August, 2009
Vol. VI, No. 8 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
Waving the Flag! We Americans proudly celebrated another July 4th anniversary of our independence this past month. Flags waved, fireworks exploded, and John Phillip Sousa was again remembered as high school bands marched up the Main Streets of nearly every city, town, and village in the land. We should be proud of ourselves and, particularly, our forefathers who took up arms in defense of our nation. Waving the flag on the 4th of July is what we do!
Waving the
flag is what we also do in general aviation. But
it's a different flag. Our GA flag is the hype and
hoopla we witness every day in our aviation
publications, our conventions and expositions, and in
our air
We feature splashy four-color photos of the latest airplanes on glossy magazine covers, parades of airplanes taxiing down city streets, and tight formations of war birds roaring over flight line center at Oshkosh. But there is a marked difference between a July 4th celebration and the flag waving we do in general aviation. Not to diminish one in favor of the other, our July 4th celebrations remind us of the terrible price we paid for freedom. Our GA celebrations, on the other hand, seem to forget the terrible price paid by those fallen aviators who brought our industry to where it is today. How soon we forget the flight crews who had to die before we could achieve a responsible air traffic control system. How soon we forget the pilots who died because of poor aircraft design. How soon we forget - and the same story goes on, and on, an on. Our fragile GA industry is at a critical turning point Here's a message to our GA industry leaders, our membership organization boards of directors, and the publishers of our aviation magazines. Let's stop the flag waving, let's stop believing our own hype and hoopla, and let's focus for longer than a TV sound-byte on the fact that our GA industry is only one terrible accident away from a very, very big headache - or worse. Let's imagine what nobody in our industry, much less our nation, wants to even think about. Let's talk about the public's reaction and Congressional response when a packed airliner is struck in the side by some wayward GA pilot! The result? We should not be surprised when GA VFR operations are prohibited within 30 miles of every Class B and C airport in the nation!
In order to accept the reality of this fact, witness the knee-jerk reaction of our government leaders and the general public when it comes to airplanes, particularly small, private airplanes. We need only to observe the craziness of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) when screening elderly passengers in airline terminals or the posting of hideous security measures around small, rural GA airports. Ten years ago we could fly VFR into Washington National Airport (DCA) in our Cessnas, Mooneys, or Lears - no flight plan required, just call Approach outside Class B Airspace and "come on in!" Now, if you get within 29.9 miles, you and your passengers get slammed to the ground by law enforcement and the violation is front-page news! Nobody is for more regulation, but . . . Regrettably, the time has come for our industry leaders to accept the fact that self-regulation and individual pilot motivation to improve our safety records is not enough. The simple truth is, nearly 85 percent of us pilots never show up at a safety meeting, never watch an online safety video, or participate in any FAA or AOPA safety initiative. We know, for example, that less than one percent of us participate in the FAA's new WINGS program! Nobody likes more regulations, whether they be laws requiring seatbelts or prohibiting drunk driving, or new requirements to undergo flight reviews every 12 months. But times are changing and, whether we like it or not, the hammer must come down on our industry against the mavericks among us who, left to their own devices, will be our ultimate undoing. Sure, more regulations simply penalize good pilots, but it is no different with us than it is in society in general. It's hitting me harder than most of you! Lest you think I'm just waffling in the wind about a call for more regulatory control of our industry, I recently invited this matter to roost right here in my own world as a pilot. Here's how. I've been an independent flight instructor flying below the FAA's radar screen for nearly 10 years. Two years ago, I opened a flight school that has been operating independent of close FAA supervision under 14 CFR Part 61 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. This meant that I and my flight instructors could teach pretty much any way we liked as long as we did not do anything stupid and our students achieved the training and experience requirements required to obtain a pilot certificate. Putting my actions where my mouth was, I recently elected to reorganize my flight school under 14 CFR Part 141 and become an FAA approved and closely monitored flight school. This, of course, opened me up to what some might call a nightmare of day-to-day involvement with the FAA, particularly during the formative stages of our school's conversion. Here comes the interesting part . . .
He said, "Bob, you can elect to conform to the minimum FAA requirements to become a Part 141 flight school, or you can opt to go beyond the minimum standards and be something much more. Which is it?" The answer from me did not come as quickly as you might think. The minimum regulatory requirement were extensive and time-consuming by their very nature. Agreeing to go beyond the minimums opened me up to an intimate FAA relationship that I wasn't sure I could handle both operationally, financially, and time-wise. I pondered this question carefully. I asked my legal advisors and colleagues both inside and outside my school. All agreed that I should "stick to the knitting" and be happy to satisfy the basic requirements only. Then I asked myself why I was in this business in the first place. Was it to make a few bucks? Sure. Was it to be able to fly and teach more? Absolutely. But it was far more than this. As reported many times before in OTA, my goal has been to engage in a grand experiment to see if one person with a team of talented helpers, working within the most stringent rules, could affect a change in the way people are taught to fly . . . in ways that would encourage more people to fly while reducing our chronically unchanged fatal accident rate . . . and not go broke while doing this. Thus, I opted for the full enchilada. "Give me the full treatment," I said to the FAA's inspection team's representative. "If we're going to teach pilots to fly safely, let's do it right. No more minimum standards for us," I added. In summary, it is time we all put the flags down long enough to go to battle in defense of our GA industry. Let's replace the glossy magazine covers picturing flashy airplanes with images of us all working harder to improve our piloting skill levels. There is hope! The good news is we CAN do something positive to protect our fragile industry. Each of us, in our own particular way, can become a better pilot. We can learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. Let's participate in the FAA's WINGs program. Let's get a full weather briefing. Let's pull out and run the checklist, fire up the engine, look out the window, and do some purposeful self-training while winging our way to that next fly-in breakfast. If we all do these few things, we'll be better pilots for it!
How do we protect ourselves from ourselves? Truth be told, most experienced pilots will admit (at least to themselves) that, at one time or another, they pressed on when they should have landed. Perhaps it was a rough running engine. Maybe it was an alternator failure. Weather is often the biggest culprit when it comes to continuing ahead when either a course reversal or landing would have been a better choice.
Most of us would likely agree that the loss of the attitude indicator while in VFR conditions is not a deal breaker. This pilot apparently shared this popular notion and elected to continue his flight. There was only one problem, however. The weather ahead had deteriorated to instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Since the guy had an IFR flight plan on file, he elected to activate his IFR flight plan and continue on into the soup . . . with an attitude indicator that soon failed altogether. A little bit of history . . . The pilot had contacted the Kankakee Flight Service Station prior to departure and was informed that flight under visual flight rules (VFR) was "not recommended."
He then took off under VFR conditions
and contacted the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center
and informed the controller that he had previously filed an
IFR flight plan to Caldwell, NJ. He added, "But we gotta go VFR. I'm having a little trouble with the, uh,
artificial horizon so we're going to try and make it VFR..."
The National
Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's
improper decision to continue the flight in
instrument meteorological conditions after
experiencing an attitude indicator malfunction. The proverbial accident chain . . . Assuming the NTSB's probable cause report is correct, it doesn't take much beyond a pre-solo student pilot's aeronautical knowledge level to know where the accident chain in this fatal event began. Yep . . . right about when the pilot noticed that his attitude indicator had toasted. Whether or not an operating attitude indicator is required for day VFR flight per the applicable airworthiness regulations under which a Cessna 337 was type certificated was probably not in this pilot's mind when it failed. He had a mission and was likely intent on completing it. So what should he have done? Land or continue on in VFR flight? Okay . . . he elected to continue on. But things quickly began to change. Deteriorating weather made it necessary for him to alter the flight rules under which he was operating from VFR to IFR. Again, let's say this guy wasn't up on the applicable instrument requirement rules governing IFR flight. However, one must wonder how he intended to keep his wings level when in the clag. Enter the partial panel scenario! Every self-respecting instrument student is taught partial panel skills or how to operate with inoperative instruments. Did this pilot assume this training gave him "license" to proceed in the clag with a failed attitude indicator? Perhaps his intent was to use his turn coordinator or his heading indicator to maintain a wings level condition. Maybe he had a backup attitude indicator. We'll never know. Whatever was in this pilot's mind, he knew two things. First, the weather was worsening and, second, he knew he needed to pick up his IFR clearance if he were to continue to his planned destination. His flying choices were clear. Either (1) continue on course; (2) remain in VFR conditions; or (3) land at the nearest suitable airport. Sadly, he made the wrong choice. Poor aeronautical decision making (ADM) is what killed this pilot! This guy had several thousands hours of flight time. He could have been the proverbial "ace of the base." His stick and rudder skills may have matched Bob Hoover's in his best days, and he could likely keep the needles centered to IFR minimums.
If we were to pin blame for this pilot's wrong choice, we need to go back to his original flight training. Was his training maneuvers-based, where he did repeated takeoffs and landings at the same couple airports? Was his training restricted to some pre-defined practice areas? Or, was each training flight a pre-designed scenario, with flights to distant airports with unexpected diversions due to changing weather conditions. In short, was he taught to think in addition to what to do?
Curiously, the way many pilots die is
strongly suggestive of the way many pilots were trained.
Think about that for a few minutes. Our Helpful Sponsors
OTA
sponsors plus our growing list of
individual donors make it possible for me to continue
producing and circulating
OTA
each month to over 17,000 pilots and aviation enthusiasts
around the world FREE.
We NEED your continuing
financial support to keep
OTA
alive and well!
If you have an aviation-related
product or service you would like to promote and help
underwrite the continued publication of
CNN calls upon OTA to comment on helicopter/airplane collision over Hudson!
It was a sad day over NYC's lower Hudson River this past Saturday, August 8 when a sight-seeing helicopter and a Piper PA-32 collided, killing all 9 people aboard both aircraft. I received a phone call from a CNN producer in New York City while divers were still engaged in rescue attempts. He invited me to comment on the air about the Hudson River VFR corridor operations. [See television screen shot above.] As OTA readers know, I conduct regular flight training exercises throughout the New York Class B airports including flights along the Hudson River VFR corridor. The only point I emphasized during this on-air interview was the importance of looking out the window. "See and avoid is ultimately the only procedure that works in this or any airspace," I said. I added, "Of all the risks associated with general aviation, there is only one that has fatal consequences nearly every time. This is a mid-air collision. We must ALWAYS be scanning the sky for other traffic."
The new age of aviation is here - Embrace it!
Most pilots over 60 years of age remember slide rules being replaced by hand-held calculators. If you are over 50 years old you remember how PCs replaced portable typewriters.
Today, we pilots are living through another major transition. This transition is taking us from "steam" (round) gauges to the digital age of "glass" cockpits. Sure we can resist this latest change or even decry its benefits, but history reveals that technological advancements eventually rule the day. And so it is with our new glass panels. The question is, what should our flight schools be teaching today? Stated differently, what is flight school's responsibility to new students walking in the door? The old verses the new . . . The ultimate question when moving from older to newer aviation technology is, will the newer technology make flying safer? Will it make us free to perform more tasks simultaneously? Will it better prepare us to fly the new generation of airplanes coming out of the factories today and tomorrow? Answers to these questions . . . Like all such aviation-related questions, it depends. Let's look at these questions from several different perspectives.
So what should flight schools today be teaching . . . glass or steam? Answer: It depends upon their students' perspectives and expectations.
Here a Master, there a Master, everywhere a Master Master!
Each of these organizations is trying to bestow the esteemed "Master" moniker on just about anybody who is willing to ante up the application fee. EAA's affiliated NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors) is the oldest of these three organizations. Another is SAFE (Society of Aviation and Flight Educators). SAFE is the new kid on the block, founded earlier this year by a group of disgruntled former NAFI members.
Each of these organizations wants YOU to join up with them. If you are reasonably involved in any aspect of flight training, either in the air or in the classroom, they want to knight you as a "Master" something or another. Let's see if you are confused yet? This past July 11th, I opened my snail mail and found a letter from Jason Blair, NAFI's executive director. The letter asked me to consider renewing my NAFI Master Flight Instructor accreditation that I had voluntarily resigned several years ago. This letter also informed me about a new, non-flying NAFI masters program titled, "NAFI Associate Master CFI" that I might consider applying for.
This press release announced that Master Instructors, LLC. has an FAA-approved "Master Instructor Continuing Education Program," along with still another brand new master program titled, "The Master Aviation Educator (MAE)." According to Master Instructors LLC, this latest master accreditation was developed "to recognize those individuals who are working as aviation educators in industry, government, or the private sector but who do not hold FAA instructor certifications such as a CFI, BGI, AGI, or IGI." This new master accreditation is targeted to the many non-pilots who hold teaching credentials issued by state or federal agencies, the military, or industry and who teach aviation related subjects to high school, technical school, and college students, CAP cadets, simulator clients, mechanics, IAs, avionics technicians, and others. In short, as long as you teach aviation in the sky or on the ground, you, too, can become a master. Hey, the nicely framed certificate looks good on the wall and the master moniker looks good on the resume! All's fair in love or war, but really guys!
In what otherwise should be well-oiled, highly organized flight instruction community that speaks with a single, unified and dignified voice is quickly becoming a circus sideshow of hucksters seducing passersby, including the FAA, to their games of skill. What's the solution? Unfortunately, there is no ready solution. Like so many of us in aviation, egos are strong and often unforgiving. The chances of NAFI winning back Sandy and JoAnn Hill and the many dissidents who departed and formed SAFE is about as likely a AVGAS prices dropping below $2/gallon again. Hopefully, these storm clouds within the flight training community will someday part thereby allowing the "true" masters of our profession to be properly recognized.
The FAA's WINGs Program - Getting new pilots off on the RIGHT foot!
After many frustrated trial and errors, I eventually became a believer in today's online WINGs program. While not yet a "power user" of the system, I've come to appreciate the fact that the WINGs program promises to do more to reduce our flat-lined fatal accident rate than many other safety initiative out there . . . including of AOPA's gazillion interactive videos and safety seminars. Why? Because the WINGs program keeps a record of our training. And when we keep score, our scores get better! Despite its still steep learning curve and painfully slow Internet servers, the WINGs program provides every pilot having access to a computer with a convenient way to systematically maintain their proficiency. And the best place for pilots to begin doing this is the day they pass their private pilot check ride. Flight Instructors and Designated Pilot Examiners . . . Listen up! If we were to pick a point in every pilot's life when they are most enthused about flying, it's likely the day they passed their private pilot check ride. These new airmen (and airwomen) are more eager then than in any other point in their flying career to establish good safety practices. So this is the best time to have them enroll in the WINGs program.Once enrolled, the next step is to help them record credit for all of their private pilot training. . Current pilots . . . we, too, can benefit from WINGs!
[Photo left of Bryan Neville, the FAA's WINGs National Outreach Manager explaining the new WINGs program to Oshkosh audience.] Yep . . . the WINGs program web design still needs a good deal of streamlining and its web server needs a shot of steroids . . . each of which is promised to happen within the next several months. Still in all, it's worth the effort to get involved!
How much experience is enough? Most new pilots wonder if they will ever log enough flight hours to really feel confident aloft. Some suggest that the magic number is 200 hours. Others place it somewhat higher. Surprising as it might sound, the total hours of flight experience and pilot ratings and certificates doesn't always correlate with overall piloting skills. Take the case of this scud-running pilot.
The pilot received a pre-flight briefing and was advised that IFR conditions existed along his route of flight and at his destination airport. The FSS briefer advised him the VFR flight was not recommended. Like many errant but otherwise experienced pilots, this fellow apparently figured that if he flew low along a highway he could remain clear of any obstacles along his route of flight. And, like many such errant but otherwise experienced pilots, his plan did not work out. What happened? According to his handheld GPS unit found in the wreckage, the pilot had, indeed, followed Interstate 15 enroute to his destination. This worked out fine until he struck power lines near Boulder, MT at a recorded speed of 113.3 miles per hour. The pilot died of blunt force injuries. His passenger was seriously injured. There was no word on the outcome of the dogs. Fog, low clouds, snow, and rain were present in the area of the accident site. The surviving passenger reported that no engine or airframe malfunctions were encountered during the flight.
The National
Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's
decision to continue flight at low altitude in
instrument weather conditions and his failure to
maintain clearance from a power line. Contributing
to the accident were low cloud and visibility
conditions. Just how much experience did this pilot have? The pilot held a combined commercial ATP certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land and multiengine land. He previously held a certified flight instructor (CFI) certificate and a flight engineer certificate with ratings for turbojet powered and turbo-propeller powered. He held a mechanic certificate, with ratings for airframe and powerplant. He reported a total of 20,000 flight hours on his most recent medical certificate, with 50 hours in the last six months. Should that be enough aeronautical experience to have confidence aloft? Truth be told, we build confidence with each flight hour we log until reaching a point where too much confidence eventually does us in. What can we learn from this fatal accident? Aside from the obvious that scud-running (flying low in poor visibility and low ceilings) is about the most hazardous thing we can do in an airplane, we can also learn that confidence can kill! I remember a while back sharing my over-confidence with my good friend and mentor, Louie Nalbone of Dunkirk Aviation Sales and Service in Dunkirk, NY. I had been shooting low instrument approaches night after night right down to minimums. Before long, I could do these approaches without experiencing the sweaty palms and a measure of anxiety in the pit of my stomach. I told Louie about my experiences. His words of wisdom have remained with me to this day. He said, "Take a break, Bob. You're getting too confident. That can kill you."
I did take a break. In fact, I
took a week off from flying. Today, when I find myself
too relaxed in the cockpit, I force myself to take a couple
of days off. Believe me, it works! National Aeronautical Charting Office (NACO) suffering from too much business! If you're wondering how our government can realistically take over our auto industry, Wall Street, and our health insurance industry, one need only look to the recent actions of the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Aeronautical Charting Office (NACO). Complaining of having too many customers, NACO has devised a novel system to reduce the size of its customer list. By raising the minimum annual chart agent ordering volume from $500 to $5,000, it has found a way to reduce its total number of customers. Remember, this stuff happens ONLY in government! Wouldn't we all like to have too many customers? Local Western New York NACO Chart Agents . . . Many of our local Western New York NACO chart agents have solved this problem by collaborating with Dunkirk Aviation Sales and Service, Inc., who will serve as our source for NACO charts. Dunkirk Aviation has been in the flight training and chart distribution business longer than any other local airport. Dunkirk has both the staff and resources to re-distribute NACO products out to the rest of us both fast, efficiently, and without the premium prices often charged by larger airport FBOs.
If you're looking
for a NACO chart agent, contact Dunkirk Aviation Sales and
Service, Inc. at 716-366-6938, or email Carl at
cbjurlin@dkk.com. Oshkosh bound . . .
This past month, of course, was AirVenture 2009 in Oshkosh, WI. And one of the best parts of Oshkosh is sharing the experience with friends and family. [Pictured left are Joe Gregorski, my daughter, Erica (holding life raft), Jessica, me, and one of my CFIs, Patrick Finnegan.] We took off from the Buffalo-Lancaster, NY (KBQR) Airport on Sunday, July 26th in my Cessna 210. Our three hour flight took us non-stop over Canada, along the northern shore of Lake Erie, then over Lake Huron, through the middle of Michigan, then out over Lake Michigan to Wittman Field serving Oshkosh, WI. Aside from some widely scattered thunderstorms and rain showers, the trip was uneventful. I left the outbound piloting to Jessica and the return trip piloting to Joe. Fun was had by all aboard! Arrival of the Airbus A-380 It goes without saying that the highlight of AirVenture 2009 was the arrival of the newest and largest passenger aircraft ever made. This beast has a gross weight of 1.2 million pounds and can carry 800 passengers.
Oshkosh - the Ultimate Family Affair
And this year's AirVenture was the best ever. It broke nearly every attendance record in the book. This year, 578,000 people attended AirVenture - up 12% from the previous year. More than 10,000 aircraft flew in and out to AirVenture 09. Of these, 2,650 were show airplanes (largest number since 2005) that included 1,023 homebuilts, 1,007 vintage airplanes, 355 warbirds, 116 ultralights, 99 seaplanes, 36 aerobatic aircraft and 16 rotorcraft. There were 750 commercial exhibitors and 907 media representatives from five continents! And over 41,000 people resided onsite in tents and campers. All in all, it was a HUGE success. Don't miss it next year!
Donations
Help!
If you found OTA useful, please consider making a financial
contribution to the effort. 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. Non-standard traffic pattern behavior may have contributed to fatal mid-air collision! We all like to believe in the "Big Sky Theory" of collision of avoidance, meaning that the odds of two airplanes colliding in mid-air is statistically improbable. Sadly, this theory did not play out one sunny afternoon last year in Corona, California. Here's what happened . . . A Cessna 172 with two people aboard was making a standard 45 degree entry to the left downwind to Runway 25 at the Corona Municipal Airport (AJO). About the same, a Cessna 150, also carrying two people, was just lifting off from Runway 25 at the same airport. Visibility at the time was reported to be picture perfect.
All four occupants in both planes plus one person on the ground were killed. A careful study of the radar tapes and an analysis of each aircraft's performance capabilities by accident investigators revealed some interesting findings. Most notable among these findings was that the departing Cessna 150 had commenced its crosswind turn prior to reaching 700 feet AGL as recommended by the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). Beware of the blind spots! A visibility study conducted by accident investigators determined that the Cessna 150 had a 14-second window of opportunity while on the crosswind leg and during the turn onto the downwind leg to observe the approaching Cessna 172. However, due to the angle of convergence of the two aircraft, the Cessna 150 pilot was likely not able to see the other aircraft in the final 9 seconds prior to the collision. According to Cessna, the field of view (visual angle) from the cockpit of the Cessna 150 as it was turning to the downwind was limited in the area from which the Cessna 172 was converging by the door post structures. A witness reported that neither airplane appeared to alter its course during the final seconds of flight. No airport facilities or any of the pilots flying in the vicinity reported hearing any communication from either airplane.
So what REALLY went wrong here? Aside from the rather terse NTSB Probable Cause Finding, we can only speculate what was taking place moments before this fatal collision occurred. As the NTSB Report revealed, the departing Cessna 150 turned crosswind prior to reaching 700 feet AGL as recommended by the FAA. Did this action serve to confuse the incoming Cessna 172 pilot as he was completing his 45 degree entry to the left downwind leg? Was the C172 pilot not expecting to see traffic on the crosswind quite so close to the departure end of the runway? We'll never know the answer to each of these questions. Were neither pilot watching for other traffic as they were maneuvering in the traffic pattern? Could it be possible that neither pilot was making necessary radio calls? What can we learn from this tragedy? The first thing we can learn is to forget ever hearing about the "Big Sky Theory," particularly when maneuvering in and around the traffic pattern. The sky really isn't that big over and above an active airport. Second, both pilots had ample time to scan the sky and observe the opposing aircraft. One simply has to look out the window. Sure, there are always a brief few seconds when a wing or a door post can obscure certain portions of the sky, but that's no excuse for not observing other nearby traffic. Third, we have radios in most airplanes. Let's use them during each turn in the pattern. Some may disagree, but calling out each leg as we maneuver through the pattern to landing is an excellent way to keep abreast of other nearby traffic. Lastly . . . and perhaps the most important. There is a clear standard for executing traffic patterns. This standard is clearly stated in the FAR/AIM. What about avoiding noise sensitive neighborhoods? Any effort or practice which alters a standard pattern opens us all up to possible collisions. Avoiding noise sensitive neighborhoods by altering the standard traffic pattern should NEVER be entertained! Aero-News.Net Features OTA in Podcasts
"AirVenture 2009 Recap" 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. 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!Cirrus Design . . . promoting safety??
Unfortunately, my schedule prevented me from taking them up on this invitation. However, my good friend and former student, Kelly Brannen, did participate in their factory training program and sent me back his first-hand impressions as recapped below:
Thanks, Kelly, for sharing your Cirrus factory training experiences with us. One day I hope to see and hear for myself what Cirrus Design is telling and teaching their new customers. It's Up to You to Fly Away - "Provincetown, Massachusetts!"
Click HERE for your trip to Provincetown, MA Read earlier "Fly Away" stories by John Bouck. Click on the links below:
Cape May, NJ What's New at BMFT, Inc. As frequent OTA readers know, I launched Bob Miller Flight Training, Inc. (BMFT) 18 months ago as a grand experiment. I set out to prove that the best way to reduce our fatal accident rate while simultaneously reducing our new student dropout rate is to depart from our traditional methods of flight training. I also set out to accomplish this within the constraints of 14 CFR Part 141.This section of each OTA issue is devoted to telling how we're doing this. Here are a few things we're doing in this regard:
Experienced flight instructors know that most students hear only about one-half of what the instructor actually says in the cockpit. Worse, students comprehend only about one-half of what they hear. This strange paradox is due to the many airborne distractions that divert the student's attention. We found a way around this strange paradox. Building upon technologies found in more advanced training organizations, we're now equipping our training aircraft with in-cockpit video recording systems. These systems record what the student actually sees and hears in each training flight!
The system is really quite simple. A small high-resolution video camera (see photo above left) is attached to the cockpit ceiling with a suction cup. The camera picks up portions of the student's and the instructor's head, the instrument panel, and the view through the windscreen. The system also records what is spoken and heard through the pilot's headset. The instructor is able to start and stop the recording by pressing a small remote switch attached to his knee board. At the end of each training flight, the video recording is burned into a DVD and is given to the student to take home and review, over and over again until he or she hears and comprehends EVERY aspect of the training flight. "I was amazed at what I was able to learn from the system," says sport pilot candidate, David Tarnowski of Niagara Falls, NY. "Our last training flight was a mock checkride. I was able to see and hear both my strong and weak points by reviewing the DVD several times. I now feel much better prepared to take my real checkride," adds David. * Abolishing the Practice Area We all know we should fly the way we were trained and to train the way we fly. Airlines have been doing this kind of training for decades. We call this "scenario-based training" or SBT for short.
For example, a photo-shooting flight over Niagara Falls is a wonderful place to learn to perform steep turns and turns around a point. Talk about realistic distractions, wow! None of us learn to fly simply to travel to the same one or two airports. Thus, airport-hopping to new and different airports on every training flight is the best way to learn traffic pattern operations and short and soft field takeoffs and landings. * Creating REAL Learning Challenges!
What is the hapless student supposed to do later in his flying career when he confronts a REAL short or soft field for the first time?? Pictured right is the arrival end of Runway 28 at the Gowanda, NY (D59) Airport. A 150' high conveyor belt sits right smack dab at the end of this grass runway. This is NO simulation. It's the real deal. Careful planning including aircraft performance, winds, runway length, and condition of the grass MUST be carefully considered before operating on this runway. If the student cannot compute the numbers, we don't go there! * An Emphasis on Sound Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) Unlike the traditional maneuvers-based flight training that has been the "gold standard" since we first began preparing WWII pilots, BMFT equips pilots to make sound aeronautical decisions before and during each flight. Our innovative training scenarios challenge pilots to employ their brains BEFORE executing their skills. For example, learning when and when not to launch and how to properly interpret the weather are far safer approaches to safe flight than finding oneself stuck aloft with no reasonable backdoor! Such skills are acquired in real airplanes operating in real weather over unfamiliar terrain. The ultimate objective, of course, is to instill the kind of ADM skills that preclude and prevent aerial scenarios that typically result in fatal accidents. These are just a couple of things we're doing at BMFT to better prepare our students for the real world. We're also doing these things to help keep our students enthused about learning to fly. Enthused students DO NOT drop out before checkride! Please note . . . I share these examples NOT to shamelessly promote BFMT, but rather to encourage other flight schools and other CFIs to go out and do the same things! If we all expanded our flight training horizons (and imaginations), our fatal accident rate would tumble and the number of new pilots entering the system would soar! You can learn more about Bob Miller Flight Training by clicking HERE.
The answer to this brief question is simple. Airplanes, like cars and other commodities, are observable. We can look at their shape, examine their features, review their performance tables, evaluate their payload, and consider their fuel burn rates. We can climb in, touch the controls, feel the seats, and push and pull the buttons. Heck, we can even turn on the key, start the engine(s), and fly them! This is not so with flight training resources, however. Here, we typically go for price and convenience . . . without going one nit further. We drive out to the nearest airport in search of a flight school or flight instructor. Then we ask that all-important question . . . "How much does it cost to learn to fly?" The answer is nearly always the same. The hapless flight school or flight instructor says, "Oh, we charge such and such per hour for the airplane and such and such per hour for the instructor." There, in that brief exchange between inquiring customer and flight school lies the root of what ails us in general aviation. The decision to pursue flight instruction is reduced to how much it costs. And we wonder why such a small percentage of the population learn to fly! The problem worsens . . . Let's fast-forward to a conversation between a private pilot and himself. The pilot asks himself, "How much does it cost to obtain an instrument rating?" Then, based upon the answer he gives himself, he decides whether or not to proceed with instrument training. Here again, we observe what ails us most in aviation. We permit cost factors, alone, to determine what measure of safety we're willing to accept. How about our recurrent training? How much does it cost for a flight review with an experienced instructor? How much does it cost to spend three days engaged in unusual attitude and maneuvers training? How much does it cost to pursue advanced instrument instruction? Costs, costs, and more costs . . . See the source of confusion here? Airplanes and other commodities are easily measurable. Hence, we can rapidly produce a cost-to-benefit analysis that governs our decision. This is not so with education, in general, and specifically with flight instruction. We cannot say, with certainty, that for every "X" dollars spent on flight training we'll receive "Y" dollars in benefits. Instead, we elect to purchase flight training at the lowest possible cost. In other words, if we cannot measure the benefit, why pay more than necessary? Curiously . . . education is measurable!
Compare cross-wind takeoff and landing training received in a stationary flight simulator with cross-wind training in a real airplane with gusty winds blowing at 23 knots directly across the runway. Compare repeated recoveries from incipient stalls with an inexperienced flight instructor to a three-day course of aerobatics with Patty Wagstaff. Which option better prepares us for unusual attitude recoveries? Measurable in real numbers? Of course
not, but that does not invalidate the conclusion the quality
and extent of training does have a direct effect on the safe
outcome of every flight. And when the safe outcome of
every flight is the standard, then education (flight
training) regardless of the cost is the very best investment
we pilots can make. Fly safe, Bob Miller, CFII, ATP
Goings on about town . . . This new addition to Over the Airwaves highlights places and people of interest to local Western New York aviation. While I wish I could cover the entire globe, time and space constrain me to cover my backyard only.
Upcoming . . . Saturday, September 12, 2009, 4pm to 11pm. Angel FlightNE Buffalo BBQ The Erie County Fairgrounds, Hamburg, NY 
Our hosts, Joe and Diane DeMarco, put together the single largest aviation fundraising events of the year. All of the proceeds (last year over $140,000) go to support Angel Flight ne.Angel Flight is an international organization that matches volunteer pilots with families in need of medical air transport. The entire service is free to families! Let's all come out and support this wonderful event. Important: Sponsorships are urgently needed. If you or your company would like to help sponsor this event, contact Diane DeMarco, C/O Angel Flightne, P.O. Box 107, Orchard Park, NY 14127. Please join with Bob Miller Flight Training, Inc. and Over the Airwaves in sponsoring this event.
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. |
%20untitled.bmp)
shows.
Am
I dealing in fear mongering? You bet!
Soon
after I submitted our Part 141 application to the FAA, a
team of inspectors visited our facility in the first of
what would become a series of near weekly visits.
One member of this team asked me a curious question. 
Sometimes
the choice to either continue on or to abort the mission is
less clear. For example, take the case of the Cessna
337 pilot who was operating in VFR conditions with a
troubling attitude indicator.
A
little later in the flight, the pilot activated his IFR clearance to Caldwell. Continuing on in the flight, the
pilot contacted Naval Air Station (NAS) Brunswick Approach
Control. He did not report any problems and the flight
progressed under IFR until radar and radio communications
were lost shortly thereafter.
However,
what
likely killed him was not his stick and rudder skills.
Instead, it was his apparent lack of effective aeronautical decision making (ADM)
skills. He simply made the wrong decision when the world
around him began to change.
Pilots entering the
cockpit for the first time after 1990 quickly experienced
the benefits of GPS navigation over VORs.
Typical
of an industry that eventually self-destructs, our general
aviation flight training industry is tripping over itself in
an increasingly fierce competition between two, or maybe three,
CFI membership organizations.
Then
there is Master Instructors LLC, founded by Sandy and
JoAnn Hill (pictured left), who were recently voted off of
the NAFI's board of directors. This latter group
appears to have some sort of loose affiliation with SAFE.
Earlier
that same day, I read a press release published in Aero-News.net's
"Propwash" e-newsletter. It came from Master
Instructors LLC. , who claim to be the rightful owners of the original
Master Instructor Accreditation Program.
I'm
all for competition and the free enterprise spirit, but it
appears to this writer that the term "Master" is being
tossed around within the flight training industry faster
than a Harlem Globetrotters basketball.
Aside from the fact
that moving systematically through the WINGs program means
we'll never have to take what we use to a call a
"Biennial Flight Review" (BFR) again, participation in
the WINGs program puts us all on the road to not making the
mistakes that research has shown leads directly to aviation
mishaps and fatal accidents.
The
pilot of a Maule MX-7-235 along with a passenger and two dogs
departed on a VFR flight from the Skypark Airport (BTF),
Bountiful, Utah enroute to Helena, Montana.
My
daughter, Erica, and I been traveling together to AirVenture
every year since she was 9 years old (she's now 19).
It's always been a time of fond memories and lots of laughs.
Thus, when it comes to bonding with your kids . . . Oshkosh
is the place to do it!!!
According
to radar data, the departing Cessna 150 had completed its
crosswind leg and was just turning downwind when it was
rammed broadside by the inbound Cessna 172 as it, too, was
about to turn downwind. 
Frequent
OTA
readers know that I occasionally throw darts at Cirrus
Design (CD) for targeting their new airplanes to people having
more money than aeronautical skills. To their credit,
CD invited me to Duluth, MN to take a first-hand look at
their factory training program.
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. 
Since
the vast majority of us learn to fly to go places rather
than spinning circles in some designated practice area,
it makes sense that we develop and master basic
aeronautical maneuvering skills while actually going
someplace! 
Most
of us are taught how to perform short or soft field
takeoffs and landings from some big airport concrete
runway. Is this realistic?
Curiously,
most of us pilots spend more time deciding on which
make/model aircraft to purchase than we do in selecting how
best to learn to fly or which flight training resources to
use when advancing through our pilot ratings. Why?
We
do not have to travel far in aviation to prove that
education is measurable. Compare, for example,
instrument training received with a view limiting device
with training in actual instrument meteorological
conditions.
