X	"Luck, bad if not good, will always be with us.  But it has a way of favoring the intelligent and showing its back to the stupid."    -- John Dewey

Dear Pilots and Aviation Enthusiasts:      

Teachable Moments

My daughter, Erica, was 10 years old when she flew with me in my Cessna 210 down to Huntsville, Alabama to participate in a three-day parent/child weekend at Space Camp.  This was one of my most treasured memories of fatherhood!

Part of the Space Camp experience simulated the launch of the space shuttle.  Our group was divided into two elements.  One element served as the space shuttle crew.  The other role played mission control in Houston. 

My element positioned itself in a full scale size mockup of the space shuttle.  The other element took positions in the mission control room in another building. 

We were all connected by headphones with microphones.  When each person read their scripted words, 29 other participating children and adults listened.  The realism was awesome!

Though I did not realize it at the time, Erica was terrified.  Her reading skills were weak and she feared that the other participants would laugh at her if she stumbled through her scripted lines.  This was, indeed, a teachable moment!

I took Erica aside for a little father and daughter chat.  I simply asked her to focus carefully on each word of the script.  "Take it slow," I said.  "The words will come out.  You'll do fine," I added.

With tears in her eyes, Erica mustered the courage to risk possible humiliation.  This 10 year old girl overcame her fears.  She took the script in both hands, gritted her teeth and waited nervously for her turn to read her lines aloud.

She made me proud!  Erica breezed through the script like former TV network anchor Walter Cronkite reading the evening news.  The teachable moment had worked.  When Erica returned to school that September, her teachers were amazed at her new reading skills!

Space Camp versus Flight Instruction

Unlike Erica's Space Camp experience, much of what we do in teaching people to fly is simply rote exercise.  Students struggle through the flight training process without understanding the larger picture. 

We take them to the practice area, then back to the home airport, then back to the practice area, then back to the same one or two local airports for repetitive takeoffs and landings.  This training sequence is repeated day after day until the pieces somehow fall into place.  

The excitement of learning to fly soon becomes lost in the ritualistic exercises put forth by unimaginative flight instructors following some ill-conceived syllabus.

It's no wonder why fewer than 50% of all new student starts ever secure their private pilot certificate!  We flight instructors manage to destroy the vision that most students bring to the cockpit!

Sadly, we do the same thing when conducting biennial flight reviews (BFRs) and instrument proficiency checks (IPCs).  CFIs go through the motions, execute the required drills, then endorse the logbook.  A golden opportunity to rekindle the "spark" is, again, lost.

What is a teachable moment?

A teachable moment occurs when a person is confronted with a unique challenge for which an immediate solution becomes self-evident.   At such moment, the student is primed for discovering and developing a new understanding of a phenomena. 

This moment is often uncomfortable.  It can be viewed as threatening or  confrontational.  It forces the student to leave a point of known security and to take what they perceive as a risk to resolve the challenge.  When they do this, learning is optimized.  A classic example occurs during the student's first solo flight experience.

Experiencing a teachable moment is worlds apart from rote repetition of practice aerial drills, whether they be simple landings or instrument approaches.  This kind of rote teaching often results in erratic progress characterized by fits, stops, and starts.  Oftentimes, the student believes he's going nowhere or even backwards. 

Frustration sets in, followed by discouragement.  He or she plods along wondering if they will ever learn to fly or achieve that next pilot rating or certificate.  Unless the student is incredibly committed to the process or has a limitless supply of money for flight training, they quit.

We need more teachable moments in flight instruction!

We in the flight training community need to create more teachable moments like the one experienced by Erica at Space Camp or a flight student on his or her first solo.  Every training flight needs to include at least one teachable moment.

One way to produce a teachable moment is to turn the flight training session into an actual mission.  Go someplace!  Don't hang around the home airport.   Even the first orientation flight should have a destination, ideally one where there is a convenient restaurant where a quick de-brief in pleasant surroundings can occur.

Here comes the teachable moment.  On the return trip, ask the student to find his or her way home.  Yep . . . do this on their very first orientation flight! 

This challenge puts the training into the context of real world flight operations.  By so doing, fledgling pilots learn that proper trimming affords them sufficient time to navigate by looking at the landmarks below (pilotage).

Another example.  For the instrument student, there is no greater teachable moment than taking them into actual IFR conditions.  The view limiting device or the typical GA flight simulator cannot even come close to the experience of being in the clouds.  The teachable moment occurs when the student understands that his or her life depends upon effective learning.

This business about the cockpit being a poor classroom is absolutely true.  Life's genuine learning experiences nearly always occur outside of the traditional classroom.  This is how it should be, particularly when learning to fly.

How about you and me?

What can we experienced pilots do to create teachable moments for ourselves? 

If we want to become more adept at handling unusual attitudes, get some aerobatic training.   If we want to become more proficient at crosswind landings, find a day when the winds are blowing 15 to 20 knots directly across the runway.  Grab an experienced CFI and go fly.

Nervous about shooting instrument approaches in real IFR down to a 200 foot decision height?  The next day your local weather goes down to minimums, cancel your day's activities and go fly.  Take a CFII or experienced instrument pilot along with you if that makes you more comfortable.

Do we fear airframe icing while flying in the clouds in the winter?  If so, find an experienced CFII with a capable airplane and go fly in the cold clouds.  Observe the conditions that produce airframe icing.  More importantly, learn how to make timely escapes from real icing conditions.

Want to fly smoother?   Pursue a commercial rating.   Want to put more "fun" in the flying experience?  Get some formation flying training or get a seaplane rating.   There are endless safe ways to making flying more "fun."

In summary . . .

Like learning how to play golf where driving ranges and practice putting greens have their place, real learning takes place out on the course. 

We pilots need to spend our training time in the real world as well.   Not only is it a more effective training ground, it is a place where real teachable moments occur!

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

 
 

Oshkosh AirVenture '07 a Smash Hit!

The numbers are in.  This year's attendance was estimated 560,000 people, an increase of about 3.2% over last year.  More than 10,000 airplanes arrived at Wittman and surrounding airports.  This included 985 homebuilts, 1,014 vintage aircraft, 365 warbirds, 136 ultralights, 117 seaplanes, and 30 rotorcraft.

More than 38,000 campers were registered in Camp Scholler!

Just in case you missed my "live" emails directly from Oshkosh, you can view them HERE.

And for those who really want to obtain a sense of the AirVenture '07 excitement, click HERE to listen to my "podcast" interview by Aero-News.Net's Paul Plack conducted from Buffalo's EAA Chapter 46 campsite.

Any reporting of my AirVenture '07 experience would be remiss if I did not express my deepest appreciation for our EAA Chapter 46 members who set up and maintained our superb campgrounds.  A particular thanks go to John and Carol Palesh and George and Betsy Kalonaros who personally prepared all of "made to order" our breakfasts and suppers.

 

Here is what one visitor to Oshkosh this year had to say about his experience: "I have seen the promised land. I have been baptized in the paraffin smoke of Extras, Stearmans, and T-6s. I have drunk deeply of the noise of afterburners, radials, Merlins and IO-540s. I have walked the rows of aged, beautiful flying machines, and witnessed devotion made visible. I have seen the miracle of transubstantiation, of plastic and aluminum made to fly by priests called "homebuilders." I have trod the walkways of Fortresses and Tri-motors, feeling those who have gone before--awed by those who went and returned, humbled by those who went and did not. I have seen love, determination, faith, skill, courage, joy, sacrifice, communion, and every other great quality of humanity--all evidenced by a single airshow routine. I have watched airplanes tumble through the sky, breaking the laws of physics without sanction, as though these laws had been suspended just for them. I have seen the beauty of a Missing Man formation flown by two B-25s, a B-24, and a B-17. I may not make it to heaven, but I know what it must be like--it's Wisconsin on a summer day, and the air is thick with planes. I have been to Oshkosh, and I will never be the same."         --Matt Mansinne (Posted on AVSIG)

So . . . next year, begin planning now.  Get the time off from work, arrange transportation, save your pennies.  The dates for next year's AirVenture are July 28 through August 3, 2008.  Be there!!!
 

When the Oil Pressure Light Flickers . . . Land Now!

It is sometimes difficult to imagine what we would do in a given circumstance aloft, particularly if an engine instrument begins to reveal signs of possible trouble.  Is it real or is it a faulty gauge?

The pilot of a Piper Lance faced this dilemma recently on a flight from Point Lookout, Missouri to Alexandria, Louisiana. 

For the record, this was not an inexperienced pilot.  He held airline transport pilot and certificated flight instructor certificates for airplane single- and multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. The pilot also held several type ratings. He had 8,000 hours total time, 1,600 hours in single-engine airplane, of which, 200 hours were in a Piper Lance.

Here is what the pilot had to say about his experience:

"While en route IFR at 9,000 feet, we had an indication of a loss of oil pressure northwest of KRSN (Ruston Louisiana).  I cancelled IFR and requested flight following and began a turn toward Ruston to monitor and evaluate the problem."

"About 8 to 10 minutes later, when approaching Ruston at 4,500 feet we still had no other supporting indications.  We still had full control of the propeller and the oil and cylinder head temperature had remained constant and very cool.  The engine was running very smooth."

The pilot told the NTSB investigators that he had had the fuel pressure indicator changed recently and the oil had also been changed recently.  He assumed that he had an indication error since there were no other symptoms to support the oil pressure indication.

The pilot added, "About 20 minutes later, the oil light flickered again and we heard a 'slight clatter noise' from the engine."  He elected to land at Pollack Airport, north of Alexandria. 

Unfortunately, this decision to land came to late. 

As soon as they started toward Pollack Airport, the engine made a "loud bang," the propeller seized and the engine stopped producing power.  A student pilot, who was flying from the left seat, reported that the oil pressure dropped to zero.

The pilot asked an air traffic controller for the location of the nearest suitable airport. He was told that Pollack was approximately 10 miles away and Interstate 49 was 6 miles away. 

According to the NTSB report, the pilot knew that he did not have enough altitude (3,500 feet mean sea level) to make either one, so he elected to land in a small pasture that was surrounded by trees. 

Prior to touching down, the airplane struck a barbed-wire fence with its landing gear. The nose of the airplane then swerved to the right and inertia carried the airplane in the original direction of landing as it skidded across the uneven terrain, impacted a second fence, then crossed over a dirt driveway and subsequently collided with trees.

The pilot was not injured, the student pilot in the left seat and two passengers sustained serious injuries, and the other passenger was fatally injured.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: "The loss of engine power during cruise flight due to oil starvation, resulting in an emergency off-airport forced landing. A factor associated with the accident was the instructor's improper in-flight decision in delaying to seek an emergency landing site following a loss of oil pressure indication." NTSB Report

What would you have done?

This is a tough one.  The pilot of this aircraft had sufficient experience to recognize the vagaries of aircraft gauges.  But he also likely knew that a genuine loss of oil pressure would quickly result in a sudden engine seizure. 

He apparently elected to troubleshoot the problem rather than land immediately.  With apologies to the doctrine of "Monday morning quarterbacking," that proved to be a fatal judgment error.

The lesson here is profound.  Airplanes can fly without an operative electrical system, failed radios, a bad magneto, or failed hydraulic system. 

Oil, on the other hand, is the life-blood of an engine.  Any indication of a loss of oil pressure, whether it be a flickering warning light or a curious wiggle of the oil pressure needle is sufficient justification to get on the ground as soon as possible.

Yes, the decision to make an immediate precautionary landing may be a difficult or inconvenient one .  But as illustrated in this tragic case, had the pilot elected to get his craft on the ground without delay at the very first sign of an oil pressure problem, the outcome would have been substantially different.
  

A Four Minute Look at the "History of Flight!"

 If you want to look at a beautifully created four minute video of the history of flight, click on the link below.  It was created by Russell Still, CFII of Atlanta Georgia.

Flaps - To be or not to be, that IS the question!

Most airplanes have flaps but many of us wonder where and when to use them to best advantage.  Do we lower 10 degrees on down wind, another 10 degrees on base, then another 10 degrees on final?

What is the correct flap usage method?

Correct flap usage in the general aviation world is a lot like cooking!  The correct answer is, "season to taste!"  In other words, except where specifically addressed in the Pilot Operating Handbook (POH) or Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), e.g., short field takeoffs, flaps are simply another item in the proficient pilot's box of tools to achieve a desired flight condition.

As seen in the above illustration, lowering flaps enable us to achieve a steeper descent attitude without a corresponding increase in airspeed.  In most cases, the use of flaps while descending down the final approach leg is beneficial . . . . BUT not always.

The use of flaps on final approach during gusty crosswinds can complicate the landing process significantly.   Arriving low at the base to final leg turn is another place where lowering the flaps can worsen the problem of "dragging" the airplane in, low and slow.

Instrument pilots know that lowering the flaps when stabilized with needles centered inside the final approach fix (FAF) can suddenly send their glideslope needle crashing to the bottom of the gauge!

So what is the correct flap usage procedure?

First rule of thumb . . . comply with what your POH or AFM has to say regarding flap usage. 

On most jet aircraft, for example, extending the flaps is required to achieve a stabilized landing configuration at, say, 1,000' AGL. 

On the smaller aircraft operated by most GA pilots, a stabilized landing configuration can typically be achieved with or without extending the flaps.

The second rule of thumb . . . the pilot must understand the aerodynamic effect that various flap settings has on their airplane.  Which flap settings create more lift vs. more drag?  What happens when flaps are retracted while close to the ground on a "go around?"

The third rule of thumb . . . operational considerations.  There are occasions when unique flight scenarios require special flap usage.  Arriving on the final approach course while accreting ice on the airframe generally rules against the use of flaps.  Similarly, suspected tailplane icing typically rules against changing whatever flap setting is already in place. 

On this note, any airframe icing  changes the shape of the airplane. This takes the pilot into the realm of flight testing.  Changing the flap setting while carrying ice takes the pilot even deeper into the flight testing arena.  Proficient pilots do not want to go there! 

Unusual flight attitudes also have unique flap considerations.  Forward slips in some airplanes, for example, should not be conducted with flaps fully extended because of the possibility of interrupted airflow over the tail surfaces.

In summary, flaps change the shape and airfoil of the wing.  Our responsibility as proficient pilots is to know precisely how this affects the way our aircraft perform.

AOPA wins suit against New York background check law

About a year ago, former NY governor George Pataki signed into a law a provision whereby all new flight students had to undergo a criminal background check before they could begin receiving instruction.

Recognizing the absurdity of this law, not to mention its unconstitutionality, AOPA challenged it in court . . . and won!  Bravo, AOPA! 

 

Free sign up for Over the Airwaves Please click HERE if would like to receive email notifications of each upcoming issue of Over the Airwaves.

 

The Art of the Stabilized Approach

Tragedy struck again early last month when a TAM Airlines Airbus-320 skidded of a runway in Brazil.  All 176 passengers and crew plus 15 persons on the ground were killed. 

Heavy rain, a short runway, and poor runway surface conditions may have been contributing factors in has been reported as Brazil's deadliest aviation accident in history.  They may also have included faulty spoilers or other aircraft mechanical factors.

What went wrong?

While we can lay blame on airport conditions or even the weather, there is no escaping the fact that many hundreds of other Airbus-320 landings have likely occurred safely at the the San Paulo Airport in precisely the same weather conditions. 

The major variable in all such landings is the flight crew.  For some reason, the flight crew on this aircraft failed to achieve the desired landing outcome. 

As with all such aircraft accidents, it is poor form to begin assigning blame before the official probable cause determination has been made.   We can, however, use this particular tragedy to illustrate the importance of a stabilized approach when making any landing.

Every landing begins several miles from the airport!

There are many underlying variables for each landing we make.  In a properly functioning airplane, height and airspeed when crossing the runway threshold are arguably the two most important variables. 

Cross the threshold too high and/or too fast and we could find ourselves in the same predicament as may have occurred with the TAM Airlines Airbus-320 referenced above.

 

Clearly, our goal is to arrive at the runway threshold "on altitude" and "on speed."  This requires advance planning that begins early in the approach sequence, generally three to five miles from the airport. 

When done properly, every landing is predictably good!

Aero-News.Net Features OTA in Podcasts

"Live from Oshkosh '07" is the latest in a series of podcasts I have been doing with Aero-News.Net's Paul Plack.

You can hear, or download for later listening, this 15 minute interview and any of the previously conducted podcasts by clicking on the titles below:

* Live from Oshkosh '07 * Windshear * Diversions * Density Altitude * Thunderstorms * Stress and Pilot Performance * Light Sport Pilot Program

By the way, Aero-News.Net is a FREE daily online publication that is packed with aviation related news.  It is the first thing I read every morning.  You can log on to Aero-News.Net and subscribe for your free subscription by clicking HERE.

 Light Sport Pilot Rule . . the real story!

It was Otto von Bismarck who said, "If you like laws and sausage, you should never watch either being made!"   This curious quote certainly applies to the legislative evolution of the Light Sport Pilot rule. 

Back room negotiations, compromises, and bold face deceptions were all apart of the writing of this new rule. 

For example, have you ever wondered how the maximum gross weight of 1,320 pounds was arrived at and why?  Does it make sense that a certificated light sport pilot can legally fly any of the many new light sport aircraft coming on the market, but they cannot fly a Cessna 152 or Cessna 172, or Piper Cherokee, or Diamond Katana which are far easier to fly than many of these newer aircraft?

These and many other intriguing questions are answered in a letter from EAA's Vice President Industry and Regulatory Affairs Earl Lawrence, sent to us by OTA reader, Tom Morehouse of Eastford, CT.

This letter was sent to Tom in response to a question he asked about the Light Sport rule.  You'll find its contents to be very enlightening!

 

Letter from Earl Lawrence EAA Vice President Industry and Regulatory Affairs   Tom Morehouse Eastford CT Dear Tom: This is a good question and you have not seen an answer because the answer is; "Because that is the way it is." Of course there is more to the story and I will share my opinions as an individual who worked with the FAA on this rulemaking from 1994 until today. But, I must stress it is just that my opinion/perspective not necessarily the facts, not because there are not facts but because with many things in life there are many perspectives of the situation. First when looking at your question you need to remove yourself from any current realities or perspectives of the rule as it is today. You need to look at the rule from how it was proposed, or the "selling points" needed to get a new rule. Foremost in looking at this question, one must understand that the new rule has NOTHING (I cannot stress this enough) to do about a simpler pilot certificate. You read that correct.  The proposal has nothing to do at all about a simpler pilot certificate or a no medical certificate. If one had proposed rulemaking on a simpler easier pilot certificate the FAA, the DOT, NTSB, and most pilot groups would have opposed the proposal (including pilot and instructor associations).  There are many who still believe that there should not be a sport pilot certificate and everyone should get a private pilot certificate. Now do not get me wrong.  EAA did see the potential of this new rule to get more people in the air, but if we have used that point at all, the SP/LSA rule would have NEVER been considered. If you notice, during the years we worked on the proposed rule, there were lots of pictures of very open ultralights shown in magazine articles and other promotional materials.  This was by design.  The campaign to get the rule was about getting "these untrained and undocumented dangerous ultralight pilots out of the air."  This was an argument that FAA, NTSB, DOT, Homeland Security and Congress was very interested in. The sport pilot rule was written to create a pilot certificate for ultralight pilots because they were unregulated at the time.  If we had shown pictures of aircraft with closed cockpits, the powers that controlled the process would have said "that is a REAL airplane" and they need a "real" pilot certificate. So those of us who were trying to get the new rule passed spent time convincing the authorities that the new Sport Pilot was not going to be flying a "real" airplane, so that we could get the rule passed. Also, we needed to convince the government that this was NOT about a pilot certificate without a medical. We had to be able to show that a large number of current pilots were NOT going to drop their medical and fly as sport pilots as that would be "a reduction in safety" and FAA, DOT, NTSB would oppose such a move. The original proposal was for aircraft that were no more than 600 pounds, then over time the weight increased to 900, 1,232, and finally 1,320.  The last change was literally in the dark of night by friends of EAA and sport aviation who understood that we really did want a alternative to the private pilot license, but we could not say that publicly or even to our fellow pilot associations as it would have been opposed. One has to understand that EAA had to work VERY hard to get the industry associations to not oppose the Sport pilot rule. Many of the traditionalists saw the rule as a threat and a step backward for aviation. So the argument all along was to create a pilot certificate and aircraft certification category to regulate the "illegal ultralights and pilots." If the industry or many in government had understood our alternative reasons for the rule, the proposal would have been dead on delivery. We have sport pilot today because we have good friends in the FAA, particularly the Administrators that oversaw this effort, and EAA could manage to keep industry from opposing the effort.  We did this by campaigning on an "increase of safety and regulation for ultralights," not a reduction of safety for current pilots and aircraft. (note: To many in government Regulation and safety is one in the same) Because of these arguments and the need to separate this rulemaking effort from "reducing regulation/safety of current pilots and aircraft" and convincing everyone that this was an "increase of regulation/safety for ultralights," it was necessary to ensure that no large groups of existing aircraft would fall into the new category. The sport pilot certificate was sold on the basis that an "ultralight" pilot was going to use this certificate to fly an aircraft with no radios and no instruments, day VFR, in G airspace, carrying one passenger. So it was necessary to exclude as many current pilots and aircraft in order to get the regulation passed. (Blame it on politics, but that is the real world.) Regarding affordability, current pilots say that the new regulation did not result in any improvements in affordability.  The facts are the new aircraft are less than half the cost of a comparative new (It is not fair to compare a 1950 aircraft with a 2007 aircraft) type certificated aircraft and the sport pilot certificate is less than half the cost of a private pilot certificate.  So for the new person getting involved in aviation has become more accessible. The big problem today is access to a Light Sport Aircraft.  EAA understands this, but we had to start somewhere.  Every day more light sport aircraft are produced and sold, which means everyday there is more opportunity to own one. There are currently over 50 models of new light sport aircraft for sale. Used aircraft are starting to come up for sale at considerable lower cost than new aircraft. It is expected that Cessna will soon start to produce a light sport aircraft.  Cessna pilot centers will start to have aircraft to train new sport pilots in, and like it was in the 1970's, these aircraft will be sold after a couple of years to the students at much reduced costs as used airplanes as the Centers must purchase new aircraft every two years. As you may noticed, this is all about the future.  The rule was written about the future and not current pilots and aircraft.  Again if that had been the proposal, there would be no new rule. For existing pilots, sport pilot does not offer a tremendous amount of benefit as they have already made the investment in training and possibly in an aircraft purchase. This is about the future and getting new pilots and new aircraft into the system. I hope this helps with understanding how we arrived at the current situation. Sincerely, Earl Lawrence EAA VP Industry and Regulatory Affairs

After reading this letter, let me ask OTA readers if you believe EAA was genuinely interested in getting untrained and undocumented dangerous ultralight pilots out of the air? 

Or were they pushing the LSA rule as a way to get more pilots into the air and more airplanes sold, despite the "dumming down" of the pilot certificate and the risks associated with the elimination of a required medical certificate? 

Was there, indeed, a deception?  Where would the Light Sport rule be today had it included Cessna 152s and Piper Cherokees?

Hmmmm . . . .

 Teamwork Builds Healthy GA Airports!

There are some 5,000 public access airports in the United States.  Sadly, many of them are just vestiges of their former selves.  Their hangars are in disrepair.  Their fuel pumps shut down, and cracks in the runway make every landing a risky undertaking.

Other GA airports are thriving. One such airport is my home base in Akron, NY.  Located near Buffalo, NY, the Akron Airport (9G3) has become a model for other airports to follow. 

We have flight training, an FAA approved aircraft repair station, new hangars, and some of the prettiest landscaping around.  Our fuel prices are among the lowest in the area, and we're a quick walk to the quaint little village of Akron where the best home-cooked meals can be found at Mary's Restaurant.

The reason is teamwork.  Akron Airport hangar tenants, local pilots, and our many non-pilot friends are always eager to volunteer their time to make the place even better!

Pictured below, for example, are 13 able-bodied Akron pilots who reported for duty early on a Saturday morning last month to pull weeds along a noise-abatement berm bordering its Runway 25. 

Sure, they could have been flying, playing golf, or even spending a few more restful hours in bed, but they donated their time just to make the airport a little more attractive!

"We have all of our pilots, tenants, and friends of the Akron Airport on a group e-mail list", says airport manager John Jesson.  "We just fire off an e-mail anytime we need help, and people appear ready for work.  It's a great way to get things done!"

It's easy to let our airports become cold, sterile places to operate airplanes.   It's even easier to allow them to decay into relics of an earlier generation.  But it takes teamwork to make and preserve them as places we pilots can be proud of.

Why not form your own airport army of volunteers.  Keep them fed with coffee, donuts, and bottled water and you'll be surprised at what they can accomplish in a couple short hours each week!
 

How Many Ways Can We Spell Disaster?

Tragically, it continues to happen all too frequently.  A hapless pilot loses an engine on takeoff and attempts to execute an immediate return to the airport. 

Struggling to minimize altitude loss during the turn back, the airplane banks, yaws, and stalls . . . then bores a smoking hole in the ground.

The gruesome human remains are typically so badly crunched and burned that positive body identification requires examination of dental records! 

Sorry to be so graphic, but if every pilot had even rudimentary understanding of the stall, yaw, spin sequence, this kind of recurring accident would no longer happen. 

Sadly, however, our well-intentioned GA leadership lobbied very hard to have mandatory spin training removed from the private pilot training curriculum (FAR 61.107).   Thus, most of us have never personally experienced (at a safe altitude with a CFI aboard) just how fast a stall/spin can develop.  Hence, we have no appreciation of the risks associated with a power-off return to the airport.

Kitfox pilots learn this lesson . . . the hard way!

After making a precautionary landing at a small dirt strip near Gridley, California, the two Kitfox IV-1200 pilots made some minor engine repairs.  Satisfied that everything was okay, they took off.

According to a witness, the airplane climbed between 200 and 250 feet above ground level and then turned "sharply right." The witness estimated that the bank angle was nearly 40 degrees, and the airplane appeared to be reversing course. No engine sounds were heard during the turn.

The witness said that the airplane appeared to stall.  It then it spiraled down while "quickly descending in a steep dive." It impacted the field in a wing low and nose low attitude, with the engine and a wing hitting the ground at the same time. The airplane "exploded" upon impacting the ground and was immediately consumed by fire.

The two pilots, each with over 800 hours total time, perished in the accident.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: "The pilot's failure to maintain an adequate airspeed while attempting a return to runway maneuver that led to a stall spin. The reason for the power loss was not ascertained." NTSB Report

Why do we turn back to the airport?

Why do we attempt a return to the airport? The obvious answer is, we want to protect the airplane, particularly if we spent months or years building it.  An equally compelling reason, in my opinion, is that we believe we can do it safely.

In truth, based upon the classic laws of physics, most such attempted low altitude, power-off returns to the airport are simply NOT possible.

Yet the hapless pilot tries anyway. 

When the motor quits, the pilot pitches up to best glide speed.  He then gives the yoke another tug which, in turn, brings the airplane to the edge of stall speed.  He then horses it over to a 60 or 70 degree bank or more, not realizing that this bank angle effectively doubles the stall speed!

Adding insult to injury, he presses hard on the inside rudder to help expedite the turn.  A nasty yaw results.  When combined with the stall, the fatal spin is produced.

Solution . . .

There is only one truly effective way to preclude this scenario from happening to you.  That solution is to get out and experience, first hand, the bodily sensations that accompany a stall/spin from a safe altitude with an experienced CFI by your side. 

What you will experience will forever prevent you from making low, slow turns in the traffic pattern unless the airplane is perfectly coordinated with ball centered in the inclinometer.

It is not difficult to find a spin certified airplane.  Most C-150s, C-152, C172s and Piper 140s when loaded in the utility category can be used for spin training.
 

Airlines Lobby Their Customers Over User Fees

If any OTA readers are Delta Air Line customers, you might consider finding another airline to use.  Below is message they are sending to all of their customers.

 

Message from Delta Air Lines to all their customers: Providing the highest quality service to our customers is the guiding principle in everything we do at Delta. But it is difficult for us to provide the level of service you deserve when air traffic in the United States is controlled with pre-WWII methods and technology. Within a decade, traffic delays will cost the economy $40 billion a year, and you, the customer, a great deal of wasted time. There will be 85% more jets in the sky in the next 15 years ­ an increase driven largely by corporate jets, fractional jets, air-taxis and very light jets. To an air traffic controller, a jet with a celebrity or a CEO takes as much effort as a commercial flight with 250 passengers. However, the current system is funded almost entirely by the airline ticket tax, meaning that you are paying for nearly 95% of the air traffic system while corporate and private jets get a free ride! You can help make a difference! Please contact your Congressional representatives and ask them to: Quit forcing you to subsidize corporate jets through the current unfair ticket tax   Support a new cost-based ATC finance structure that will fund the system fairly and enable the FAA to modernize our aging ATC system Working in a partnership with other airlines, we will do everything we can to continue to improve upon the customer experience. For more information on this initiative, called "Smart Skies," go to smartskies.org/delta . We can make a difference!

Thanks to OTA reader, Gerry Koehler, for sharing this with us.
 

Advance Cockpit Technology

In the unlikely event that you have not seen the latest night vision technology afforded to our military pilots, you might want to take a look at the following video.

This video is taken from the cockpit of an F-16 on a visual night landing to Aspen, Colorado.  When viewing this video, note that the right side of the display is the pilot's normal visual path to the runway during darkness.  It it almost totally black.

The left side of the video is a new technology called "Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR)" which paints the heat signature of the outside terrain.  It displays the outside night view from the cockpit as if it were daytime!

Click HERE to view this video and be sure to turn up the audio.

Thanks to OTA reader John W. Shore, MD, of Austin, Texas for sharing this video with us.
 

The Arrogant Flight Instructor

Lurking over several online pilot chat boards recently, I noted a few threads populated by disgruntled flight students complaining about the mistreatment they had been receiving from their respective flight instructors.

"All he ever does is slap my leg and yell at me," said one chat board participant.  Another said, "My instructor belittles me.  He gets angry every time I make a mistake!"

Regrettably, the flight instructor community is populated by many people who gain more satisfaction from the "control" they have over their students than from seeing them learn and achieve.  They relish their new found authority.  They have a captive audience and they take every advantage of it.

The worst case of bad CFI behavior I have heard of was when a CFI/DPE sexually molested his female student while in flight!  With no place to escape, the experience traumatized the student to the point where she gave up flying. 

Curiously, when I reported the matter to the local FSDO, they said they they could do nothing about it until the CFI was criminally charged and convicted!

Sadly, without corroborating witnesses, the student was left without recourse.

Snakes in the grass . . .

Clearly, there is no excuse for bad CFI behavior in the cockpit, or on the ground for that matter.   Yelling, leg slapping, arrogant behavior, intimidation and, yes, sexual harassment or molestation obviously have no place in the flight training process.

Should you experience such behavior, don't even bother discussing it with your CFI.  Instead, move on, find another instructor immediately.  If you are training within a flight school, leave it.  Flight schools that employ such characters deserve to lose you!

Current estimates are that less 50% of all primary flight students ever make it to checkride.  They drop out, often for the reasons described above.  So the problem is widespread.  It goes with territory.  Beware!

---

A final thought for all flight instructors:  "They may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel."
--Carl Buchner
 

Same Stuff . . . Different Day!

There are only a handful of things that cause us to wreck our airplanes.  One, of course, is poor fuel management.

Take, for example, the pilot of a Beech J35 with two passengers aboard making a night approach to the Tulip City Airport, near Holland, Michigan. 

The airplane was running fine.  The weather was pure VFR.  A 1,400 hour instrument rated pilot was at the controls.  A 1,000 hour private pilot passenger was presumably keeping an eye on things from the right seat.  This had all the makings of a "walk in the park" approach.

Reported 10 miles out . . .

The Beech pilot radioed that he was 10 miles out and would be joining the downwind leg for landing.  He entered the pattern, then turned on final.  That's when the engine suddenly quit.

The airplane came to rest upright about 1,700 feet west of runway 8.  A trail of four parallel impressions in the mud and snow were observed in the field west of the accident site.  A dirt, debris, and gravel trail continued across the road from that point to the airplane's resting spot. The lower forward cabin area of the fuselage exhibited upward and rearward crushing.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: "A loss of engine power due to fuel starvation as a result of the pilot's improper fuel system management and failure to select a tank containing fuel. A factor was the dark night conditions." NTSB Report

Both pilots apparently forgot to switch tanks!  Curiously, we experience two fuel mis-management wrecks every week.  Like forgetting to lower the gear prior to landing, we pilots often ignore the fact that our engines require a constant flow of fuel to continue to run. 

 

New WINGs Pilot Proficiency Program - Like it or not, it's here to stay!

One of my objectives at AirVenture this year was to track down and speak with the FAA brass who conceived and implemented the new WINGs Pilot Proficiency Program.  I found them . . . Jim Pyles and Bryan Neville.

Not surprisingly, each of these otherwise very bright FAA officials had nothing but praise for the new program.  Yes, they each acknowledged the abundance of pilot criticism, but they are clearly not deterred in their intent to make this new program work.

If there is one thing I came away with, it is the fact that, like it or not, this web-based program is here to stay.  So we had better learn it or go back to the traditional biennial flight review (BFR).

Will there be changes in the new program?

Bryan Neville agreed that there are some issues with the web page design that need to be addressed.  "The tiny size of the print was decided upon by a 24 year-old web page designer with perfect vision," said Neville.  "That will likely change."

"What about the thousands of pilots out there who are not computer users," I asked Jim Pyles?

His reply:  "There's nothing we can do about them.  They cannot participate."

I came away from these meetings with the sense that the FAA wants the new WINGs program to work, no matter how long it takes.  They are willing to make changes where necessary, but the self-administered web-based design program structure is here to stay.

Only time will tell if this new program will produce greater participation than the original WINGs program.  As for me, it appears that the FAA is trying to feed us pilots a lot of wet spaghetti and we're not buying it.

Sure, people, particularly pilots, resist change.  But this is more than a simple change.  Instead, it is a complete paradigm shift that places enormous burden on us pilots to not only maintain our pilot proficiency but to labor through a rather steep computer learning curve at the same time. 

Curiously, we are expected to do all this with little or no external motivation.  Again, time will tell.  In the meantime, let me hear your thoughts.  Reply to rjma@rjma.com.
 

---

NOTE - New WINGs Program users:

Guido Hassig of the Rochester, NY FSDO sent over the following links.  Each link brings readers to additional instructions on how to use the new WINGs program. 

Wings Made Easy - Flight Instructor Guidance

Wings Made Easy - Pilot Guidance

 

"By denying the fact that general aviation flying is a risky activity, even if performed by intelligent, capable, achieving people, we hamper our ability to manage or reduce the risks we face every time we take an airplane into the sky." -- John King, John and Martha King Schools (Interview by Flying Magazine's Lane Wallace)

 

There are two different cultures running throughout the general aviation community.  One culture is considerably larger that the other.   This culture aggressively promotes their belief that general aviation flying is inherently safe and is getting safer every day.  Many in this culture insist that general aviation is safer, in fact, than driving a car.

 

Proponents of this safe flight culture are typically those with the greatest vested interest in general aviation.  They include, for example, our GA aircraft manufacturers and our large membership organizations including AOPA, its Air Safety Foundation, EAA and, yes, even the FAA.

 

For example, FAA administrator, Marion Blakey, stood before a packed audience at AirVenture '07 and proudly claimed that the GA fatal accident rate has dropped dramatically over the past 30 years.  

 

What she failed to mention, however, is that the fatal accident rate has not declined at all over the past six years.  It still remains 100 times greater, flight hour for flight hour, than the scheduled air carriers.  No mention of this fact was made by the administrator.

 

To be fair, the "safe flight" culture aggressively promotes the need for recurrent flight training, but they do so as a matter of common sense.  Obviously, anything that goes fast or rises above the earth's surface, they say, is worthy of quality instruction and recurrent training. 

 

Not surprising, however, the "safe flight" culture falls flat on its face when providing compelling evidence regarding the need for quality instruction and recurrent training.  Instead, their dollars are spent largely on building a positive GA image and in recruiting new pilots and dues paying members. 

 

Clearly, nobody can dispute the importance of new pilot recruitment.  However, providing misleading safety information to achieve this end is a mistake that is costing us lives.

 

The other culture . . .

 

The other and significantly smaller culture is much more aware of the inherent risks of general aviation flight.  We call this the "risk aware" culture.  Members of this culture, of which Over the Airwaves is an ardent member, take a much more serious look at GA's abhorrent accident rate. 

 

We regard the accident data at face value noting, in particular, that there are three to five serious GA accidents and one fatal GA accident every day of the week, on average, and that over 80% of these accidents are due to pilot error.

 

While the "safe flight" culture attempts to explain away the GA accident rate, the "risk aware" culture uses these data to remind GA pilots that what we do aloft is risky, at best.  It then endeavors to make GA pilots aware of these risks and the specific steps that can be taken to mitigate these risks. 

 

Arguing on the side of the "risk aware" culture, John King, whose company has trained over 15,000 pilots, was recently quoted by Lane Wallace of Flying Magazine as saying that "we do ourselves a grave disservice by looking at flight as a potentially safe activity."  See inset below for more of what John King had to say.

 

"I think that if we want to continue as an industry, we have to admit to ourselves that we don't have a liability problem.  We have an accident problem. The insurance companies and the rest of society will no longer accept the accident rates that we've historically had in general aviation."    "In order for this industry to thrive, we absolutely have to cut down our accidents.  And the way to do it is to change the culture of general aviation."

John King insists that what is needed to reduce our accident rate is nothing short of a cultural attitude change that recognizes and acknowledges the risks inherent in all small airplane flying and encourages a more careful, conservative approach to managing that risk as best we can.

In other words, if we firmly believe and understand the risks of flight, we can take specific steps to reduce those risks.  This, of course, is difficult to do when the GA flag wavers are telling us all that flying has never been safer and that "we're good and getting better."

Remember, it wasn't the "risk aware" culture that promulgated FAR 61.301 that says a man or woman on the street needs just 15 hours of dual instruction and 5 hours of solo to qualify for a light sport pilot certificate and to share the airspace with you and me!  It wasn't the "risk aware" culture that "dumbed down" the private pilot certificate and dropped the medical requirement when creating the Light Sport Pilot certificate.

If general aviation is having an accident problem, we need to look no further than to the "safe flight" culture to learn why!
 

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