September, 2009
Vol. VI, No. 9 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
Big Sky Theory? The debris hadn't yet stop falling to the ground before politicians began calling for a stop to VFR flights along NYC's Hudson River VFR corridor. One local elected official called this area over the Hudson the "Wild West" of aviation! At the same time, the rest of us more rational folks in general aviation scratched our heads and pondered, "How could such a thing happen?" The straight answer is, it would not have happened at all if people were looking out the window! Sure, there are so-called blind spots in the cockpit created by door frames and bulkheads. But this is why we periodically lower the nose or perform clearing turns to view the airspace along our intended route of flight. Nobody, of course, knows what was actually taking place in either the airplane or helicopter seconds before they collided over the Hudson. But one thing is certain. Each pilot had to know they were operating in the busiest airspace on the globe. Whether listening on the air-to-air frequency or to Teterboro or Newark control towers, the radio chatter alone should have placed these pilots on notice that they had multiple targets in all directions. Complacency to catastrophe . . . Okay . . . truth be told here. Every one of us who has commanded an aircraft in flight occasionally blinks. There have been times when our heads were buried in the charts, or we fiddled with the GPS buttons, or reached down into our flight bags for a stick of gum. Some of us have actually turned around and chatted with our backseat passengers while the autopilot happily kept us on course and on altitude. Hey . . . we're human and humans do not attend well to extended periods of concentrated activity. Unfortunately, this inability to remain focused for extended periods of time plays a significant role in nearly every aviation accident. It certainly could have played a role in the Hudson River collision. Sadly, we experience a dozen or so mid-air collisions each year. This is not a big number in our annual total mix of some 360 fatal accidents. But one thing is true . . . mid-air collisions are almost always fatal. Not surprisingly, mid-air collisions are not limited to low time, inexperienced pilots.
Last December,
for example, two flight instructors where conducting
training in a designated practice area near Hollywood,
Florida. One instructor in a Cessna 172 was
prepping his student for an instrument checkride.
The other instructor was in a Piper PA44-180 prepping
his commercially rated student for a multi-engine
instructor certificate. Both planes collided at
2,000' AGL in clear skies with 10 miles of visibility.
All four people were killed. "The failure of both pilots to see and
avoid the other aircraft." High tech cockpits . . . a help or hindrance? Back in the "black and white days" (as my daughter refers to the days of my youth), we used to look out the window to determine where we were going. Today, we have moving maps, multi-colored screens, and an ever-increasing array of new cockpit technology to light the way. We have terrain awareness, collision awareness, and 4-color weather depiction dancing across 10 inch wide screens that cover the entire panel. Nearly every self-respecting new airplane comes equipped with an autopilot that makes pouring coffee from a thermos a snap. So who needs to look out the window, anyway? Answer: We do!! I've begun taking a hard line with my flight students recently. If their eyes are not scanning the outside skies for more than several seconds, we return to the airport and put the airplane away for another day. Similarly, we fiercely avoid training in designated practice areas. Giving flight instruction is a huge distraction. To do so where other people are also giving flight instruction simply invites disaster. The same applies to the non-towered airport traffic pattern. Duh! Make ATC your best friend! Early analysis of the Hudson River collision suggests that the Teterboro tower controller handed the fixed-wing pilot off to the Newark tower for traffic advisories. For some reason, the fixed-wing pilot apparently failed to contact the Newark tower. Noting a potential collision course with the helicopter, the Newark tower tried repeatedly without success to contact the fixed-wing pilot. Seconds later, the two aircraft collided. Having conducted numerous training trips up and down the Hudson River VFR corridor I can say that the New York TRACON and airport tower controllers are among the most skilled in the world. They can see and resolve traffic conflicts at lightning speed. We pilots must do our part, however. We must be both vigilant and immediately responsive. Any gaps in our attention can instantly void the "Big Sky Theory."
Understanding Pitch and Power - The key to perfect landings every time! Flight instructors often grow hoarse trying to impart consistently good landing skills to student pilots lacking a basic understanding of the relationship between pitch and power. Without this understanding, there is simply no way (other than luck) to achieve a smooth landing. A basic review of pitch and power . . . There is one immutable truth about flying that every pilot must understand. This truth is: "Constant Power Plus Constant Pitch Equals Constant Speed."
Looking at the above instruments, if we set the power at, say, 2,500 RPM (or 25" MP and prop at 2,500 RPM) in level pitch, we will achieve an indicated airspeed of 120 knots. Next, if we hold this power setting constant and decrease pitch, our indicated airspeed (KIAS) will increase as noted in the instruments below.
Conversely, if we continue to hold this power setting but increase pitch, our indicated airspeed (KIAS) will decrease.
The landing corollary . . . Instead of holding power constant, let's hold pitch constant and vary power to achieve a perfect landing every time. Imagine yourself just about 10 feet above the runway seconds before landing. Now lock in the pitch angle so that you see just the far end of the landing runway out your windscreen. Concentrate on holding that pitch angle with your yoke or stick. Don't let the image of the runway end move upward or downward in your windscreen. Remember, that as the airplane slows, increasing amounts of back pressure on the yoke or stick will be required to hold that constant pitch angle. Next, adjust the power to hold that 10 feet of altitude as you cruise along above the runway. Get the picture? You're holding constant pitch and constant power to produce a constant altitude. Time to land . . . With pitch and power firmly fixed to achieve level flight just 10 feet above the runway, slowly reduce power to idle. What happens? Yep . . . the airplane begins to settle to the runway. The slower you reduce power, the slower your aircraft's descent rate to the runway surface. The end-result is a perfect landing every time. Nasty accident with a happy outcome! Unfortunately, most collisions between airplanes and towers have fatal outcomes. On occasion, however, some of us live to talk about it. Such was the case with OTA reader, Ross Leighton from Cape Town, South Africa. Ross was kind enough to share his particular airplane/tower experience with us below. Let Ross's experience be a good lesson for all of us!
Airspace Review . . . Unless we are: (a) a CFI; (b) a designated flight examiner; or (c) we passed our private pilot checkride within the past 30 days . . . there is a good chance we need a bit of review on the particulars of the national airspace system. So let's have a review . . .
Class A Airspace: Class A airspace is found between 18,000 feet MSL to 60,000 feet MSL, including the airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast of the 48 contiguous states and Alaska. Unless otherwise authorized, you must be operating on an IFR flight plan to fly in Class A airspace. Class B Airspace: Class B airspace surrounds Big airports ("B" - get it?). In most cases, Class B airspace resembles an upside-down wedding cake. An ATC clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area. You must have 3 miles of visibility and be able to remain clear of clouds to operate VFR inside of Class B airspace. Class C Airspace: Class C airspace surrounds airports that have an operational control tower and are serviced by a radar approach control. These airports are typically served by airline Commuter operations ("C" - get it?). Though no clearance is required to enter Class C airspace, you must first obtain two-way communications with ATC. Three miles of visibility is required and you must remain 500 feet below the clouds, 1,000 feet above the clouds, and 2,000 feet along side the clouds.
Class D airspace surrounds smaller airports that have an operational control tower but, in most instances, no approach control facility. Unless otherwise authorized, each aircraft must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering the airspace and you must have the same visibility and meet the cloud clearance requirements as Class C airpace. Class G Airspace: This is uncontrolled airspace meaning that ATC has no authority or responsibility to control air traffic, hence its called Good airspace ("G" - get it?). In the big wide open spaces, outside the blue faded line on a sectional chart, Class G airspace goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL. In the more congested airspaces (inside the blue faded line on the sectional), Class G goes from the surface to up to 1,200 feet AGL. In areas where published instrument approach procedures exist (inside the magenta faded line on the sectional), Class G goes from the surface up to 700 feet AGL. In most cases, you must have 1 mile of visibility and remain clear of clouds to operate in Class G airspace. Class E Airspace: Class E is basically Everything else ("E" - get it?). When operating in Class E airspace below 10,000 feet MSL, you must have 3 miles of visibility and remain 500 feet below clouds, 1,000 feet above clouds, and 2,000 feet along side clouds. When operating above 10,000 feet MSL, you must have 5 miles of visibility and remain 1,000 feet below, 1,000 feet above, and 1 mile abeam clouds.
Tribute to the Legacy Airlines Click
HERE
to view a short video on the history of our legacy
airlines. Thanks to
Our Helpful Sponsors
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.Crosswind landing accidents - why do they still occur? Given a choice of runways, most pilots will select the one most closely aligned with the wind. Sure, why not? That's what their primary flight instructor taught them to do. You're approaching a tower controlled airport. The controller offers you the runway most aligned with the wind, so that's what you select. Those two scenarios explain why we continue to have so many landing accidents. Always selecting the most wind-friendly runway, we seldom have opportunity to really sharpen our crosswind landing skills.
Not surprisingly, when these crosswind landing skills deteriorate, that's when we get into trouble . . . serious trouble. Trouble in Alaska Take the recent case of a 1,000 hour private pilot flying a Piper PA-18 who was attempting a gusty crosswind landing on an 1,800 foot long grass runway in Wasilla, Alaska. The runway was surrounded by tall trees. According to the passenger who survived the mishap, the airplane encountered intermittent turbulence. As it approached the landing strip, the pilot told her that the turbulence might get worse as the airplane got closer to the airstrip. The passenger reported that as the airplane continued on the approach and descended below the tree line, the left wing lifted. The airplane drifted to the right, towards a large stand of trees. She said that the pilot added full engine power along with full left aileron and aft elevator, but the right wing and the right side of the fuselage collided with a 75 foot high tree, pivoted to the right, then descended nose down into the ground. The pilot was killed in the crash.
A witness on the ground reported
that at the time of the accident, there were gusty winds. He
said that the windsock, which is situated at the approach
end of the airstrip, indicated rapid direction changes just
before the accident. The National Transportation Safety Board
determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as
follows:
As in most such accidents, we'll likely never know the precise cause of this fatal accident. We can conclude, however, that the gusty winds played a significant role. We know from the passenger's statement that the pilot was well aware of this turbulent wind condition. What he may not have been aware of, however, was the variability in wind direction . . . . particularly along a runway surrounded on all sides by 75 foot tall trees. Objects like trees, hangars, and hills can cause winds to swirl in unpredictable directions (see photo below).
Crosswind training and practice . . . the key to safe landings! While we would prefer that all winds flow smoothly directly down the runway, nature often has other things in mind. Winds seldom remain constant and they are seldom as predicted. Wind direction changes hour by hour, even minute by minute. Winds also play a significant role in nearly every landing accident. Therefore, it is in the best interest of every pilot, whether student or veteran, to become wind-proficient pilots. Thus, instead of remaining on the ground when winds kick up to 16 to 20 knots, as is the recommended practice of many flight schools and flight instructors, the truly safety-minded pilot will find a wind-proficient flight instructor and go out and master these demons. Becoming a wind-proficient pilot . . . Learning to "read" the winds is the first step in becoming a wind-proficient pilot. Begin by understanding the cross-wind component table (see example below). The key factor to know here is not the total wind speed but, instead, the wind direction and the resultant cross-wind component.
Next, know the performance characteristics of your airplane. Delve into the POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook) and learn your aircraft's takeoff and landing distance requirements and how they are affected by winds. Similarly, find your airplane's demonstrated cross-wind capability in knots. Understand that this number is NOT a limitation, but rather a statement by the manufacturer that your airplane was able to successfully takeoff and land at that maximum crosswind speed.
Lastly, learn how to position the controls (power, ailerons, and rudder) for approach and landing for any given wind speed and direction. Learn, too, which approach and landing indicated airspeeds are best for specified wind conditions. In summary, we know that more accidents occur during landing than in any other phase of flight. We know, too, that winds play a significant role in all landing accidents. So don't wait for a landing accident to happen. Go out and become wind-proficient - today!
Special flight rules proposed for the Hudson River VFR corridor . . . Duh!
Here's a brief summary of what likely will become effective November 19, 2009:
Current practices of flying northbound along the east shore of the Hudson River and southbound along the west shore will become mandatory.
Additional proposed changes will require VFR aircraft
departing from Teterboro Airport who intend to fly over the
River below the Class B airspace to follow an assigned route
to a point over the George Washington Bridge. Pilots
departing Teterboro planning to operate in the Class B
airspace over the River must first receive a clearance from
the Teterboro Tower.
Aero-News.Net Features OTA in Podcasts
"Price Shopping Flight Instruction" 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. We saw these rule changes coming!
The entire proposed rule change can be found HERE. Becoming a G-1000 Power User!
Looking at the trend indicators . . . Unlike conventional round gauges, G-1000 trend indicators provide the pilot with timely information on subtle altitude, airspeed, and heading changes. When incorporated into the instrument scan, these trend indicators make it possible to remain on altitude, on speed, and on heading. Let's take a closer look at each of these G-1000 trend indicators: Altitude trend indicator: Note the appearance of a magenta colored line that instantly appears either above or below the current altitude whenever the aircraft begins a climb or a descent. The appearance of this line is the first indication of an altitude change. The length of this magenta line indicates the altitude the aircraft will be in precisely 6 seconds assuming the present rate of climb. This information enables the pilot to commence a level off from climb to the desired altitude with little or no final altitude deviation. Airspeed trend indicator: A magenta line appears along side the current indicated airspeed anytime the aircraft is either accelerating or decelerating. The length of this trend indicator predicts precisely where the resultant indicated airspeed will be in 6 seconds at the current acceleration or deceleration rate.
Heading trend indicator: A magenta line appears either left or right of the lubber line on the heading indicator (horizontal situation indicator) any time the aircraft is turning. The length of this trend line reveals the rate of the turn. To initiate a half-standard rate turn,
position the indicator on the first tick mark. A standard
rate turn would be indicated by the trend indicator
extending to the second tick mark. A turn rate in excess of
standard rate would be indicated by the trend indicator
extending past the second tick This trend indicator shows what the aircraft’s heading will be in 6 seconds, but is limited to indicate no more than 24° in front of the aircraft, or 4° per second. When the aircraft exceeds a turning rate of 25° in 6 seconds, the trend indicator has an arrowhead attached to it.
In summary, trend indicators provide the pilot with a powerful tool with which to maintain desired heading, airspeed, and altitude well within checkride standards. They also enable the pilot to minimize any unnecessary deviations when changing the desired flight parameters. Sign up today . . . to subscribe (free) to Over the Airwaves! You are a simple click away from signing up to receive your monthly issue of Over the Airwaves. Click HERE. OTA is now being visited by over 16,000 pilots and aviation enthusiasts every month!It's Up to You to Fly Away - "Mackinac Island, Michigan"
Click HERE for your trip to Mackinac Island, MI Read earlier "Fly Away" stories by John Bouck. Click on the links below:
Provincetown, MA What's New at BMFT, Inc. There's nothing new at Bob Miller Flight Training, Inc. We're still plugging away at slaughtering the status quo within the flight training business; we're still bashing the old ways of training pilots; we're bloodying our collective noses developing new training scenarios; and we're hard at work pulling the plug on the pervasive use of boring flight training practice areas. In a phrase . . . we're making waves. And if the size of the target on my back and the number of arrows sticking in it is any measure of our industry impact, we're accomplishing our goal! There are two issues that are sucking the life-blood out of general aviation. These are:
Nothing, including vastly improved cockpit technology, has had any measurable impact on making general aviation safer. In short, we've not found a way to save pilots from the chronic deficiencies that exist within our stagnant flight training industry. 2. New student drop-out rate approaching 40 percent: Our unimaginative flight training industry continues to experience a revolving door of new students leaving before checkride. Numerous factors are to blame including: (1) high CFI turnover rates; (2) lack of professionalism within our flight schools and instructor ranks; (3) shoddy training aircraft; and (4) ineffective training curricula. We're addressing each of these two blood-sucking issues by carefully redefining the traditional instructional methods. Here are several innovative approaches to flight training we've recently adopted:
By so doing, our students are not taught. Instead, they discover! Repetitive takeoffs and landings to the same couple airports are replaced with actual training missions to different paved, grass, towered, and non-towered airports throughout the region. "REAL" IMC training: We have banished the view limiting device (hood) to our flight school museum of antiquated training tools. Instead, we make maximum use of all available IMC conditions for both primary and instrument training. No student is sent to his or her private pilot checkride until he first demonstrates his ability to safely extricate himself from actual IFR conditions. Stall/spin recovery training: Similarly, no private pilot is sent to checkride until he can safely recover from an accelerated stall, incipient spin, and actual spiral.
Cockpit video recording: Learning within the cockpit is dramatically enhanced through the use of video recordings of each in-flight lesson for later playback and study at home. The many subtle instructional points that are often missed in the air are easily picked up at home. In summary, no single change in our approach to flight instruction will produce dramatic change. But when numerous such changes are brought to the training curriculum, our goals of reducing the fatal accident rate and our deplorable new student drop-out rate will be achieved. When other flight schools adopt these same and similar training improvements, our world of general aviation will be forever improved.
There . . . in one single quote . . . we witness the very fine art of "spin doctoring" the data to make the questionable point that we pilots are doing a better job of arriving alive. The truth is, we do NOT know if our fatal accident rate is up or down simply because, as Mr. Landsberg points out, the denominator data (total hours flown) used in the fatal accident rate calculation is "elusive." In short, this "elusive" denominator is derived from a random sampling by the FAA of pilot flying activity rather than upon an objective recording of the total hours flown each year by each U.S. registered aircraft. Thus, if the denominator data is simply an estimate, than the product of this calculation (our fatal accident rate) is nothing other than an estimate as well. Why use sampling estimates when solid denominator numbers are available? Flight safety is arguably the most important data point we should be recording in general aviation. It rises above cost, convenience, and comfort because if do not arrive alive, what's the use? As such, this data point must be more than an estimate derived from pilot surveys. Instead, it should be a hard number, objectively measured, based upon actual data derived from recorded flight hours in the previous 12 months of each general aviation aircraft in the sky today.
Is the reporting of our actual flying hours to the FAA a violation of privacy? Hardly not. We already give them this information on our medical applications and on our application for new pilot ratings and certificates. We give this information to our insurance companies every time we renew our policies. Reporting this number to the FAA would be easy. Just as all flight instructors and designated pilot examiners (DPEs) now report and file pilot applications, including applicant training hours, to the FAA online, A&Ps can do the same thing when completing an annual inspection. Keep in mind, too, that most A&Ps already access the FAA's airworthiness directives (ADs) online database when performing annual inspections. Similarly, most aviation medical applications are now filed online as well. Thus, it's no big shake to have A&P IAs to do the same thing. Imagine what we could do if we had this data point! Let's suppose we could objectively measure the actual annual hours flown by make and model of aircraft by year. With that number in the denominator and the actual number of fatal accidents by aircraft make and model for the same period in the numerator, we could:
Similarly, having the precise number of actual hours flown by all GA aircraft from one year to the next and the actual number of fatal accidents during the same periods, we would know for certain whether our total piloting performance was improving or worsening. We would know objectively if our various safety initiatives, our colorful, interactive training videos, and our many safety seminars launched each year were having any effect on flight safety. We could tweak our pilot certification and training requirements and know in short order if these changes had any measurable impact on safety. No more "elusive" numbers, no more guessing and . . . no more spinning the data. Okay, so maybe there is a reason why the FAA would rather have estimates than hard data on actual flight hours. While not wishing to fall victim to conspiracy thinking, let me speculate a bit. Perhaps AOPA, its Air Safety Foundation, other GA alphabet organizations, and even our aircraft manufacturers really do not want to know what our actual flight hours and resultant actual fatal accident rates by year. Perhaps, instead, these organizations including the FAA would rather retain the ability to WAG (wild-ass guess) the denominator data so as to more or less "influence" what our fatal accident rate is? Does this sound like a political issue? Is this a grand scheme to protect the status quo? Could be. What do you think? Share your thoughts with me at rjma@rjma.com
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. ©2004-2009 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Class
D Airspace:
Acting
about as predictably as the sun rising in the east, the FAA
has proposed special flight rules governing flight through
NY City's Hudson River VFR corridor. This, of course,
follows on the heels of the helicopter/fixed wing collision
that occurred there earlier this summer.
In
a reassuring demonstration of common sense, the FAA is
proposing a number of changes to 14 CFR Part 61 that reflect
the changing world around us. Here are just a few of
these improvements:
Those
of us fortunate enough to be flying behind a Garmin G-1000
glass panel display are likely assimilating far less than
its full information potential. As such, we should
regard each future flight as an opportunity to probe deeper
into its vast resources.
Many
of you have been enjoying John and Connie Bouck's travel
adventures on their getaway weekends in their Cessna 210.
This month, John shares with us a few of the travel tips
they've learned along the way. 
We've eliminated the proverbial
practice area and replaced it with unique cross-country
training scenarios. Each scenario incorporates a wide
array of maneuvering and aeronautical decision making (ADM)
exercises that often include exciting sightseeing locations,
aerial photography, and scenic tours. 
Contrary to what the FAA would have us
believe, this data point IS readily available. It can
be read off of the HOBBS meter and reported to the FAA by
each aviation maintenance inspector (A&P IA) when completing
the required annual inspection (or condition inspection by a
homebuilder) of every U.S. registered
aircraft. 