flight student from a Part 141 flight school.  When I asked why he left that school after just one lesson, his reply grabbed my attention.  He said:

I reported the incident to this school's chief instructor who, to his credit, put the CFI on a 60 day suspension pending further verification of his skills.  The CFI left the school shortly thereafter and began teaching on his own.  At last word, I heard he is flying fright for some Part 135 operator.

Okay . . . so we have incompetence in every profession!

Yes, we need to be realistic.  We have bad lawyers, doctors, classroom teachers, plumbers, and candlestick makers.  The flight training profession is certainly not immune.  And we have opportunists within the flight training community, too, who are making money by training students to the lowest passable level of competence, or worse.

Unfortunately, the flight training community has not done a very good job at policing itself.  Once the FAA grants a new pilot an airmen's certificate, he or she is good to go, for life.  Similarly, when the FAA grants a pilot with a flight instructor's certificate, he or she is also good to go, for life!  No more testing, skill assessments, nothing, nada, zilch.  Of course, any airman certificate can be suspended or revoked by the FAA, but short of willfully and repeatedly violating the FARs, he or she is left to their own devices!

There have been attempts to recognize exceptional flight instructors, but even those efforts leave big gaps in the screening process.  Missing, for example, is any kind of formal aeronautic knowledge assessment, any in-flight teaching skill evaluation, or any required substantial real world in-flight experience, not to mention even a face-to-face interview.  I know, I've been through that process!.  The intent, of course, is good.  Valid?  One wonders. 

Lest somebody thinks the problem is only with YOUNG instructors . . .

We have approximately 80,000 certificated flight instructors on the FAA's rolls.  It is estimated that all but about 11,000 of these CFIs are no longer active.  Most of these inactive CFIs received their teaching credentials many years earlier as a means to build hours to get that real flying job.  They can retain their CFI certificates for life simply by attending a weekend refresher course once every two years.  

Inactive CFIs retain their certificates, perhaps, to have something to fall back on after retirement.  And when they do, nobody from the FAA re-evaluates their instructional skills.  They just climb aboard and resume an activity they have not engaged in for decades!  Pretty scary, huh?

Then there are the mid-life career change pursuers.  They go to the local airport and gather up a few ratings in quick succession and, with literally no real world flying experience, they are certified to teach others what they just learned.  These folks meet the minimal FAA mandated requirements, but little or nothing more!

Caveat Emptor!

So let the buyer beware that there are both good, better and best in the flight training community. 

Truly gifted CFIs have come from all backgrounds and experiences.  Some come fresh out of southern flight schools, some out of airline retirement, and others who have successfully made a midlife career change with no meaningful flight experience.   Unfortunately, the job of distinguishing between good and bad instructors is left to those least qualified to make this assessment - the general public. 

It is also left to YOU, the safety conscious reader who has his or her own continuing flight training needs AND who know others who may be considering first-time flight instruction. 

Exercise that knowledge and steer yourself and others to where quality flight training can be found.  As for weaker souls in the flight training profession, they will either alter their ways or they will be economically squeezed out of the system!