Sunday,  January 28, 2007                                     Vol. IV No. 2 
 Free Sign Up                           Feedback                    Past Issues                       Pre-Flight Briefing  

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. 
 
X

"The high level of safety achieved in scheduled airline operations lately should not obscure the fact that most of the accidents that occurred could have been prevented.  This suggest that in many instances, the safety measures already in place may have been inadequate, circumvented or ignored."

           — International Civil Aviation Organization, 1984

Dear Pilots and Aviation Enthusiasts:      

        Recurrent Training

There are two words that can produce a dramatic reduction in our worsening GA fatal accident rate. These two words are: "recurrent training."

Recurrent training is any form of flight instruction that expands the participant's operating envelope.  For the day VFR only pilot, it might include several hours of night instruction.   For the non-proficient IFR pilot, it would certainly include several hours in the clag with an experienced CFII.

For the cross-country pilot, recurrent includes a flight though busy airspace like the Boston, New York, Atlanta, or Los Angeles TRACONs.   For the CFI, recurrent training MUST include recoveries from unusual attitudes!  For the instrument instructor, it includes unusual attitude recoveries while in IMC.  Let's not be naive' here.  This stuff happens in the real world.

Making the most of every flight hour!

Fair weather Saturday morning flights to the next town for breakfast, that $100 hamburger, or repetitive flights around the home-drome have a certain amount of entertainment value.  They are also useful for the infrequent flyer who needs to be occasionally reminded of where to insert the ignition key.

On the other hand, flights that include a review and confirmation of the aircraft performance tables, simulated engine failures, recoveries from unusual attitudes, slow flight, stall and incipient spin recoveries, flight in IFR conditions, and partial panel work can provide a big boost to any pilot's proficiency.

For the instrument pilot, recurrent training includes defensive icing strategies, emergency GPS descents, partial panel work, and unusual attitude recoveries in the clouds.

One of my favorite recurrent training exercises is "hands free" maneuvering.  This involves climbing to a safe altitude, then reducing power to your slow cruise speed.   This is followed by meticulously trimming for hands off straight and level, unaccelerated flight.

Once trimmed, climb and descend using power changes only.  All turns are made using gentle toe pressure changes on the rudder pedals.   This is all accomplished with one hand on your lap and the other on the throttle. 

Don't worry about uncoordinated flight here as most properly trimmed production GA aircraft will remain coordinated with gentle toe pressures.

Next, using the yoke, put the airplane into an unusual attitude.  Recover immediately using rudder and power changes only.  You'll be surprised how a properly trimmed airplane will quickly right itself using rudder and inputs only. 

Think you are proficient at this . . . try landing without touching the yoke or stick!  Instrument pilots - try doing this under the hood while on the ILS (with a safety pilot, of course).

Semi-annual recurrent training

One of the best ways to maintain or build our pilot proficiency is to make an appointment with an experienced flight instructor every six months.  Invest two or three hours going through each of the exercises summarized above.

Each of these sessions will likely provide us with one or more piloting tips that could spell the difference between happiness and disaster! 

For those of us who believe ourselves to be already proficient, consider investing in aerobatic or extreme maneuvers recovery training.  Or we can pursue that next rating or certificate level.  Not only will our skills improve, our insurance rates may be reduced in the process!

A word about costs

No discussion of recurrent pilot training is complete without addressing the matter of costs.  Sure, this stuff is expensive.  The aircraft and instructor costs for each recurrent training session can easily approach $500 or $600.

This is not chump change for even the most well-healed pilot.  The cost of flying is a challenge for all of us.  But the cost of non-proficiency goes off of the chart, particularly when it results in mishap.

The hard reality is . . . . those of us who fly have two choices.  We can invest in flight safety, which includes recurrent training.  Or, we can have a heart-to-heart conversation with ourself about giving it all up.

This is a tough choice, but there is only one right answer for YOU!
 

Fly safe,

Bob Miller, ATP, CFII
Buffalo, NY
rjma@rjma.com
716-864-8100
 

 

Fuel Starvation - Fatal Oversights!

The pilot of a Piper PA28-181 (Archer) took off in good VFR conditions from the Moraine Airport in Dayton, Ohio. 

Everything was routine until reaching about 500 feet.  Then the engine sputtered!

The pilot pressed the mike button and broadcasted the following message:

"...I have zero fuel pressure and I'm going in."

A friend of this pilot happened to be flying in the pattern at the time this distress call was made.  He called the pilot and asked if he had the electric fuel pump on and the pilot responded "Yes."

During the emergency descent, the airplane collided with trees and fell to the ground. The pilot was fatally injured.

Accident Investigator Findings

The following extract from the NTSB report points to the source of the problem.

The leading edges of both wings were dented and crushed aft. The left fuel tank was intact and about 12 to 15 gallons of fuel was captured. 

The right wing fuel tank was torn near the forward inboard leading edge and tree bark and leaves were embedded. The right fuel tank was empty and no fuel stains were noted on the airframe structure. Additionally, no fuel was noted on the ground around the right fuel tank.

Not one . . . but two pilot oversights!

It is clear from the accident findings that this 1,034 hour single and multi-engine rated pilot took off with the fuel selector positioned on the near-empty right fuel tank.  When the engine quit, neither he nor his friend circling above thought to switch tanks!

 Probable Cause Finding:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE PILOT'S FAILURE TO SWITCH FUEL TANKS WHICH LED TO FUEL STARVATION AND SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF ENGINE POWER

Imagine yourself as the friend flying above the distressed airplane.  You hear the distress call.  You have only seconds to offer a lifesaving suggestion.  What would your suggestion be?

Sure . . . . switch fuel tanks!  Had our man switched his fuel tank selector, he would likely be alive today to tell about his near-death experience!

Switching fuel tanks is nearly always the solution!

Curiously, many airplanes and their crew have met an untimely end due to what appeared at the time to be fuel exhaustion.  When the investigators arrived on the scene, they found plenty of fuel in at least one of several other tanks. 

Worse, they found the airplane engulfed with flames, fueled by gas found in another tank(s).

The first thing we do when experiencing a rough running engine

Each of us should be "spring loaded" to switch fuel tanks whenever a rough engine is encountered.  This will solve the vast majority of rough running engine issues.  Turning on the electric fuel pump may help, but only if the rough running engine is caused by a failed mechanical fuel pump.

Of course, proper fuel management from pre-flight to cruise, to landing, will prevent a fuel exhaustion scenario.  This means departing with adequate fuel, properly distributed among the aircraft's multiple fuel tanks.  Obviously, making timely (every 30 to 60 minutes) fuel tank changes goes without saying!

NTSB Report

 

"Mushing" Off the Runway

One of the most fascinating places to learn about aerodynamics is along side the departure runway at Sun 'n Fun or AirVenture in Oshkosh.  Here, you will observe heavily loaded airplanes literally "mushing" themselves into the air. 

Anxious to keep up with rapid-fire tower controllers' commands, their hapless pilots firewall the throttle and yank their stick or yoke into their belly to get their faithful birds airborne as soon as possible.  The nose slowly lifts off of the pavement.  The airplane seems to waddle as it climbs in ground effect.

Struggling from the adverse effects of maximum gross takeoff weight, oppressively high density altitude, and poor pilot technique, it is a wonder that the airplane makes it over the fence!  

Enter the world of "Reverse Command"

Airplanes exhibit strange qualities when operating at slow speeds.   In fact, if we get them going slow enough, the application of MORE power will cause them to go SLOWER!

When this happens, the airplane is said to have entered the "region of reversed command or behind the power curve."  Unless the pilot corrects this situation, the results can be disastrous. 

Looking at the chart (right), the curving orange line represents various power settings of an airplane in level flight. 

When the airplane is traveling faster than its best endurance speed, the addition of power, when maintained in level flight, results in increase airspeed.  This is as we would expect.

Note what happens when the airplane is traveling below its endurance speed.  Here, the addition of power causes the airplane to fly slower.  This is the "region of reversed command."

Back to the runway at Sun 'n Fun or Oshkosh . . .

The pilot applies maximum power at brake release.  Anxious to get airborne, the pilot rotates before reaching the best endurance speed for his or her airplane.  Still in ground effect, the airplane slowly "mushes" off the runway.  

Now in the "region of reversed command," the continued application of full power results in a reduction in airspeed.   Moments later, the airplane teeters on the edge of a departure stall. 

The Solution

The ONLY solution our hapless pilot has is to immediately INCREASE airspeed by lowering the nose.  He must hold the nose DOWN long enough to permit the airspeed to increase beyond its best endurance speed.  When this is achieved, his pitch angle can be slowly increased to produce the desired climb rate.

This entire sad scenario can be prevented by not permitting the airplane to ever enter the "region of reversed command."  Given the fact that total power is fixed, our only controllable variable is airspeed.  We control airspeed, of course, with pitch!

 

Master the Steep Spiral - It could save your life!

Of all the in-flight exercises we practice, the steep spiral offers one of the most profound benefits, particularly to the instrument pilot in or above the clouds.

Here's the scenario . . .

You are cruising along at 12,000 feet.  A solid undercast at 9,000' covers the entire sky below you.  Then it happens.  Your once smooth running engine begins to miss-fire.  Black oil covers your windscreen.

One of your four or six cylinders just self-destructed following its ingestion of an exhaust valve.  You pull the mixture to idle cut-off and you turn the fuel valve to off.  The sudden quietness of the engine is deafening!

Instinctively, you reach over and press the nearest button on your GPS and note that there is a suitable airport just three miles off of your left wing.  Pitching to best glide speed, you point your disabled aircraft in the direction of the airport.

Still above the clouds, you have got just one shot at the airport.  You are uncertain of the wind direction at the lower altitudes.  You need time to sort things out.

The Steep Spiral Saves the Day!

While nothing new to the pilot who recently completed his or her commercial checkride, the steep spiral is the perfect solution to this in-flight emergency.  The only difference is that in this scenario, the maneuver is performed solely by reference to the GPS moving map.  Remember, the guy was above or in IMC when the engine tanked.

The idea is to glide directly over the target airport by reference to the GPS screen.  Next, adjust the range on the screen so that the position of your airplane over the airport is easily monitored.

The remainder of the maneuver is performed just as it was on the commercial checkride.  Establish your best glide speed, then initiate a 45 to 60 degree bank turn directly over the target airport.   Caution, since this maneuver is performed in IMC, you may wish to limit your bank angle to 45 degrees.

Necessary adjustments will, of course, have to be made to remain directly above the airport.

The final step in this maneuver is to insure that you arrive at an altitude where you would normally turn from the downwind to the base leg in the airport traffic pattern.  This is called the "key point." 

There is one additional factor that must be present for the steep spiral to work in this scenario.  That factor is . . . the cloud bases over the airport must be at least at pattern altitude!

Practice, Practice, Practice 

There is only one way to insure that the steep spiral maneuver will save the day in this scenario.  That is, the pilot must be proficient in its use.  Go out and practice this maneuver under the hood or in IMC (with a block altitude clearance, of course).  Be sure to have a safety pilot on board when you do this the first several times.

In summary, the practical usefulness of this maneuver for the instrument pilot is so important that thought should be given to including it in the Instrument Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) for pilots in airplanes equipped with GPS moving maps.

 

Skiing Adventure - Mont Tremblant, Quebec, Canada

One of the real joys of owning your own aircraft is the ability to get up and go just about anywhere you want to go, without booking airline reservations and enduring oppressive security checks.

This weekend trip to Mont Tremblant, located about 100 northwest of Montreal, Canada, is the reason this week's issue of OTA was published a few hours late.  We made this trip from Buffalo, NY in 1.7 hours.  The normal driving time would have been 6 to 7 hours.  

My wife, Jo, put this trip into my Christmas stocking - hotel, meals, and lift tickets.  My only responsibility was to get us there!

Pictured below is me and 16 year old daughter, Erica.

Pictured left is my wife, Jo, at the base of Mont Tremblant Village.

We aviators have the tremendous privilege of taking to the skies just about anytime we wish.  But the real joy comes to those whose spouses have an equal love of general aviation.

When Jo accepted my proposal for marriage some 18 years ago, she knew that I came with airplane.  If she accepted me, she'd have to accept the airplane and its benefits as well.

Jo is a flying fan.  She has accompanied me in N4720Y to every major city east of the Mississippi.  And she's consented to a somewhat longer trip to Alaska this coming summer.

Pilots . . . if your spouse enjoys flying with you, treat that person like gold!  It is, indeed, a special blessing.

The Mont Tremblant International Airport is something less than what someone from USA might expect.  It is a picturesque log structured facility (pictured behind my Cessna 210 above).  It has a single runway (03/21) with a GPS approach. 

It was -25d C on the ground when we arrived this past Friday morning.  Brrrrrr . . .   I was able to plug my Tannis heater into local AC power for our three day stay.   

Again, the freedom to get up an go, anywhere in North America is a privilege that should never be taken for granted!

 

Improper Control Inputs in the Spin!

A trauma surgeon recently mentioned to me that if we could remove motorcycles from the highway and achieve mandatory seatbelt compliance, we could close 85 percent of our nation's hospital emergency departments.   While pure speculation, the thought is intriguing.

Here's another speculative thought.  What would be the impact on the fatal GA accident rate if ALL pilots knew how to recover from spins?

Getting into the cockpit for a look

We have another short video that provides a dramatic look at the anatomy of a spin.  You will see how incorrect control inputs exacerbate the spin.  More importantly, you will see how the CORRECT control inputs return spinning the airplane immediately to stable, wings level flight.

The key, of course, is to know what those correct control inputs are.  Click HERE to view the video, then return here for further discussion.  (Note: This video was produced by Fighter Combat International)

In this video we witnessed how the application of power and either left or right rudder did nothing but aggravate the spin.  View it again and watch the actual aileron movements. 

Application of the proper control inputs to stop the spin

Viewing this video repeatedly, we can see how the correct control inputs instantly recovers the spinning aircraft.  Listen carefully to the pilot's words as applies the correct inputs.  Memorizing his words could save our life should we ever find ourselves in an unintentional spin.

Here is what he said: "Power off; Ailerons neutral; Rudder full opposite of yaw direction; Elevator briskly forward toward neutral."

This is known as the "PARE" stall recovery technique developed by Rich Stowell and now used in most aerobatic training programs.

P Power off
A Ailerons neutral
R Rudder full opposite of yaw direction
E Elevator briskly forward toward neutral

Memorize this technique, then go back and run the video again, repeatedly, until it is firmly set in your mind!

If most stall/spin accidents occur close to the ground where they are essentially non-recoverable, why should I bother learning this technique?

Air Safety Foundation executive director, Bruce Landsberg, argues that since most stall/spin accidents happen in the traffic pattern where they are non-recoverable, it is unnecessary for pilots to undergo spin training.  Regrettably, this kind of "head in the sand" thinking leaves far too many pilots dangerously unprepared to recognize the flight configurations that result in a stall/spin event.

Beginning the stall/spin event

Returning again to the video, we see how the stall/spin event began.  First, the pilot put the airplane into a stall.  Without a stall, there can be NO spin.  Thus, the earliest warning sign of a stall/spin event is any flight attitude where the wings' angle of attack approaches the "critical" angle of attack.

While we all know that a stall can occur at ANY airspeed, the typical unintended stall/spin event begins at indicated airspeeds approaching the published Vs (stall speed) of the airplane.  Fly slow, stalls are possible.  What many of us forget is that Vs (stall speed) increases with bank angle!

In the real world, a stall can happen unexpectedly when we slow to Va (maneuvering) speed when encountering turbulence.  As our attention shifts from the airspeed indicator to the havoc caused by moderate to severe turbulence, we fail to note a sudden decay in airspeed.  

We do observe a downward pointing VSI (vertical speed indicator), so we pitch up to regain lost altitude and a stall results!

Second, the video illustrates the second ingredient of a stall/spin event.  This is the yaw created by uncoordinated flight.  The pilot kicked the rudder to the left to produce a left-turning spin while holding back pressure on the stick (as when trying to maintain or regain altitude in turbulence).

The result . . . we have a stall which becomes aggravated by uncoordinated flight.  If every pilot understood and was able to recognize this fact alone, we could put an end to our over 50 fatal stall/spin accidents that occur every year.

Solution . . .

While looking at this video and reviewing the aerodynamics of a stall/spin event is helpful, the ONLY truly effective way to master this topic is to engage an experienced flight instructor and practice the PARE spin recovery technique in a spin-certified aircraft.

Short of this, go out and practice stalls, particularly accelerated and cross-controlled stalls.  Observe how quickly a stalled/yawed aircraft rolls into the first turn of a spin.  Do this a few times and your likelihood of ever encountering an unintended stall/spin event will be reduced to zero!

 

The MOST Important Instrument!!!

As every proficient instrument pilot knows, having an effective instrument scan is the key to safe flight in the clouds.

But what we sometimes do not appreciate is that at any given time, one instrument is more important than all of the others. 

This is why we refer to certain instruments as primary and others as supportive in any given flight attitude.

But what about the VFR-Only Pilot?

The notion of primary and supportive instruments is certainly included in the private pilot training syllabus.  This important topic, however, is occasionally learned in preparation for the checkride, then soon forgotten.

Looking at the above instrument panel, for example, which gauge is the MOST important in a VFR climb?  Sure . . . . it's the airspeed indicator.  No argument here, right?

Next, which two instruments are the MOST important when carrying ice on the wings in IFR conditions?   Yep . . . . the airspeed indicator still reigns supreme.  The other is the heading indicator.  Remember, if the heading indicator is not turning, we are not banking! 

It's more than keeping the wings level

Nobody will argue the importance of keeping the wings level, particularly when in the clouds, at night over unlit terrain, in severe turbulence, or when inside a thunderstorm. 

Tragically, many a doomed pilot have overlooked the airspeed indicator when struggling to keep the wings level.  Thus, the airplane either gets too slow resulting in a stall and possible spin.  Or, the airplane gets going too fast and structural damage results!

Partial panel exercises should include covering the Airspeed Indicator!

Curiously, typical partial panel exercises consist of covering the attitude and heading indicators only.  While important, this leaves the hapless pilot unprepared to handle an inadvertent loss of the most important gauge on the panel . . . the airspeed indicator.

Next time, try covering the airspeed indicator and see how well you do relying upon other instruments.   Hmmmm . . .

Which two instruments would you rely upon?   

One, of course, would be the tachometer or manifold pressure gauge.  The other would be the angle of attack gauge.  Huh, angle of attack gauge????  Do we have one of these on most single engine GA airplanes? 

In summary, the airspeed indicator is the most important gauge on our panel.  Without airspeed, we cannot fly!

 

Easy Fuel Planning Can Save You BIG Bucks!!

One of the major oddities about general aviation is the enormous range of fuel prices.  Right here in Western New York, we can get avgas pumped into our tanks at the Buffalo/Niagara International Airport's Prior Aviation for $5.10 a gallon or we can travel 12 miles over to the Akron Airport and do it ourselves for $3.45 a gallon!

Going to the New York City area? 

We can spend $7.42 a gallon at Teterboro's Atlantic Aviation or we can hop over to the Westchester Airport (which is equally accessible to Manhattan) and get the same gas pumped for us for $4.04 a gallon.  Big difference!

Now imagine taking a cross-country flight in your Beech Bonanza, say from Peoria, Illinois to the Orlando, FL area.   You can save nearly $50.00 each way in total aircraft operating costs depending upon which enroute airport you select to refuel!!

How do you select the cheapest fuel sources?

Airnav.com has posted a wonderful website that enables us to plug in the departure and destination points of any flight we wish to make.   Click on this site, then answer a few short questions about your airplane and preferred travel profile.  Within seconds, this site will direct you to the most economical route of flight with recommended refueling locations.

We have posted a link to this site on the Over the Airwaves Pre-flight Briefing link at the top of each OTA issue.

 

Wrong Altimeter Setting Spells Disaster for Cessna 210 Pilot

What happens when we forget to update our altimeter setting before commencing an instrument approach to ILS minimums? 

This 1,860 hour C-210 pilot hauling cancelled checks in the middle of the night learned the answer to this question the hard way.

The pilot's duty day began at 6pm with a departure from Cahokia, Illinois.  After making his scheduled rounds, he began a descent a little after 4am into the Springfield Regional Airport, Springfield, Missouri. 

The first link in the accident chain!

A baggage handler who helped load the airplane prior to his last leg to Springfield testified that the accident pilot "looked very tired and fatigued."

As is often the case with late night cargo runs, the pilot's greatest enemy is fatigue.  Likely awake for 12 hours or more even before commencing this  night mission, fatigue clearly took its toll on this pilot's mental faculties.

The second link in the accident chain!

While being vectored for the approach, the Kansas City Center controller called and gave the pilot the weather for the Springfield Airport as follows:


KANSAS CITY CENTER: 

" . . . the new Springfield weather just came out uh has still has two hundred feet overcast.  Visibility uh one and one-quarter mile now and uh mist.  Wind one five zero at one niner gusting to two four.  Altimeter uh is uh three zero two four."

C-210 PILOT:

"Three zero two four . . ."


The pilot was given and read back the altimeter setting.  Did he actually make the necessary change on the altimeter???? 

The accident investigators reported that even though the pilot was given a 30.24" altimeter setting, the airplane's altimeter still displayed 30.50" in the Kollsman window.  This 0.26" difference meant that the pilot was flying 260' lower than he thought.

The third link in the accident chain!

The reported weather at the Springfield Airport was a 200 feet overcast ceiling with one-half mile visibility in fog.   Winds were reported at 150 degrees at 18 knots with gust to 23 knots.

The pilot selected the Runway 2 approach, which created a gusty tailwind for this approach to minimums.

The fourth and fatal link in the accident chain!

Below is the profile view of the Springfield Airport ILS 2 approach.  Note the number 2470 printed immediately above the final approach fix (FAF).  This is the altitude that should appear on the aircraft's altimeter when passing directly over the FAF with a centered glideslope needle.

Had there been a 260' error in altimeter setting, the accident pilot would have noted the error when passing over the FAF.


The Wreckage

The main wreckage was 379 feet to the right of centerline of runway 02 and .97 mile away (016 degrees) from the runway threshold.  The fatal aircraft impacted the ground one mile short of the runway.

Sure, had he kept the needles centered, the ILS should have taken him to the runway touchdown zone, regardless of altimeter setting.  But what if he was riding a bit below the glideslope needle and had been using his altimeter for altitude guidance?  That could have been the scenario that got him!

Lessons for all of us . . .

This tragic wreck contains lessons for all of us.  The first, of course, is our brain.  This wonderfully created organ turns much of itself off whenever we are sleep deprived.  Normal things that we depend upon our brain to resolve are often missed.

Second, our altimeters increase in importance the closer we get to the ground.  This is certainly the case on any instrument approach to minimums.   On the ILS, the instrument procedure designers provide us with an exact altitude that we should be at when crossing the FAF with a centered glideslope needle.  If that number varies from our altimeter display by more than 50' or so, something is amiss.  Go around!!!

NTST Report

 

Quotable

"I think we need a call center staffed with experienced, weather proficient, IFR rated high time pilots to help answer the question “Should I go?” 

   -- Jacob Locke

Every pilot since the Wright Brothers looks at the sky and asks the following question:  "Should I go?"  Is it too windy, are the clouds too low, do I have sufficient visibility?

For instrument pilots, this question is more difficult to answer.  Am I likely to accrete ice on the climb-out?  What is the probability to encountering embedded thunderstorms?  Can I punch through sub-freezing clouds in hopes of reaching warmer air above?  Where are my back doors?

The infamous "Go/No Go Decision."

The decision to go or to remain on the ground is arguably the most important decision any pilot can make.  The annals of aviation accident history is replete with examples where the pilot made the wrong decision.  These pilots bet the farm on the "Go" decision, then lost the farm!

OTA reader, Jacob Locke, a 250 hour instrument pilot recently wrote OTA and suggested that a good way to prevent wrong "go/no go" decisions would be to create a "Go/No Go Call Center" manned by experienced IFR pilots.  

Low time pilots could then contact this call center prior to departure, describe the weather conditions at our departure airport.  A highly experienced call center volunteer pilot would make the "Go/No Go" decision for them.

Before contacting the call center, they would, of course, sign a liability release form to protect the volunteer should he or she make the wrong choice.

Hat's off to Mr. Locke!

Jacob Locke deserves our kudos for his creative thinking.  The airlines have  used the call center concept for decades to help resolve complicated in-flight aircraft maintenance problems.  A quick call to the company's maintenance base puts the crew in immediate touch with the experts who have all of the manuals, procedures, and experience to help diagnose and resolve nearly any in-flight maintenance issue. 

Routing around weather questions?  Here again, the airline guys have a dispatch department to work out their flight planning for them.

Why couldn't we GA pilots make this concept work in making "go/no go" decisions?

So what is wrong with a "Go/No Go Call Center concept?"

On the surface, having a "Go/No Go Call Center" makes very good sense.  It makes good sense because of major shortcomings in our flight training system!

Sadly, most low time instrument pilots have NOT been provided workable "go/no go" decision making skills.  One reason for this is because the Instrument Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) contains no reference to the requirement to demonstrate "go/no go" skills. 

Yep . . . the most important decision an instrument pilot can make is not even addressed in the Instrument Pilot PTS!  Sure, there is passing reference to aeronautical decision making and risk management assessment.  But there is nothing pertaining to "go/no go" decision making.

Since there is no such reference in the PTS, most skills and independent CFIIs do not include "go/no go" decision making in their training syllabi.  Since most CFIIs come up through these same training programs, they too lack even basic "go/no go" decision making skills.

Thus, the only effective way to develop sound "go/no go" decision making skills is through experience.  It's either that, or Mr. Locke's suggestion to create a "Go/No Go Call Center" (which doesn't exist)!   Pretty grim, right?

Developing effective "Go/No Go" decision making skills

Forget about the "Go/No Go" call center.  It will never happen!  And it's not likely we'll be seeing any changes to the Instrument PTS anytime soon, flight schools won't be adding "Go/No Go" decision making to their training syllabi either.

Thus we're left with two options.  The first is to live long enough as a pilot to acquire the real world experience to hone our "go/no go" decision making skills to our repertoire.  The second is to become a student of effective "go/no go" decision making skills.   I like the latter option.

So let's begin . . .

The basis of all "go/no go" decision making is the principle of the "back door."  Simply put, if I make the wrong decision and elect to launch, where can I safely go if things go wrong?

Look at the following METAR report for the Buffalo/Niagara International Airport.  You are flying a TKS-equipped Cirrus SR22.  Would you launch?

 

KBUF 152154Z 00000KT 4SM -FZDZ BR BKN004 OVC008 M02/M02 A2978

If said anything other than "no," let me respectfully suggest that you lock your airplane in the hangar until July.  Okay, so that was an easy one.

Below is the METAR for Pittsburgh.  This time you are piloting a Cessna 172.  Would you launch?

 

KPIT 152151Z 27012KT 3SM -DZ BR FEW011 BKN016 OVC023 11/10 A2980

Hmmmm . . . . This one has possibilities for the proficient instrument pilot. 

A normal temperature lapse rate would put the 3000' temperature at about +6d F.  A check of the winds/temps aloft chart could confirm this.  We'd need to know what the MVA (minimum vectoring altitude) along our planned route of flight is.

Much more, of course, would go into this "go/no go" decision, but you get the idea.

Who makes your "Go/No Go" decision?

If you are a student pilot or you are working on your instrument rating, the "go/no go" decision should be made by YOU, not your instructor!  Once you make your decision, explain the basis for your decision to your instructor.

If your instructor thinks you are being too conservative, he or she should explain why.  If you are being too aggressive, your instructor should explain why.  This is the only way you will develop effective "go/no go" skills.

The most important aspect of effective "go/no go" decision making skills is that you base it upon objective factors.  In every case, your decision will include golden "back doors" should your decision prove to be incorrect!


Bob Miller, ATP, CFII
Buffalo, NY

rjma@rjma.com
716-864-8100
 

 

Read Back

The following reader comments were received over the past 14 days:

"Amazing!  In short, this is how I describe Over the airwaves.  I love it!"
-- Mo Kaissi, Tampa, FL

"Absolutely awesome website!  I am a real world pilot and think it is great to have this kind of information refreshed regularly. Keep up the good work and happy landings."
-- Gurcharan Bhoday, London, England


"I was taking an on-line survey published by AOPA in which they asked what other aviation electronic newsletters I received.  Over the Airwaves was one of them on the list. I had never heard of it but I checked it out.  I'm very impressed with all the good advice you have to offer."
-- Jim Tuchscherer, Oelwein, IA

Reply:  Hmmm . . . why would AOPA be taking a bead on OTA?
Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 

"What is your skinny on the WINGS program? I am a low time (400) hour senior pilot who just obtained certificate at age 66. Our plane is based at Prior Aviation and I attend every safety seminar I can and make sure I do a WINGS program yearly.  As I age (71)I feel more and more comfortable in flying with another pilot or even a CFI.  Is this unusual behavior?"
--
Al Pautler, Buffalo, NY

 
Reply:  The WINGS program is a wonderful way to maintain currency IF two things happen.  First, the required three hours of flight training must be productive.  Second, a WINGS phase needs to be completed EVERY year.

Curiously, I recently encountered a private pilot who hadn't flown solo in over 20 years.   His only recent flying activity was three hours of dual instruction and attendance at an FAA sponsored safety meeting.  This qualified him for a WINGS phase, which substitutes for a biennial flight review!  Is this guy ready to be turned loose in the national airspace system?  You be the judge!

There is nothing wrong with flying with another pilot or CFI as long as YOU are manipulating the controls and making the decisions.  Its easy to let the other guy do all of this, which doesn't do much for your own proficiency.
Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 


"A pilot friend forwarded Over the Airwaves.  I find all the information is excellent review.  I'm concerned that my flying skills might suffer while building my RV6. Thanks for making OTA available."
-- Stanley A Hill, Scottsbluff, NE


"Bob, you are in a position where you influence young women interested in aviation. Why, then, do you still use language that offends and belittles half the population?  I am referring to your Jan 14 email rant.

You wrote:
"We cannot afford to have AOPA assign the safety task entirely to the aunt in the bedroom."

Good grief. Where the hell did you get that phrase?Clean it up, Bob."
-- Joanne Heckmann, Buffalo, NY

Reply: Ouch!  How did OTA's crack, all male proofing department allow that venomous insult to all womenkind get through?  Shame on us!

Next time I'll refer to the "crazy uncle in the basement."  That should offend the other half of the population.

Now, back to the real problems in general aviation.
--Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 


"I found Over the Airwaves through a link on DCPILOTS.net, a YAHOO group of Washington area pilots.  I've not read all of this issue yet, but so far I have seen enough to make me think about my piloting experiences in a new light."
--  Richard Lowman, Oak Hill, VA


"Thanks for a great publication.  I am only a 300 hour private pilot and I eat up every word you print. The piece on getting some training in real IMC conditions is very encouraging.  I have tried to get real training, but was told I should go the entire route or forget it.  I'm not ready to go the entire route yet, so I will seek training somewhere else."
-- Robbie Mabry

Reply: Bravo!  If your flight school or instructor refuses to take you into the clouds, fire him (or her)!   Every pilot, from primary student to ATP, must become comfortable on the gauges, if for no other reason than to be able to make a safe 180 degree turn to VFR conditions.  Our failure to provide this minimal kind of training is singularly responsible for far too many fatal crashes.
Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 

"My flight instructor showed me Over the Airwaves. I appreciate the honest straight forward insight into our world. Thanks."
-- George McDaniel, Mission Viejo, CA


"I continue to read and refer to the various articles contained in Over the Airwaves with interest. Your themes hit home. The more I read the more I become concerned that I will be unable to maintain the skills necessary to maintain proficiency as I work towards an instrument rating.

I do try to attend all the local WINGS programs. That is obviously a minimal effort.  Since I see pilots at these meetings with canes and walkers, I wonder if this is a true representation of our population.  Perhaps younger pilots are home with their kids.  Maybe general aviation is slowly being extinguished by computer simulation, inconvenience, and indifference in a complex busy society?

An even greater concern to me is the message you reiterate on a regular basis about the one accident a day trend in GA.  Other than getting the message out, which is a laudable idea and goal, are other facts from other countries available from which one might argue for a more comprehensive system of recurrent but non-voluntary training?"
-- David J. Rodman, MD, Buffalo, NY
 

Reply: Our pilot population is, indeed, aging faster than young people are joining our ranks.  There are many reasons for this, several of which you correctly identified. 

I believe that much of this problem has to do with an innate fear of small airplanes by many of today's parents and young wives (or husbands).  Unfortunately, their fears are made real by the media's daily reporting of fatal crashes.

Whether or not the solution can be found in other countries is open to speculation.  Clearly, we do not want to stifle general aviation by oppressive federal regulation, but there needs to be some equitable mid-point.

My thesis throughout my work with Over the Airwaves is that self-awareness of the risks of being a non-proficient pilot provides suitable self-motivation to either become a proficient pilot or to quit flying.  Simple choice, simple solution.

It is difficult to imagine AOPA or any other GA organization coming up with the same thesis.  When they do, things will begin to turn around.
-- Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 


"I enjoy reading Over the Airwaves and I find your site's approach to learning a very compelling read. Thanks in advance for future life-saving reads."
-- Ed Grodecki, Oakville, Ontario, Canada


"Over the Airwaves is a great publication.  I am a flight instructor at the Plymouth Mettetal Airport 1D2, Michigan. Your articles are great and certainly will help me with some aspects of flight instruction.  I have often said that it is easy to teach flying but teaching judgment is another matter. Please add me to your e-mail list."
--  Thomas Goulding, Canton, Michigan


"What you teach in Over the Airwaves is wonderful.  It works.  It is interesting and available to the masses.  As for the ""more training"" message stated over and over again in OTA, you are are talking to the wrong people.  Every pilot with a heartbeat understood ""more training"" the first time you said it."
-- Tom Lansing

Reply: As for repeating the "more training" message, I respectfully disagree.  This message must be repeated frequently and loudly. And the people who need to hear it are not necessarily the individual pilots, as you might suspect.  Rather, it needs to be heard by AOPA and the other large GA membership organizations.

These groups have the clout to block any positive changes to FAR Part 61 that would require, for example, annual (rather than biennial) flight reviews. This simple change, alone, would reduce our fatal accident rate by 50% or more, in my opinion. 

Sure, this would prove to be a burden on proficient pilots, but good people have long paid a hefty price because of the inept actions of the few.  So what else is new?

The "more training" message also needs to be heard by pilots who received their primary training from 19 year old CFIs who have less than 50 hours total solo time and who have no clue about real world aeronautical decision making and risk management assessment . . . for example.

No, a one time mention of "more training" won't cut it, not by a long shot.  Thanks for your input, as always.
-- Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 


Bob:  I have a passion for aviation but little free time to pursue it.  I am a 52 year old private pilot, Type A personality, plastic surgeon.  I have 250 hours and SEL, MEL, SES, and glider ratings with high performance, complex and tail wheel endorsements.

I am a member of AOPA, EAA and my local Flight School and go to ASF Seminars, local and regional Air Shows and Oshkosh.  I subscribe to multiple aviation magazines, online information sources such as Aero-News, AvWeb podcasts, and I regularly practice IFR on my home PCATD with MS Flight Simulator X, X- Plane, and with ASA On Top and IP Trainer.

I have recently only flown with CFII's while finishing my IFR Rating.  I have limited free time to just go out and practice flying by myself.  I only fly solo every few months in rented planes when I have to be somewhere cross country in a hurry.

Your publication validated my fear that, although I can ace any written, oral or flight examination, I was nevertheless flying unsafely without weekly practice flights.

The FBO seemed to have endless and costly training opportunities and planes like the Cirrus SR-22 and the Columbia 400 for me to buy or Shares in these and other planes such as the Baron or other twins. 

Despite their assurances that I was a 'good enough pilot' to own and fly these fast aircraft, I always had a nagging fear that, unless I purposefully scheduled and took the time for more solo practice, all this training time and ratings were not going to save my life or that of my family and and/or passengers should an emergency occur with me as PIC.

Your admonition to either fly weekly or do not fly at all for safety's sake may have been hinted at but has never been brought to my awareness as forcefully as was done in your publication. Thank you!

Now I have some soul-searching to do regarding taking the time for weekly practice flights to truly become a safe and proficient pilot vs. continuing on the path toward aircraft and knowledge acquisition, but putting myself and others at undue risk.

In addition, I think it has also been the first time that I realized there would be no insurance coverage if there was any finding of any FAA rule violation on my way to an accident.  The stark reality of a high performance hangar queen, an over-confident but non-proficient pilot, and a lack of insurance coverage to handle the resulting financial catastrophe of a deadly accident should be a wake up call to every GA pilot out there.

Thank you again. You may have saved several lives and all the related loss that reverberates through our world when loss of life occurs."
-- PC, MD

Reply:  Doctor . . . you exhibit wisdom far beyond that of many of your high achieving pilot colleagues!  We have an endless supply of training publications, aviation magazines, safety seminars, training DVDs coupled with big GA membership organizations telling us we're "good and getting better."

Truth is, unless we're personally committed to frequent flying and aggressive recurrent training, our risk of a fatal encounter increases with each passing week of aerial inactivity.

Short of playing recklessly with a loaded handgun, nothing can go wrong faster than when piloting an airplane, particularly when flying solely by reference to instruments.

The painful conclusion is, we either commit to frequent flight and regularly scheduled recurrent training or we sell the airplane.

I suspect that your patients have very good outcomes because you practice your profession frequently.  We, as pilots, can expect no less.
-- Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 



"As a follow-up on your January 14th article on emergency landings, you mention broadcasting your co-ordinates with a MAYDAY. When flying over areas I otherwise know fairly well, I usually keep my GPS on the co-ordinates page just for the reason you mention. Now for the question. 

I am in a quandary over whether to make the distress call on 121.5 or some other commonly used frequency that other pilots may be more apt to monitor. If I had but a minute or two to make this call, I would hate to think it had not been heard."
--
Hugh Schoelzel
 

Reply:  Very good question!  I'd make the call on a frequency that I was certain that somebody was monitoring.   Making such calls on 121.5 will capture ATC's attention if they can receive it from your position.  With only a minute or two, you'd likely still have time to use both frequencies to make your emergency call.
-- Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 


"I totally agree with the concept, of regular/recurrent training, in particular for those of us with an IFR ticket.
One way to make this happen is to schedule your flying, a bit like your regular visit at the gym.  Put it in your agenda !!  Take a pilot friend and compare your respective flying."
-- Jean Morin, Montreal, Canada

"I commend you for your concern about safety and what you are doing with OTA.  It seems like aviation safety is similar to weather when Mark Twain remarked, "Everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it."  I’ve got a suggestion on safety and how it might be improved and I have some suggestions.

There is no incentive for pilots to continue their training.   I don’t understand why the aviation insurance companies are unwilling to offer incentives to pilots who conduct recurring training.  If there is a direct actuarial connection between training and reduced numbers of accidents, it would seem to be in their benefit to discount insurance for recurrent training."
--  Rich Wiederhold  

Reply:  Some insurance companies actually do give a discount for recurrent training.  Remember, however, that insurance companies are closely regulated.  They are permitted to earn a fair return on investment.  Thus, the greater their payouts, the more premiums they can charge policyholders.   Ergo, the greater their premium income, the larger their return on investment.

Paradoxical as it may sound, if we stopped having accidents, insurance companies would be out of business.  They certainly do not want that.  Connect the dots!
-- Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 


"Bob:  I do a formal 3-day proficiency course annually and work with an instructor off and on. I fly for business and pleasure, coast to coast, border to border, and beyond now and then.  I believe in keeping my airplane and self well maintained and I am active in type club which I think is important.

Your journal was forwarded to me by a 'round-the-world flying friend of many years.  Keep up the great work!"
-- Shirley A. Roberts,  Colleyville, TX

Reply: Well, Shirley, I put the odds of you doing something stupid in an airplane at just about zero!
-- Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 

"I like to read everything aviation -related, especially as it relates to safety. Over the Airwaves site looks perfect for that."
-- Noel E. Oman, Little Rock, Arkansas


"I think Over the Airwaves is wonderfully enlightening. If I were to recommend a new aviation safety regulation, it would be to make Over the Airwaves required reading by all pilots. However, that's about where my affinity toward increased regulation ends.

You make indisputably solid arguments about the need for more and better education and training while berating great organizations who desire nothing but the best for general aviation.

AOPA and EAA have always been at the forefront promoting safety, effective training, and regulation that responsibly weighs the balance between safe operation and reasonably unencumbered airspace access.

Our safety record may be on an unfortunate decline, but at an average of less than one fatality per day, it is still remarkably good. I heartily endorse your crusade for greater pilot proficiency and welcome the hopefully positive results, but I also acknowledge that flying is an inherently hazardous activity where the participants are (hopefully) keenly aware of the risks and the need to mitigate them.

I salute your efforts and will enthusiastically spread your safety gospel, but I consider increased regulation to be a far more serious threat to general aviation than an inevitable relatively few aviation casualties.  The airspace grab enacted by the federal government 20 years ago was atrocious, but is nothing compared to what is currently being considered in the name of homeland security.

People are gonna (sic) do what they’re gonna (sic) do. Training and education requirements must take into account this reality. Minimum requirements should be just that; assurances that minimally reasonable standards are maintained.

Beyond that, we must appeal to the hearts and minds of aviators and hope for the best. That’s where folks like you come in; and you do a tremendous job!

The sport pilot certificate (of which I suspect you are not fond) is a good illustration.  Ultralight aviation, starting out as an isolated activity with little potential impact on the safety of others, has reached a level of sophistication where something had to be done. 

Rather than making the activity illegal, or regulating it into impracticality, the FAA made the wise move to introduce a certification that would entice these sport aviators to become better equipped to safely inhabit the skies.

Great work, Bob! But please, lighten up on the GA organizations.
-- Rob Drury, San Antonio, TX

Reply: Rob, you heap great praise on OTA, then you criticize it.  Similarly, we heap great praise on the GA organizations.  They, too, have weak areas that are deserving of criticism.

When at the helm of General Motors, billionaire Ross Perot was asked how he planned to move something as large as GM.  He replied, "Moving General Motors is like teaching an elephant how to tap dance.  You need to know where his sensitive parts are and how to poke them!"

General aviation is that big elephant.  AOPA and EAA are its sensitive parts.  Occasionally those parts need to be poked, too!  
-- Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 


"A friend sent me a copy of Over the Airwaves. I really like it.  Thank you!"
-- Bert Pepowski, Cedar Lake, IN


"I am an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector working in the General Aviation and Commercial Division of Flight Standards.  My FAA responsibilities include - the development of FAA flight training handbooks as well as guidance regarding pilot training, pilot certification, pilot examiners, and flight simulation devices. A pilot since 1976, I have over 4,600 hours in over 70 make/models of GA aircraft including gliders (I was never a airline driver).

During our weekly weather accident review meeting, which is intended to help develop weather accident mitigation strategies, a colleague shared your 1/14/2007
Over the Airwaves with our group.

Having personally experienced (survived) some of the scenarios you write about very early in my aviation career (including a grave yard/dead man's spiral at night over the hills of southwestern VA), I instantly realized OTA's tremendous value in aviation safety education.

I certainly agree with most, but not all, of your opinions and conclusions. Your "message" is one that all pilots, regardless of experience, should hear and digest."
-- Lance Nuckolls, Washington, DC

Reply: What!  You do not agree with everything in OTA!!!  Shame, shame, shame . . .

Seriously, OTA takes an editorial stand with which some likely do not agree.  That is what intellectual discourse is all about.

The important thing is that we bring the problematic issues of general aviation into the light of day.   We look at them, we consider the options, and we debate the solutions. This is the only way that productive change will ever come about. 

This is NOT what is happening today, leastwise not from what we see and hear in the field..
-- Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 


"Keep up the great work! Just learned of OTA via my membership in the Professional Aerial Photographers Association. Great writing, useful graphics, forthright editorials. Looking forward to future issues."
-- Dean Herrington, Las Vegas, Nevada


"I heard about Over the Airwaves through a pilot friend.  He forwarded this issue to me because it had an article about the crash in Johnstown PA with two aboard (med flight).

The pilot of that aircraft was my friend (Maureen McGee). She used to be my flight instructor . . . she always stressed "SAFETY." Even when I was getting my license and we were doing night time flying, she demanded 10 miles visibility.  She was the person who signed me off for my checkride.

Maureen is missed deeply.  She taught me to fly at 1D2 which is the shortest paved runway in Michigan in Plymouth/Canton area.

She was an awesome person, excellent pilot and a true friend. When I attended her memorial January 2, 2007, I was pleased to see that all the seats in the church were so full that people were sitting in the isles in fold out chairs...she had a lot of friends.
-- Louis McDermott, Garden City, Michigan

Reply: Curiously, OTA has readers who insist that only one fatal accident a day is a really good safety record.  That is, until that one accident comes close to them.

The truth is, even the best of us have something to learn about remaining safe in the air.  Understanding this one fact alone could spell a resurgence in recurrent training. 

I am sure that all who have read about Maureen's tragic experience is deeply saddened by your loss.
-- Bob Miller, Over the Airwaves 


"I happened on OTA while surfing the Internet.  I can't remember what I was looking for, but you showed up. Very well done!

I have the greatest respect for both AOPA and EAA, but you're right -- those organizations sometimes overlook the realities of pilots and piloting in return for more "populist" thinking.  Thanks for the information. Keep it up and I look forward to reading more!"
-- Bruce Hood, Overland Park, Kansas


"I think perhaps you are a little hard on AOPA. Safety is their number one concern. AOPA and the ASF gives hundreds of safety seminars every year. They develop training materials and programs and much, much more.

Their activities in other areas, whether it is legislation, fighting user fees or selling insurance do not detract from time and funds spent on safety matters and many times their activities in these other areas enhance AOPAs ability to work on safety matters. 

Phil Boyer has been a personal friend since long before he took the AOPA job. I can assure you that improving safety is his number one priority."
--  John Frank, Executive Director, Cessna Pilots Association.

 

Reply: I agree that safety is among AOPA's  major concerns.  But remember, they are a membership organization.  Their #1 issue has to be supporting member interests. 

For example, if a proposed safety enhancement also creates a potential burden on its members, e.g., annual instead biennial flight reviews, they'll fight against the annual reviews (on the basis that it cannot be proven that annual reviews will enhance safety.)

AOPA is quick to deflect safety issues to their Air Safety Foundation (ASF).  The ASF, however, is on AOPA's organization chart to support AOPA priorities.  The ASF's Nall Report, for example, typically comes out with AOPA and GA-promoting conclusions instead of genuine critiques on flight safety issues.

We are marching down seven straight years of worsening GA fatal accident rates. This comes after 30 straight years of improving rates.  Neither AOPA nor its ASF have shown any public dismay over this significant reversal in the data.

Instead, they appear to be cherry-picking pieces of data, e.g., reductions in wx-related accidents, etc., that give the impression that GA is doing just fine safety-wise. 

In summary, AOPA and its ASF are fine organizations.  I proudly wear my AOPA 20 year membership pin on my lapel and I avail myself to many of their member services.  But like all of us, somebody needs