February, 2009 Vol. VI, No.
2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Welcome
to the
Over the
Airwaves
aviation journal. This complimentary e-publication
is prepared monthly for 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.
Runway Excursions It would be intellectually dishonest for me to avoid sharing with you that we've had our share of runway excursions here at my home airport. More to the point, we had such a runway excursion by one of our own primary flight students in just the past month. Backing up a bit, a runway excursion is a euphemistic way of saying that an airplane unintentionally drifted off of the runway and onto the grass, either while landing or taking off. Such events rarely result in serious injuries or fatalities, but they often do produce significant damage to the airplane. Why do runway excursions happen? As in most aviation accidents, blame is easily assignable. Most typically, it's the pilot . . . but in runway excursions, we can trace the blame back to our high school driver education instructor! No kidding here. Runway excursions are a direct result of misusing our airplane's steering wheel (yoke or stick) to keep the pointy end of the airplane moving along the runway centerline. Picture the
following automobile scenario. You're driving down
the road. Suddenly, your car begins to make a left
turning skid on the icy
As illustrated on the accompanying graphic, you steer your car in the direction of the skid precisely as your driver ed teacher instructed. Wrong thing to do in an airplane!! Now imagine your airplane entering the same left turning skid on the runway as you roll out from landing. This skidding turn is likely caused by as little as a 6 to 10 knot direct crosswind pressing against your vertical stabilizer (tail). Here's where your driver ed teacher steered you wrong (no pun). If you responded to your airplane's uncommanded left turn or skid on the runway by turning your yoke or stick to the right, you've done nothing more than cause your left (upwind) wing to rise. You did nothing to change the direction of the airplane. Here's where things go from bad to worse! Several very bad things begin to happen as you follow your driver ed teacher's instructions. First, as the left wing rises, the left crosswind gets beneath it and pushes it further upward. Second, your turning of the yoke to the right causes the left aileron to be deflected downward. This produces a significant yaw to the left that is further exacerbated by the induced drag produced by the upward lifting movement of the left wing. These two forms of left wing drag combine to produce a significant yawing to the left . . . that produces even more left turning of the airplane. Third . . . and this is a biggy. Should you power-up to go-around, without adding substantial right rudder, the natural left turning tendencies of an aircraft developing thrust will likely seal your fate and put you deep into the grass (or snow, as in our recent case). So what corrective action should we be making?? Job #1 in ALL landings and takeoffs is simple. We use our rudder pedals (those are the seldom-used flat metal things that we rest our feet on) to maintain directional control of the airplane. Repeat . . . we do NOT use the yoke or stick to steer the airplane along the runway centerline as we do with an automobile steering wheel! As every proficient tail-wheel pilot knows, it is the rudder, NOT the aileron, that affords us directional control over or on the runway. The same is true in tricycle airplanes. Job #2 is to prevent the crosswind from getting under our upwind wing. We do this by literally "leaning" the upwind wing into the wind. Here's where proper use of the yoke or stick is necessary. As we either land or take off in a crosswind, we bank gently in the direction the wind is coming from. By combining Job #1 with Job #2, we keep the airplane pointing down the runway with our rudder and we use our yoke or stick to keep our airplane banked into the wind. Voila' . . . it works every time! The all-important follow through . . . Remember, the landing is not complete until the airplane rolls to a stop! Failure to keep the wings banked in the direction of the crosswind, coupled with positive rudder control, can produce nasty consequences when we least expect them. We call this the follow through. In summary, runway excursions are one of the most common airplane accidents on the books. They happen easily, but they're even more easy to prevent. All we need do is develop mastery of the rudder pedals, both in flight and on the ground. When combined with proper yoke or stick control, there is no reason why we cannot track the runway centerline, even on ice or snow, while in gusty crosswinds that go well beyond our airplane's demonstrated crosswind capability. The key, of course, is proper instruction followed by lots of meaningful practice. Don't become a calm wind-only pilot. Crosswinds happen. Enjoy them!!!!!! Fly safe, fly smart.
Low and slow - a lethal combination that kills! Question: What flight regime produces the most fatal accidents? Is it flying in and around thunderstorms, or in icing conditions, disorientation in the clouds or operating in poor visibility? Answer: No on all counts. The number ONE pilot killer is operating low and slow! We call these maneuvering accidents and, according to AOPA's Air Safety Foundation, they occur about 54 times a year or about one per week. Take the case of a 660 hour Cessna 150 pilot who decided to use his airplane to search for a lost windsock. According to the NTSB Report, he climbed to 200 feet then turned southwest before turning back to the west and paralleling the runway.
The airplane then maneuvered back
and forth over the west half of the airport "low and
slow" before it then turned and flew eastbound toward
the approach end of runway 28 in what the witness described
as "a very low, tight left downwind for runway 28." The witness stated, "He made a steep, sharp bank and I said, 'Here comes the cross control stall.’ He overflew the runway centerline, and pulled the nose over sharply. He was in about a 45 degree bank when the left wing just dropped right off and the aircraft dove to the ground." We have a maneuvering problem . . . what's the solution? With some 54 pilots killing themselves and their passengers every year while in maneuvering flight, perhaps it's time we re-introduce spin training to the primary pilot curriculum. Okay, so that suggestion has been beaten down repeatedly by AOPA's Air Safety Foundation, but it IS time for a re-visit. When properly conducted at a safe altitude in spin certified airplanes, spin training does instill a powerful sense of pilot awareness of what a pending spin feels like. As a stall approaches, the pilot learns to instinctively look at the slip-skid indicator (the ball) to ensure the aircraft is not yawed. His feet begin to dance on the rudder pedals to maintain a coordinated flight attitude. In short, a pilot who has experienced actual spins knows well enough how to avoid them. This is NOT necessarily true with non-spin trained pilots. What should we be doing? Even though spin training is unlikely to be restored to the private pilot training curriculum, we can obtain spin training just the same. We need only find a suitable airplane and a competent flight instructor. The same benefit can be achieved by engaging in some aerobatic training. Either way, we'll become safer, more proficient pilots. More importantly, the likelihood that we'll be victim to a low/slow maneuvering accident will be reduced to near zero!
FAA issues final "Known Ice" interpretation!
First, a bit of history. Up until recently, if you asked any group of aviators if it is "legal" to operate a non-known ice certified aircraft inside of sub-freezing clouds, you would likely spark a noisy debate. In fact, if you asked the same question of a group of FAA operations inspectors, you'd likely witness the same debate. Hey, not even the FAA's Northeast Regional Counsel's office could tell you what constitutes known ice! The net result of this debate has been a "don't ask, don't tell" policy under which many wintertime general aviation IFR pilots operated. In other words, fly in sub-freezing clouds if you like, but beware enforcement action if you run into any trouble! By the way, if you do operate in sub-freezing clouds in a non-known ice certified airplane, don't write about it as I have done many times here in OTA. If you do, beware of the FAR "legalists" that hang around AOPA's online forums (and organizations like the National Association of Flight Instructors who listen to them) who will banish you to the penalty box for treasonous behavior! Alas, it appears that the "known ice" debate can finally be put to bed, thanks to the latest letter of interpretation issued January 16, 2009 by the FAA's chief counsel's office. So what is the new interpretation? In essence, the FAA now has this to say, in part, about flight into known icing conditions:
Bravo! Rather than attempting to define particular or unique meteorological conditions that could create airframe icing, the FAA has left the matter entirely up to the pilot in command . . . where ALL such responsibility should rest. If the pilot is able to successfully negotiate over, around, or THROUGH wintertime clouds in a non-known ice certified aircraft without generating an icing problem . . . . no harm, no foul. If, on the other hand, the pilot encounters airframe icing, he is encouraged to file a PIREP without fear of self-incrimination. His immediate task, of course, is to expeditiously escape the icing conditions. Here's the catch . . . . let's say this same pilot finds himself in an icing predicament. Ice is building on his wings and he has no safe escape route or "back door." The FAA will likely question his pre-flight planning and his likely disregard for weather reports, forecasts, and/or PIREPs, etc., that otherwise more prudent pilots may consider as "no go" factors. While some skeptics believe this new letter of interpretation leaves us no better off than before, the new language clearly does remove the archaic notion that all sub-freezing clouds equals "known ice." That, in itself, is a profoundly significant step forward. In summary, the latest "known ice" interpretation is evidence of the fact that the FAA is beginning to treat us pilots more as responsible adults than as children. This, of course, places a far greater burden upon us to know and understand the intricate world of wintertime flying. If we're not comfortable flying in and around sub-freezing clouds, either don't fly IFR in the winter . . . or get some responsible defensive icing strategy training. Click HERE to view the FAA's letter.
Crosswinds - The airline guys get it right! If you've ever wondered why the airlines nearly always get it right, take a look at the two videos linked below. Note: each of these videos may take a minute or two to load.
Lastly, airlines are known from learning from experience. See below what US Airways has come up with following their recent Hudson River experience:
A special thanks to Chuck Basil of Buffalo, NY for the two crosswind videos. Another special thanks to Mike Jeswald, also of Buffalo, NY for the Airbus on Floats photo.
Donations
Help!
It is your continuing donor support of
Please help me in
this important lifesaving endeavor by donating to the cause.
You can do so by check or credit card. Follow the
instructions below.
If you prefer to send a
personal check, you can do so by making it payable to
"Over the Airwaves" and mail it to:
Your donations are used exclusively in the preparation,
advancement, and promotion of
Over the
Airwaves to
and for pilots all over the globe. Taking the mystery out of weight and balance If one were to explore all of the unreported violations a pilot can make, it would likely be a failure to comply with FAR 91.9. That is, operating an aircraft outside of its certificated limitations as specified in the Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) or Approved Flight Manual (AFM). Key among these limitations, of course, is how much weight we can carry in the airplane. Equally important, we must distribute this weight so that the aircraft's center of gravity (CG) lies within a specified CG range.
Taking the mystery out of weight and balance requires that we first understand a couple of basic terms.
Computing and adding the moments We do not need any fancy graphs or tables to calculate the total weight and center of gravity (CG) for our aircraft. Instead, simply construct a basic table as illustrated below.
Then enter the various weights and arms for each as noted above. Multiply each weight by each arm to produce the moment. Total the weights and total the moments. Apply the CG formula as follows:
In the above illustration, the CG is 84.8 inches (from the datum). At this point, all we know for certain is the total weight of our aircraft. If this is equal to or less than the maximum allowable takeoff weight for our aircraft as published in the POH, we're okay to fly. Or are we? But is our airplane balanced properly? A quick reference to the POH tells us that, in this example, the acceptable CG range is 78 to 86 inches. Thus, the 84.8 CG we calculated in the above example is 84.8 inches, we're within CG limits and we're good to fly. Using the graph method for CG computation Some aircraft manufacturers, like Cessna, make it even easier to perform weight and balance calculations by providing us with a loading graph as shown below:
Using the loading graph found in the POH, we simply follow up each line until we find the appropriate weight on the Y (vertical) axis. We then drop straight down to the X (horizontal) axis to find the moment. We then total the moments and plot them on the following chart.
Question: For GA pilots operating under FAR Part 91, is it required that we actually compute a weight and balance prior to each flight?? Answer: No! But remember, we are constrained by FAR 91.9 that requires us to comply with the weight and balance limitations of our aircraft (among other requirements). Thus, the only way to be certain that we are in compliance is to perform a weight and balance computation. Most pilots satisfy this requirement by carrying multiple weight and balance computations, one for each possible loading configuration he might encounter on a given flight. Remember, too, that if you alter your airplane's design, like removing wheel pants or seats, a revised weight and balance computation for that changed configuration must be made. Remember, too, that only an A&P mechanic (or aviation maintenance technician - AMT, as he is now being called), can alter your airplane's basic empty weight. So you think you're instrument current - yeah, right!
Before discussing his approach further, it will be helpful to know the extent of his IFR currency. This 683 hour pilot had completed an Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) five months earlier. The IPC was conducted in a simulator, wherein he completed four simulated instrument approaches. The pilot's logbook revealed that he had accumulated 8.4 hours of actual flight time following his IPC, but he had not logged any actual instrument approaches. From this, we can conclude that the pilot had not flown an actual instrument approach in, at least, the past five months, perhaps longer. So what happened? According to ATC, the airplane was being vectored for the GPS runway 15 approach. The pilot was instructed to cross the VOR at 3,000 feet and was cleared for the approach. Radar data indicated the airplane crossed the VOR at 3,100 feet, and gradually descended to the initial approach fix, EYAGI, where it turned inbound for the approach at an altitude of 2,700 feet. After crossing EYAGI, the airplane continued a gradual descent to 2,200 feet. Prior to the airplane reaching the final approach fix (LIPIY), the controller stated, "Advise canceling I-F-R; frequency change approved."
The pilot acknowledged the
transmission. The airplane crossed LIPIY at 2,200 feet and
continued a gradual descent until the last radar contact was
observed at 1,500 feet, approximately 1 mile northwest of
the accident site. The airplane impacted trees about 4
miles northwest of the airport.
So what REALLY happened? As with so many such fatal accidents, nobody knows precisely what was taking place in the cockpit as the pilot was attempting an instrument approach to minimums. But we can make two very clear observations. First, practicing instrument approaches in a typical GA flight simulator is little more than video game playing. Sure, simulators are helpful in learning approach procedures, but they fall far, far short of "simulating" real conditions in real airplanes in real IFR weather. Sure, if one has access to a full up, Level D, $40 million, full-motion, airline simulators, such reality can be achieved. Not so, however, with anything less than this. The second lesson we can take from the tragic accident is, instrument proficiency degrades as quickly as milk sitting in Alabama sunshine in August. If you haven't executed an instrument approach in actual IMC within the past 30 days, don't try it without a skilled safety pilot sitting beside you!
FAR 61.57, which establishes the currency requirements for instrument pilots, is a cruel hoax perpetrated by people and organizations who lobby hard to minimize the "burdens" placed upon us GA pilots. Far too many pilots have died because of their minimal adherence to this regulation. In summary, racing blindly down the final approach course in a 2,500 pound machine in turbulent air at better than 100 knots per hour to a point just 200 feet above the ground solely by reference to a couple of swinging needles requires far more than video game skills. To be persuaded otherwise is folly. Aero-News.Net Features OTA in Podcasts
"Careless Pilots" is the latest in a series of podcasts Bob Miller has been doing with Aero-News.Net's Paul Plack. You can hear, or download for later listening, these 15 minute interviews and any of the previously conducted podcasts by clicking on the titles below: Podcast Titles[Click on desired titles - several minutes may be required to download.] Titles in RED are new since the last OTA. 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. It's Up to You to Fly Away - "Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center"
Not only do John and Connie spend nearly every weekend in either their Cessna 210 or their Cessna 180 on floats, they are eager to share their experiences with us via this new OTA feature. Click HERE to read the next in an ongoing series of "It's Up to You to Get Away." This trip is to Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This is particularly good reading for pilot spouses who haven't yet captured the excitement of flying!!!!! Those Pesky AIRMETS and SIGMETS You know what they are but do you REALLY know what they portend and who they apply to?? Let's take a closer look at these favorite question items of Designated Pilot Examiners (DPEs).
Issued every six hours (or more frequently as needed), information contained in an AIRMET is of operational interest to all aircraft, but the weather section concerns phenomena considered potentially hazardous to light aircraft and aircraft with limited operational capabilities. AIRMETs come in three forms:
The above AIRMET was issued by Dallas–Fort Worth on the 24th day of the month, at 1650Z time. This is the third update for turbulence, strong surface winds, and low-level wind shear through 2000Z on 24th day of that month. The turbulence section of the AIRMET is an update for Oklahoma and Texas. It defines an area from Oklahoma City to Dallas, Texas, to San Antonio, to Midland, Texas, to Childress, Texas, to Oklahoma City that will experience occasional moderate turbulence below 6,000 feet due to strong and gusty low-level winds. It also notes that these conditions are forecast to continue beyond 2000Z. SIGMETs
Issued as
needed, information contained in SIGMETs apply to ALL
pilots as they
report weather
forecasts that include severe icing not associated with
thunderstorms, severe or extreme turbulence or clear air
turbulence (CAT) not associated with thunderstorms, dust
storms or sandstorms that lower surface or inflight
visibilities to below three miles, and volcanic ash.
SIGMETs are issued under alphabetic identifiers, from November through Yankee, excluding Sierra and Tango. The first issuance of a SIGMET is designated as an Urgent Weather SIGMET (UWS). Reissued SIGMETs for the same weather phenomenon are sequentially numbered until the weather phenomenon ends.
Issued on the 10th day of the month at 0130Z, this is SIGMET Romeo 2. The "2" means it is the second issuance for this weather phenomenon. It is valid until the 10th day of the month at 0530Z time. This SIGMET is for Oregon and Washington, for a defined area from Seattle to Portland to Eugene to Seattle. It calls for occasional moderate or greater clear air turbulence between 28,000 and 35,000 feet due to the location of the jet stream. These conditions will be beginning after 0200Z and will continue beyond the forecast scope of this SIGMET of 0530Z. Convective SIGMETs Convective SIGMETs are the "mother of all weather advisories." They report severe thunderstorms with surface winds greater than 50 knots, hail at the surface greater than or equal to ¾ inch in diameter, or tornadoes. They are also issued to advise pilots of embedded thunderstorms, lines of thunderstorms, or thunderstorms with heavy or greater precipitation that affect 40 percent or more of a 3,000 square foot or greater region. Each report is issued at 55 minutes past the hour, but special reports can be issued during the interim for any reason. Each forecast is valid for 2 hours. They are numbered sequentially each day from 1–99, beginning at 00Z time. If no hazardous weather exists, the convective SIGMET is still issued; however, it states “CONVECTIVE SIGMET…NONE.”
Issued on the 22nd day of the month at 1855Z, this is convective SIGMET number 21C, indicating that it is the 21st consecutive report issued for the central United States. It is valid for two hours (until 2055Z).
The convective SIGMET is for an area from Kansas to
Oklahoma to Texas, in the vicinity of a line from
Goodland, Kansas, to Childress, Texas. No significant
thunderstorms are being reported, but a line of
thunderstorms will develop by 1955 Zulu time and will
move eastward at a rate of 30–35 knots through 2055Z.
Hail up to 2 inches in size is possible with the
developing thunderstorms. National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) at crossroads
While "collapse" may be too strong a term, NAFI as we once knew it appears headed for the organizational crapper - and rightly so. Laboring under an archaic set of by-laws, a dysfunctional board of directors, and a couple of former tails that appeared to wag the dog, NAFI's future is dim, at best. Ill-defined mission The Scriptures say that, " . . . without a vision, the people perish." Such appears to have been the case at NAFI. From this writer's (and former NAFI member and NAFI Master Flight Instructor) perspective, NAFI failed to grasp what its true mission should have been. Like all such membership organizations, NAFI set out to serve the interests of its members. With over 90,000 CFIs renewing their certificate each year, how is it that NAFI's membership ranks never rose much above 5,000 . . . in its good years? This fact, alone, should have sent alarms off in the NAFI board room years ago. So what did they do? Hmmm . . . a couple of (former) board members and contract employees, Sandy and JoAnn Hill, put forth and administered a program to recognize the efforts of a relative handful of its dwindling CFI membership. Called the Master Certificated Flight Instructor Program (MCFI), this effort assigned "points" for such things as serving on boards, signing off students for check rides, and a variety of community activities.
Keep in mind that there are 20 year-old MCFIs who qualified with less than one year total teaching experience! Any master plumber, carpenter, or bricklayer would LOL (laugh out loud) with those kind of "master" qualification requirements! Little smoke and even less fire! Unfortunately, neither the MCFI program nor any of the NAFI's other efforts, e.g., Mentor Magazine, AirVenture workshops, etc., do much to address the very problem for which the nation's CFIs are directly responsible. That problem is general aviation's unrelenting and deplorable fatal accident rate! In the grand scheme of things, there is only one person that stands between a student pilot and a fatal accident down the road. That person is the CFI. Remember the old education maxim - "If the student failed to learn, it's because the teacher failed to teach."
NAFI must become a powerful voice in calling for flight training reform, from private pilot training and experience requirements to the way we prepare and qualify flight instructors. It needs to become an active player in revising our antiquated training curriculum for all ratings. Most importantly, NAFI must divorce itself from entangling interests of any parent organization, e.g., EAA. It must do this because its agenda is largely contrary to EAA's. EAA pursues freedom from regulations. NAFI must promote regulatory enactment and reform. Like AOPA's step-child, the Air Safety Foundation, NAFI cannot maneuver in ways that promote safety without running afoul of its parent's mission. Membership interests and safety interests often move in different directions. If these interests moved in the same direction, for example, we would all be undergoing flight reviews annually instead of every two years. NAFI is, indeed, at a crossroads. Now is the time to take the right road. Become an electrical system guru Hands down, there is no more complex aircraft system . . . whether a Cessna 170 or a Cirrus SR22 . . . than the electrical system. In fact, if we re-administered the electrical system section of the A&P knowledge test to the nation's practicing aircraft mechanics, a surprisingly low number would still pass! As for us pilots, how do you spell "d-u-m-b?" I include myself, of course, in this sad characterization. Okay - So who cares, anyway? Picture the following scenario. You've loaded the family into your trusty airplane, bound for the ocean shore. The kids are excited and even our reluctant spouse is committed to making this a fun flying vacation. You run the pre-flight checklist, flip on the master switch, shout "clear," then turn the key. The propeller spins in predictable fashion and the engine begins to purr. "Huh," you exclaim to yourself. The low-voltage warning light on the left side of your panel begins to flicker, then glows bright red. You cycle the master switch again. It still glows red. "Everybody out of the airplane," you announce with sadness in your voice. "Vacation is over." What's wrong? If the first thing that comes to your mind is a failed alternator, beware! You could be making a very expensive mis-diagnosis. You may have also cancelled your flying vacation prematurely. Looking beyond the obvious! Take a quick look at the typical aircraft electrical schematic below. If this schematic looks like a Greek brain scan, you might want want to study up on your airplane's electrical system.
If your airplane is more than a couple of years old or it spends much of its time outdoors in a moist or, perhaps, acid-rich environment near chemical factories, there is a good chance that a little bit of contact cleaner might have saved your vacation. Equally possible, a loose wire anywhere in the charging circuit could be the cause. Master switch corrosion! A careful study of the above schematic reveals the role of the alternator control unit shown in the upper left corner. Its role is to sense the voltage level of both the primary and the avionics bus which, in turn powers the various electrically operated components of our aircraft. As increasing amounts of voltage are consumed (as we turn things on), the alternator control unit calls for more voltage from the alternator. In theory, this works every time! Let's, say, however, that a bit of corrosion develops on the master switch contacts. This corrosion increases the electrical resistance across those contacts. As this resistance increases, the alternator control unit senses a voltage drop in the charging circuit and calls for more voltage from the alternator. This, in turn, produces excessively high voltage that causes the entire charging circuit to shut down. Hence, the glowing red light we see on our panel. Note . . . in this scenario, the alternator is not to blame, nor is the alternator control unit. Instead, it is a bit of corrosion on the master switch contacts that could have been quickly fixed, thus enabling our family to continue its flying vacation. Lessons learned The first lesson learned in this scenario is, aircraft system failures may not be as bad as first imagined. If we look beyond the obvious, a possibly failed alternator in this case, there may be a simple little "fix" needed to get us going. Second, the more we as pilots understand the operating systems of our airplane, the better we are able to accurately diagnose the problem. Third, and perhaps the most important, the newer our airplane is, the more dependent it is upon its electrical system. Thus, if we have limited time to study our aircraft systems, the best place to focus our attention is on the electrical system. Helpful Sponsors Please support OTA's helpful sponsors by clicking on the images below where you will find ordering information.
Note: If you have an aviation-related product or service you would like to promote and help underwrite the continued publication of Over the Airwaves, please send an email to rjma@rjma.com.Things we're learning at BMFTAs I've shared with you before, Bob Miller Flight Training, Inc. was founded 14 months ago as a grand experiment to find ways to:
As with any such endeavor, for each two steps forward, we moved one step backward . . . but we're making progress. And we're making progress because changes we've made to the traditional ways of running a flight school. Here's just a few of those changes
We've said it before and we'll say it again and again . . . the traditional private pilot training curriculum, originally designed to prepare WWII pilot cadets for battle, causes more of today's flight students to quit before checkride than any other single training factor. Instead, BMFT primary students learn and master basic flight maneuvers while on cross-country trips to neat destinations. They learn the fine art of taking off and landing while hop-scotching to one airport after another rather than flying repetitious circuits around the same airport day after day. In summary, we cover the required curriculum, but we do it in a different, more logical order. 2. All weather flying: We embrace rather than avoid harsh winter weather. If our students expect to gain utility out of their pilots' certificates here in Upstate New York, they better learn to fly in its challenging weather. No retreating to the simulator for them! Safety, of course, is job #1. We occasionally get grounded just like everybody else, but if there is a guaranteed "back door" in challenging weather, we'll safely launch. 3. New G-1000 glass cockpit equipped aircraft:
There's little question that the G-1000 glass cockpit
is revolutionizing general aviation. BMFT, along
with Dunkirk Aviation, are the only flight schools in
our area offering G-1000 equipped training aircraft to
their students. And the results speak for
themselves. Our students love them!
4. Special programs:
We go well beyond the traditional curriculum and Practical Test Standards. For example, we host pilot/air traffic controller dinners and regular trips to the Buffalo TRACON and control tower as noted below.
Frigid temperatures and blustery winter winds didn't
keep some of stout-hearted pilots and flight students
from BMFT's tour of the Buffalo TRACON and control tower
this past month. As you can see from their happy
faces, they learned a lot!
In addition, BMFT offers specialty
flight training programs that include, for example: * New York City (High Density
Airspace) TRACON Tour *
Adirondack Mountain Tour *
Defensive Icing and High Altitude Training
* Accelerated 10 Day Instrument Training
* Spin and other Unusual Attitude Training
* Runway Balloon/Bounce/Crosswind Recovery
Training * International
Operations Training *
Tail-wheel and Light Sport Training 5. We encourage airplane ownership
We encourage our students to explore the wonderful
world of airplane ownership. This opens up a whole
new world of opportunity for new pilots who
traditionally go out and rent aerial relics from an
earlier era of aviation.
Our students trained in the best. They
might as well go out and fly the best! Having a
close relationship with Dunkirk Aviation Sales and
Service, a local Cessna dealer, we can offer our
students affordable ways to step right into a new
aircraft while still learning to fly and advancing
through the ratings.
6. No apologies for costs
This point addresses one of the greatest shortcomings
in traditional flight training. We freely
acknowledge the fact that on an hourly instructional
basis, learning to fly costs about the same as attending
a private four-year college.
BMFT's aircraft rental and
instructional charges are higher than our surrounding
competition. But we also train in new aircraft
with the latest cockpit technology. We also pay
our instructional staff substantially more than other
area flight schools. Better airplanes and better
instructors goes a very long way in making better
pilots!
We also make learning to fly a form
of escapism rather than a simple training exercise.
Like a sea cruise or all-inclusive Caribbean vacation,
our flight students find escape from the drudgeries of
their day-to-day working world. We treat our
students like first-class guests.
7. Outstanding airport logistical
support
Herein lies an often overlooked aspect of successful
flight school operation. Together, flight
schools and their host airports must operate as a team
if the training program is to work.
Here at the Buffalo-Lancaster
Regional Airport (KBQR), for example, our airport
management and operations staff goes well beyond the
norm in helping to keep our training fleet in the air.
Our greatest challenge this winter,
of course, has been unrelenting snow. Frequent
Buffalo snow storms are enough to choke most GA
airports, thereby keeping the training fleet in the
hangars. Not so here at KBQR. Their
snow removal crew (George Ezzo, Sloan Miller, Jason
Macken, and Gerry and Gary Griffiths) works literally
around the clock to keep our airport open.
Is it working? You bet it is! Our training
schedule remains full despite a threatening economy and the
world's worst weather! Click
HERE to learn more about
Bob Miller Flight Training, Inc. Sometimes, if we try real hard, we can talk
ourselves into anything. In fact, if we push others
the same way, they'll agree with us! Such was likely the case one cold evening
back in December, 2007. The pilot of a non-known ice
certified Mooney M20R called FSS for a weather briefing
prior to departure from Coldwater, MI to Raleigh, NC.
The pilot then asked the specialist,
"Does that mean at about ten thousand . . . I’m out of
clouds . . . I’m in the clear?" The specialist responded, "No, what that
means is that . . . if you’re in clouds or in precipitation,
there is a possibility for moderate icing." The FSS specialist added, "In Southern
West Virginia, the West Virginia area, you’ll get out that
icing area and then as you get into Virginia, there will be
another icing area . . . moderate icing between the freezing
level and flight level two zero zero." The pilot then stated, "The trick’s to
get on top and stay on top." The specialist
stated, "Correct."
Would this FSS briefing have caused YOU to postpone your trip to Raleigh, NC that ill-fated night? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. There is little question, however, that icing conditions were definitely in the forecast. This guy decided to give it a try. So what happened? The pilot departed Coldwater with a
clearance to 10,000 feet. He then contacted Cleveland
Center and was cleared to 13,000 feet. Shortly
thereafter, the pilot contacted Indianapolis Center and
reported level at 13,000 feet. The controller asked for clarification. The pilot stated that he had "engine problems." When asked if he was declaring an emergency, the pilot replied, "not at this point, but I want you to help me…find a VFR airport." The controller acknowledged the request.
The pilot added, "I want to avoid ice." When the controller asked him if he was in
icing conditions, the pilot reported he was at 13,000 feet,
"just on top" of the clouds, and was not in icing. When the controller tried to confirm his desire to proceed
to Roanoke, the pilot responded, "I’ll try to continue, yes,
at a lower altitude, maybe the engine catches again. I think
I have some ice somewhere in my engine," which the
controller acknowledged. The controller then gave the pilot the latest,
hour-old altimeter setting, and asked the pilot if he was
out of ice yet. The pilot responded, "out of ice, but not in
VMC." The controller then asked if the pilot had declared
an emergency, which the pilot confirmed he had. Shortly
after that, the controller cleared the pilot down to 5,000
feet. About 40 seconds later, the controller asked the pilot if he could make a right turn, or if he were "IMC," and the pilot responded with his call sign. There were no further transmissions from the pilot. Okay, so what do we learn from all of the this? Here is a clear-cut case of
"get-there-itis" on the part of the pilot. This
guy did his dead-level best to talk himself and the FSS
briefer into saying it was "OK" to launch. He did. He
died. Fly safe, Bob Miller, CFII, ATP
Past Issues of Click
HERE
to open any previous issue(s) of Technical Assistance
I would like to thank the following technical assistance
contributors for their valuable help in producing OTA every
month: Cameron Dunlop, Corning, NY;
Dan Maloney, Clarence, NY; Barry McCollom, Kerrville, TX; Thom
Riddle, Buffalo, NY; and
[Disclaimer: Material contained in this
e-newsletter is for informational purposes only.
It should not be construed as directive,
doctrinal, or instructive. Readers should
consult with their flight schools, certificated
flight instructors, Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO) and/or appropriate FAA
publications including the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FARs), the Aeronautical Information
Manual (AIM), and applicable FAA Advisory
Circulars (ACs) for specific guidance relative
to any information or before employing any
recommendations contained in this e-publication.
Further, nothing in this e-publication is
intended to be inconsistent with or contrary to
any official FAA rule or regulation, nor should
such material be interpreted or construed as
such. Over the Airwaves is intended
exclusively for the purpose of promoting and
enhancing heightened reader awareness of flight
safety issues. This website is not a substitute
for competent flight instruction.
All information in
this site is provided "as is," with no guarantee of
completeness, accuracy, adequacy, timeliness of the
information contained in, or linked to, or of the
results obtained from the use of this information,
and without warranty of any kind, express or
implied, including, but not limited to warranties of
performance, merchantability and fitness for a
particular purpose. In no event will the authors,
publishers their related partnerships or
corporations, or the partners, agents or employees
thereof be liable to you or anyone else for any
decision made or action taken in reliance on the
information in this page or for any consequential,
special or similar damages, even if advised of the
possibility of such damages. Certain links in this
page connect to other Web sites maintained by third
parties over whom the authors have no control. The
authors make no representations as to the accuracy
or any other aspect of information contained in
other Web sites. ©2004-2008 Over the Airwaves [TM], Buffalo, New York, USA.
Over the Airwaves is written, prepared, and published by
Bob Miller Flight Training, Inc., Buffalo, NY, who is solely
responsible for its contents.
ISSN 1937-3848. Over the Airwaves is a registered
trademark. Any use of this name , image, or reproduction,
duplication, or replication of this electronic publication
and/or prior issues in whole or in part without the express
written permission is strictly prohibited. Forwarding,
dissemination, distribution, and/or circulation of the Over
the Airwaves Uniform Resource Locator (URL) is permitted
under the terms of this trademark and copyright. |
pavement.
The
airplane then entered a steep, low-speed left bank that the
witness, who was a commercially licensed pilot, estimated
was greater than 45 degrees.
At
long last, we have an official FAA definition of "known
ice." And to the FAA's credit, it's a good one!
Let's
look at the case of a Beech H35 pilot executing a GPS
approach to his own airport in Warrenton, VA back in
December, 2007. The ceiling and visibility were close
to minimums for this approach.
(c)
Instrument experience. Except as provided
in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may
act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
conditions less than the minimums prescribed for
VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar
months, that person has: 
Imagine having the piloting skills, time,
money, enthusiastic spouse, and capable airplane to spend
long weekends flying to romantic places throughout the
Western Hemisphere.
It
makes little difference whether it is a big insurance firm
like AIG or a Wall Street investment firm like Lehman
Brothers . . . or a little membership organization like the
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI), when
there is something fundamentally wrong at the leadership
level, the organization eventually collapses.
Think
about it. The MCFI application reads much like an
application for membership in an exclusive aviation country
club rather than as a measure of experience, airmanship
skill, and teaching proficiency. 
If
NAFI is ever to rise out of its ashes either in its current
form or as a splinter group led by Rich Stowell, et. al., it
must wrap its organizational arms directly around the issue
of flight safety. Its revised mission statement has to
address our horrible safety record and the role that the
nation's flight training community can play in resolving
that problem.
The specialist advised the pilot, saying,
"There was a front across the eastern edge of West
Virginia." He also noted that there were "IFR
conditions in the departure area and along the pilot’s route
to the West Virginia/Virginia border, and moderate icing
below 10,000 feet."
Would such a weather briefing stopped you from launching?