Sunday,
November 19, 2006
Vol. III No. 23 |
Sunday,
November 19, 2006
Vol. III No. 23 |
|
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:
According to the U.S. Government Energy Information Administration, we consumed 91.9 million gallons of aviation gasoline in 1986. By 2004, our annual consumption of avgas dropped to 36 million gallons. This is a 61% drop in just 18 years. Yep, we've been on a significant downward slide in our avgas consumption for the past several decades. Source: HERE .What happened? Did our airplanes suddenly become more fuel efficient? Nope. Our engine designs have not changed significantly for more than 40 years. Did we all suddenly switch to turbine powered airplanes? Of course not. What happened is that we GA pilots flew fewer hours, substantially fewer hours. This dramatic reduction in GA hours flown mirrors a similar reduction in the number of our GA pilots. According to industry data, there were 827,000 U.S. licensed pilots in 1980. By 2004, this number dropped to 619,000, a 25% reduction. Similarly, the annual number of new student pilot certificates issued in 2004 is down a whopping 58% compared to the number issued in 1980! Needless to say, we are flying a whole lot less than ever before! Gallons down, pilot numbers down, student pilot starts down equals fewer accidents - Duh! No wonder we recorded a 71% improvement in accidents since 1967, as AOPA's Air Safety Foundation head, Bruce Landsberg proudly proclaimed this past week in Palm Springs. But that proud claim doesn't tell the whole story. Naturally, when flying hours drop, accidents drop. Hmmmm . . . if we stop flying altogether, our accident number will drop to zero. Curiously, if we correlate our number of fatal accidents with our aviation gas consumption between the years 1986 and 2004, our fatal accident rate per million gallons of fuel consumed increased from 5.15 per million gallons in 1986 to 8.7 per million gallons in 2004. This is a 68% increase in our fatal accident rate over this 18 year period! That's the part that Mr. Landsberg neglected to tell us.
Surprised? If these tragic trends come as a surprise to you, it's because our GA industry leaders are not talking about them, leastwise not in public forum. Instead, we hear glowing reports about everything from lower accident numbers, to the light sport pilot program, to the coming very light jets (VLJs), to growing association memberships. This is all great, but we cannot let it overshadow our worsening fatal accident rate. We go to big GA conventions and see flags waving and parades on the street. We walk through the packed vendor halls. Golly, you'd think that the Chicago Cubs won the World Series! The same is seen at Sun 'n Fun and AirVenture. Hey, I like aviation conventions as much as anybody, and I'm out there every year soaking up the sun and suds in Lakeland and Oshkosh. But we cannot allow this fanfare to send the wrong message to us pilots - particularly our non-proficient pilots who need to be attending to their recurrent training needs. Admitted, we do need to send out a positive message to our legislators and to the general public. We've got to keep up a front that things are "booming" in general aviation, but we dare not start believing this message ourselves. Like believing your own press clippings, this stuff could come back and bite us. Something to think about . . .
Do the scalp check . . . Scalp check, you ask? Simple. Make note of the percentage of scalps you see at your next big aviation gathering that are either bald or sparsely populated with white hair. Surely, GA's future is not as bright as we think. This, alone, is disconcerting. But what makes it even more problematic is that our GA industry leaders are trying to address this bone jarring drop in GA activity by throwing more mud on the wall. Pumping more poorly trained pilots into our troubled flight training system does nothing but exacerbate our safety problem. Equally questionable is our industry's encouragement of low time, first time airplane purchasers to step right up to sophisticated glass composite speedsters with little more training than a several day factory checkout. These airplanes are wonderful. Many of our low time pilots, however, are not up to the challenge of these sophisticated airplanes. Equally disconcerting, our industry is recruiting people off the street, then telling them they can fly light sport aviation aircraft with just 20 hours of training. Then they tell them to avoid taking an FAA physical if they have a weak heart, high blood pressure, or are a single donut away from a diabetic coma. Again, we could be sending the wrong message here. Misplaced energies? Sure, our big GA associations are working hard. Their hearts are in the right place. But do we hear them calling for more stringent pilot qualification and recurrent training requirements to operate in today's complex national airspace system. Are they demanding heightened pilot training and experience requirements to operate our next generation airplanes? The sound of silence is deafening! Do we hear NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors) calling for higher qualification and recurrent training standards for the CFIs who are teaching pilots to fly these sophisticated airplanes? Nope! One airplane is the same as the next, right? It appears to be the same head-in-the sand, business as usual there as well. Our persistent and, according to some data, worsening fatal accident rate strongly suggests that we need to work smarter not harder. The at-risk, non-proficient pilots are not showing up to our hundreds of safety meetings around the country. They are not taking the online courses. They are not responding to our associations' aggressive outreach efforts. These horses are not drinking because they're being told (wrongly) that GA is safe and getting safer every year. Our root problem is - the "Mom/Wife Factor!"
But there is one factor that we haven't been talking about. This is, the "Mom/Wife factor." The fact that little airplanes fall out of the sky (some on parachutes) is very troubling to those members of our families who make the really big decisions . . . . mothers and wives! Remember, for every person contemplating the pursuit of a pilot's certificate, there is a mother and/or wife who first has to pass judgment. "If mama don't want it, it ain't going to happen!" Over simplification? Not at all. Go to any non-flying social gathering and begin a conversation about flying little airplanes. Within seconds you will see first hand where the greatest opposition to general aviation lays.
So what do we do about it? First . . . let's address our spokespersons. These are the big GA membership associations to whom we pay dues to do our bidding. Let's encourage them to focus their efforts (and our resources) on the root problem addressed above. These associations should begin taking aggressive efforts to address the reasons WHY we continue to drop five airplanes a day out of the sky. Allowing these groups to continue calling our fatal accident rate an acceptable safety record should stop. Treat the disease instead of the symptoms The AOPA and its Air Safety Foundation are prolific in its publications and training seminars, but perhaps it should spend more of its resources on addressing our general aviation disease rather than taking our pulse and treating our symptoms. The ASF might consider assembling study groups of industry leaders to shed light on WHY these accidents continue to occur in the first place. What are the man/machine, human factors that lead to accidents . . . and how can they be prevented? What is REALLY wrong with the way we train pilots? Is it a training problem or are there gaps in our regulatory thinking? Every fatal GA accident needs to be studied as thoroughly as as we study airliner accidents. Equally important, the results of these studies need to move us from a status quo, business as usual industry attitude, into an endeavor where the term "zero tolerance" really means something. AOPA and the ASF are far from alone in this. Other GA organizations including EAA, NAFI, GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association), the NTSB, and the FAA should be joining forces and doing this as well.
Then there is us Next . . . let's look in the mirror. Are we looking at a proficient pilot? Can we pass the private pilot checkride today? Instrument rated? Would a designated pilot examiner (DPE) give us a passing score on the instrument oral and practical test today? From the small sample size of pilots I see each month for flight reviews and instrument proficiency checks (IPCs), the GA pilot population is highly skewed. Some are good pilots. The rest? I wouldn't put a family member, including Molly - our Golden Retriever, in their airplane! Yes, we must come to grips with our own pilot inadequacies and do something about them. But the news is not all bad! We know how fragile our piloting skills are. They degrade quickly. The good news is that they can be restored quickly. It simply takes a specific plan of action. Unfortunately, the traditional local flight school, where flying is taught the way the Fly Boys learned in 1917, may not be the best place to start.
Next, sign up for an unusual attitude or emergency maneuvers recovery course. Fighter Combat International in Mesa, AZ is one of the best. Search out an experienced aerobatics instructor and get some inverted time. What you will learn upside down could save your life in the clag! Instrument rated but not current or proficient? Take out your pilot certificate, turn it over and, with a black magic marker, obliterate the word "instruments." Or, instead, get current and proficient again before you think about entering a cloud. Sign up with an experienced CFII for a several day workout in the real IFR world. Throw away the hood and fly in the soup along the busy northeast corridor, or over the mountains and down along the west coast, or in the many busy airspaces in between. In short, get good or remain clear of the clouds.
If we want to do something truly positive for general aviation, we have to stop wrecking our airplanes. We're no longer in the wild west where gunslinging GA pilots roam our cities, towns, and airports. We've become a civilized society where all pilots are expected to behave in a safe, professional manner. When we finally accomplish this, general aviation will start to turn the corner. Our mothers and wives will begin to relax. Mama will say it's okay to learn to fly and to purchase an airplane. Our pilot numbers will increase. And aviation fuel will again flow at its pre-1980 levels. Yep . . . the future of aviation is sitting right in our own hands. We write the checks; we call the shots!
In this case, the Lancair pilot and his passenger had been motoring westward for over five hours nonstop on an IFR flight plan from Burlington, Iowa to Steamboat Springs, Colorado. His initial cruise altitude was 12,000'. He was later cleared up to 16,000'. Nearing his destination, the pilot called Denver Center and cancelled his IFR plan and descended down to 14,000'. By now, it was dark as the pilot began his VFR descent into the mountainous region surrounding Steamboat Springs. Low time . . . inexperienced pilot It is important to note that this pilot had received his instrument ticket only three months earlier. He had 310 total time hours and had logged only two hours of night flying in the previous 60 days. He had received 8.6 hours of factory flight training in the Lancair from the Columbia Aircraft Corporation in June, 2005. The pilot's estimated time of arrival at Steamboat Springs was 7:30pm. According to the United States Naval Observatory, sunset over Steamboat Springs was recorded at 6:17pm. The moon rose over Steamboat Springs at 9:52pm the day of the accident. It was a dark, moonless night. The reported winds were 190 degrees at 3 knots; visibility, 10 statute miles; sky condition, clear. Get the picture? The pilot and his passenger had been aloft for over five hours. They were likely anxious to get on the ground (for a number of reasons - fuel, O2, or potty). This is pure speculation, but the pilot may have cancelled his IFR plan early in order to avoid circuitous vectors and thereby expedite his approach to landing. One must wonder, however, if he had glanced at the approach plate (below) and noted the high terrain surrounding the Steamboat Springs Airport. A VFR approach to this airport in the daytime is tricky. On a dark, moonless night, it's a crapshoot.
The Crash Scene Here's what the NTSB report said:
VFR night flight over remote mountainous areas, particularly on dark, moonless nights is about as risky as it gets. Tree covered mountain peaks blend into the amorphous horizon. To descend down to the elevation of surrounding terrain without an instrument approach procedure to follow is, well, _____________ (you fill in the blank). This pilot was on an IFR flight plan, but he chose to cancel it early. That is a mistake many of us make all too frequently. Hint: Don't
cancel your IFR flight plan until your landing is safely assured
or you are already on the ground.
Aircraft position and anti-collision lights are one of the many aircraft components that we often take for granted, particularly when doing our pre-flight during daylight hours. As the days get shorter, we often find ourselves transitioning from day to night flight without really knowing if these position and anti-collision lights really work. This could put is in the dark as far as other in-flight aircraft are concerned! Include a light check in your pre-flight Go ahead, throw the master switch on, flip on the position and anti-collision switches, then take a quick walk around your airplane. If you find a bad bulb, replace it. This is far better than landing at a distant tower controlled airport at night, then being told by the tower that you have a missing a light or two. This could translate to an unexpected night on the road while you search for replacement bulbs. This also argues for having a spare bulb for each different position light on your airplane. Remember:
There is something about the attractiveness of an airport that encourages many less than proficient pilots to "yank and bank" their way around to the desired runway. In the process, they get themselves in a self-perpetuating, steepening bank that eventually leads to an unexpected loss of altitude. The hapless pilot reacts by pulling back on the yoke or stick with predictable fatal consequences. This sudden pitching up moment, while still in the turn (bank), causes the outboard wing to generate more lift than the inboard wing. This produces the self-perpetuating steepening bank. Worse, the outboard wind incurs a dramatic increase in induced drag. With both wings now exceeding their critical angle of attack, the outboard wing becomes "more stalled" than the inboard wing. The outboard wing suddenly stops flying, thereby producing a totally unexpected spin in a direction opposite to the turn! Turn to final at one-half standard rate! One of the most effective ways to prevent overbanking in the pattern is to keep the base to final turn at one-half standard rate. Do this by keeping the bank angle at this low and slow point in the pattern to 8 to 10 degrees. This requires careful planning to prevent overshooting the final approach course (see graphic below).
Stalls in the pattern hurt! We typically fly the pattern fast enough that our angle of attack is well below the critical angle. The problem occurs when we allow our bank angle to become excessive. As mentioned above, the sudden loss of altitude causes us to instinctively pull back on the yoke. The end result is nearly always a stall, followed by a spin. Such was the case in Corry, PA It was a sunny day in Corry, Pennsylvania on August 26, 2005. A pilot with 93 hours total time and two passengers in a 1976 Cessna 172H were turning on final to Runway 14. A witness described the approach as "low and slow, with the wings rocking from side to side. The right wing then dipped, the airplane curved to its right, and then descended from view." Get the picture? There is enough in this single witness statement to suggest a classic stall/spin accident. Miraculously, the pilot survived this accident but his passengers were not so fortunate. In a written statement, the pilot told investigators that as the airplane approached the runway for landing, he increased engine power. He said the airplane yawed "the instant I gave throttle." He attempted to correct, but the airplane "went past center" to the right and left "like someone had cut the cables. The controls were not responding at all." The pilot said he then adjusted the yoke "to a neutral position, but the nose "came up [and] the plane went into a stall."
The Solution While this might sound counter-intuitive, the required corrective action in an excessive bank scenario is to actually push forward on the yoke. This will instantly "unload" the wings, thus preventing a stall. This action is followed instantly by apply full throttle and leveling the wings. If this happens at pattern altitude, however, there will likely be insufficient altitude to complete the recovery.
Please take a moment to honor these men and women by clicking HERE. You will need high speed internet access to view this video - be sure to turn the volume up. Thanks to OTA reader, Paul Pedersen of Buffalo, NY, for passing this along to us.
Just in case you thought you heard the last word on flight into "known ice" in a non-known ice certified airplane . . . . you haven't. For the legalists among us, it is important to note that there is nothing in Part 91 prohibiting flight into known ice in a non-known ice certified airplane. Sure, you might like to point to FAR 91.527. This regulation applies only to larger turbo-prop aircraft. Okay, so how about FAR 91.9? This regulation requires us to comply with placards and other operating limitations contained in the aircraft flight manual (AFM) or POH.
Hmmmm . . . so if we have an airplane with no specific POH or placarded restrictions prohibiting flight into known icing conditions, e.g., built before the mid 1970s, can we fly into known icing conditions? Certainly FAR 91.9 doesn't prohibit it and FAR 91.527 doesn't even apply. Wanna try 91.13 (careless and reckless)? Sure, you can claim that it is careless and reckless to fly a J-3 Cub into known icing conditions if you want, but you can apply that catch-all "gotcha" regulation to nearly everything else we do in airplanes. How about a 1968 Cessna 210? There is nothing anywhere in writing that prohibits this fine old non-known ice certified airplane from operating in known icing conditions, It all comes down to pilot judgment, as it should ! !
Daedalus, of Greek mythology fame, was possibly the first to issue a warning against hazardous flight when he cautioned his son, Icarus, against flying too close to the sun. Ever since then, man has been trying to promulgate rules and regulations to keep us safe as airmen. What we need are less rules and more judgment. While there is nothing wrong with a comprehensive rule book, e.g., FAR/AIM, we need to spend less time playing "cat and mouse" with the rules, and more time mastering aeronautical decision making. Risks, risks, risks . . . Thunderstorms - how much margin should we give them? Crosswinds - where do we draw the line? Circling approaches - when do we go missed? Turbulence - how much should we endure? Forecasts - are we willing to bet the farm on them? Visibility - when looking out the window, how do we really measure what is prudent for VFR flight? Sub-freezing clouds - are they all filled with ice? The answers to these and hundreds of related questions are not found in the regulations. Instead, the answers come from years of experience, passed down from pilot to students by battle-hardened flight instructors. Student pilots, sitting along side experienced instructors, witness first-hand the numerous challenges they will one day be facing as PICs. Sure, we need the rules but in the end, it will be the knowledge, skills, and judgment of experienced aviators that will determine the final outcome!
This is pure speculation, but if we could eliminate airspeed errors, we could drop our fatal accident rate by more than 50 percent. Virtually all stall/spin accidents are due, in part, to airspeed errors. Similarly, most loss of control related accidents have an airspeed component. Landing accidents? Landing too fast with resultant bounces. Landing too slow resulting in nose wheel strikes. Both of these landing mis-adventures are due to airspeed errors.
Failure to clear obstacles on takeoff? Yep. An airspeed error. Laden with ice and unable to control the airplane? Again, airspeed errors. Airspeed is king There is a reason why aircraft manufacturers place the airspeed indicator in the upper left portion of the instrument cluster (or place it prominently on the glass panel). They intend it to be in constant use by the pilot.
Airspeed is, in fact, the MOST important of all flight parameters. It is even more important than keeping the wings level. Remember, given sufficient airspeed, an airplane will fly in ANY bank angle, including inverted. But without sufficient airspeed, in cannot fly in any angle including wings level. No turns less than 70 knots
Sure, we can make turns at less than 70KIAS in our trainers, but to do so safely requires perfect coordination (ball centered). Remember, a stall with a yaw will produce a spin! Why go there? Know your critical airspeeds The standard airspeed indicator is color coded to provide critical speed information. Know those colors! Knowing the Vx, Vy, Vso, Vs1, Va, Vne and all related V speeds for your airplane is required by FAR 91.103 (all available information). Be sure you are in compliance.
One sure fire way to revitalize general aviation and to instill proper safety attitudes at the same time is for every airport in the land to conduct an "Adventures in Aviation" class at a nearby high school. We're not talking your typical ground school here. Instead, this class exposes students to all aspects of aviation, from recreational flight, to charter, to military, to airline, to air traffic control, and to airport operations. We talk about flight training and college education requirements. In short, we put the excitement in and take the mystery out of aviation. The photo below shows guest speaker, airline pilot Pete Treichler, surrounded by our Akron, NY "Adventures in Aviation" class. Pete's presentation last week included an exciting PowerPoint presentation on the day in the life of an airline pilot on an international flight.
Imagine the positive impact on general aviation if 5,000 local airports each sponsored an "Adventures in Aviation" class at a nearby high school. While our pilot number would increase dramatically, the most important benefit would be the instilling of proper flight safety attitudes at a very early age. Launching an "Adventures in Aviation" class is easy! First, find an experienced flight instructor who is willing to volunteer his or her time to the class. Next, arrange a meeting with a nearby high school principal. Explain that you would like to conduct an "Adventures in Aviation" class in his or her school one period per week during or immediately after the normal school day. Third, encourage the principal to aggressively promote this class among his or her students. Have him include announcements in pre-school materials sent home to parents before the beginning of each school year. Charge students a nominal fee, say $99 each. This will cover class materials (Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook - which can be purchased at a bulk rate discount), 30 minutes of "at the controls" flight, plus 1 hour of backseat in-flight observation, and field trips to the local air traffic control facilities and nearby aviation museum. Our last year's class of 10 high school students produced 3 private pilots. The rest were still too young . . . but we'll likely see them at the flight school real soon!
Ask most non-pilots why airplanes stop flying and they offer up several reasons. Ran out of gas, engine failure! We know better, of course. Airplanes stop flying when the wing's angle of attack exceeds the critical angle of attack. Reference to the illustration below shows how lift increases with the angle of attack. Note how quickly a high coefficient of lift suddenly drops off (stall) with just a couple degrees difference in the angle of attack.
The problem with trainers Nearly all pilots experience stall training in a two or four seat trainer like a Cessna 152 or 172 or a Piper PA-28 (Warrior or Archer). Because these airplanes are used as trainers, their manufacturers design wings to minimize "surprise" stalls. By "twisting" the wing (washout) so that the inboard portion stalls before the wing tips, the pilot is given plenty of warning of an impending stall.
Couple the trainer wing's resistance to stall with inept flight instruction where the CFI teaches stall recovery long before the wing fully stalls, we can quickly see why our pilot population is so vulnerable to stall/spin accidents. Moving up to high performance machines
Without any buffet or stick shaking, the bottom of the airplane literally fell out beneath me. I found myself instantly pressed against the six point harness I was wearing as the airplane instantly turned into a "falling brick." Most of us do not migrate up from a trainer to an Extra 300, but many of us do step up to the newer high performance glass composite aircraft like the Cirrus SR20 and the Columbia 400. Unfortunately, few of us who do this have had very little PROPER stall training. All we may have experienced was a gentle wing buffeting in a trainer before our CFI instructed us to recover. So what do we do when these high performance airplanes enter an inadvertent stall? The Cirrus folks gave us a ballistic recovery parachute. Lose control in a stall? Pull the handle. The good news is, the chute works. The bad news is, pulling the chute is a very expensive solution. In most cases, the airplane is totaled. The Columbia, Mooney, Beech, Cessna, and a host of other high performance airplane manufacturers do not give us ballistic parachutes. Lose control in stall, we better have the skills to save the day or we (and all aboard) likely die. If you have recently stepped up to a high performance aircraft and you haven't gone through stall/spin training, beware. Find an experienced CFII, find a spin certified airplane and become proficient in this maneuver.
That's right, who could possibly describe the thrill of the maiden flight of an airplane you spent four years building? We came close to doing this with Dr. Ken Condrell's RV9 through the magic of video technology. Click on the link below to view a unique video presentation produced Mark Weissman, M.D. of Buffalo, NY. Here, you will see local test pilot, Dan Maloney (wearing parachute), fly the inaugural flight of Ken's RV9 this past July. Standing by like an expectant father is Ken, dressed in cap and blue shirt. Click HERE to view this entertaining video. Be sure to turn up the audio.
FAR 91.103 requires us to have all available information prior to commencing any flight, yet how many times have we botched a landing at a non-towered field because we did not know the wind direction and speed prior to touching our wheels on the runway?
Tower controllers always give us wind information (unless it is calm) right along with our landing clearance. Even here, how many times do we ignore this valuable information, then struggle to get our airplanes on the ground. Knowing the wind direction and speed during all phases of flight makes our workload easier. Not knowing these winds can turn a routine flight into a nightmare.
Jim Leighty makes a very good point. He recognizes his wife's genuine concerns regarding the safety of general aviation. As stated earlier in this OTA issue, "If mama don't want it, it ain't going to happen!" Fortunately for Jim, however, this should not be a problem. He is likely a proficient pilot and proficiency is the key to remaining safe in the skies. He is reading and studying above aviation (he subscribes to OTA, anyway); he recognizes his wife's concern; he likely trains and flies frequently. But it is not the proficient pilots that mama has to worry about. Instead, she should harbor serious fears about the non-proficient pilot. This is the guy or girl who flies infrequently, who doesn't come out for the safety meetings, and who would rather read the daily newspaper than AOPA PILOT, Flying, IFR, IFR Refresher, Aviation Safety, or Over the Airwaves. Pilot proficiency is the key Granted, we often paint the GA pilot population with a single, broad brush. In a global sense, however, GA pilots can be divided into two categories. The first category includes me and our thousands of OTA readers. We pride ourselves in our pilot proficiency. We read all that we can get our hands on; we study aviation with a fervor that would raise our elementary school teachers from their graves; we not only fly frequently, many of us actually build airplanes! We pursue advanced pilot ratings because it forces us to learn and to improve. We are people like Cirrus pilot, Mark Croce, who called me today and said, "Bob, it's going down to minimums. Let's fly this afternoon." It's like primary student Kris Sielski who said, "Bob, the surface winds are blowing 22 knots with gusts to 32 directly across the runway. You know I hate turbulence and crosswinds, but let's fly anyway. I've got to learn this stuff." We did, and he learned! We're good, not because we know it. We're good because we do it. The second category is, well . . . the non-proficient. We can further divide this category as follows:
Where the rubber meets the road It is time that we boldly proclaim the safety differences between proficient and non-proficient pilots. We need to recognize that proficiency comes at a price and non-proficiency leads often leads to disaster. No, we should not to be publishing glossy magazines and industry reports hyping GA safety. Nor should we be quoted in newspapers and going on television proclaiming that general aviation has never been safer. Instead, we need to risk alienating a whole bunch of non-proficient GA pilots (and association members) by saying . . . . for them, GA is a very risky endeavor. More importantly, we must find ways to either remove these unsafe pilots from the system or we must change their attitude and improve their skills. It's going to be unpleasant! Whoa there, little buddy! If we take steps that serve to remove the non-proficient pilot from the system, our membership numbers (and dues) will decline! Nobody likes that option. So what do we do? One way to address the problem is to change the mindset of the non-proficient pilot. We need to stop telling him or her that GA is safer today than it has ever been. Instead, we need to boldly step forward and tell the truth. We need to say that for the non-proficient pilot general aviation is a risky endeavor. We need to say that any pilot who is not up to the task mentally, skillfully, attitudinally, or emotionally suffers a high probability of getting hurt in an airplane. When the non-proficient pilot finally gets this message, he might begin availing himself to the vast array of training opportunities, safety seminars and meetings, and on-line resources. When that happens, watch our accident rate begin to tumble.
FAA Safety Seminar
Topic: "Pilot Proficiency and
If you are a regular OTA reader and reside anywhere near
Western York, I hope you join us at this safety seminar. I
would like to personally meet you!
Click HERE to view what other readers have had to say about "Over the Airwaves."
Over the Airwaves
is not intended to be your typical training,
official news, or club-type social journal.
Instead, its intent is to stimulate thought,
enhance aviation critical thinking skills, to
encourage the strong pilot, and to disturb the
weaker pilot. With this breadth of scope,
Over the Airwaves will evoke a number of
reactions. Please feel free to share these
reactions with me by clicking
HERE.
Past Issues of Click
HERE
to open any previous issue(s) of Over
the Airwaves and to search for any past articles.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
`````````````````` |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
` |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nobody likes a naysayer, but let's face facts.
We are not doing as well as we think. Don't
believe the numbers? You think I am being too harsh
on our industry leaders?
General
aviation is on a 20 year downward slide for many
reasons. Arguably fuel prices play a role.
We do seem to have less time. Perhaps the
mystique of aviation is waning. 
Instead, look to your aircraft
brand affinity groups. If you are a Cirrus
owner, check out the training resources of COPA
(Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association) They
can point you to the best training resources. Fly a
Columbia or Bonanza? They have owners'
associations as well. They also know more
about how to fly their respective makes/models than
anyone else.
Want to do something positive
for general aviation?
As
in most post-crash analyses, we never have all of the answers -
but the loss of a Lancair last October (2005) near
Steamboat Springs, Colorado reveals a risky and all too common
pilot practice We call this practice "premature
IFR cancellation."
We
honor our veterans as we did this past November 11th for many
reasons. For us pilots, we can give a special thanks to
those aviators who have and who continue to press the envelope
so that we may climb into our airplanes and freely spin lazy
circles in the sky. 
Careful
now . . . most airplanes manufactured before the mid
1970s contain no reference in their AFM or POH to
icing at all. In fact, you will
not even find an AFM or POH for J-3 Cubs and most
other aircraft built before 1960.
While
the legalists would like to provide a regulation
covering every in-flight scenario, it is impossible
to do so. 
"No
turns less than 70 knots" is a mantra I beat
into all of my students' brains. While it may
not make perfect sense from an aerodynamic
perspective, it does keep the pitch attitude
sufficiently below the critical angle of attack to
prevent a stall/spin in the traffic pattern.
I
recall vividly my first stall experience in an Extra
300. The Extra 300 is a high performance single
used in many aerobatic airshow demonstrations.
My instructor, sitting in the back seat, told me to
reduce power and slowly pull the nose up into a
power-off stall. What resulted was a
mind chilling, bone jarring experience I will never
forget.
Sign
Up for "Over the Airwaves" 