Feeling the Heat - July 2009
Gene Benson
Isn’t summer great? Barbeques, picnics, swimming, out-door concerts, and baseball games all serve to make summer a truly enjoyable season. Pilots especially enjoy summer because of more sunny days, longer daylight periods and the lack of bone-chilling preflights.
But everything has its price. The price of summer is sometimes excessive summer heat. All pilots know that the warmer the air becomes, the less dense it is and the decrease in air density results in diminished aircraft performance. It takes more runway to become airborne and the more shallow climb increases the distance required to clear obstacles after takeoff.
There are also some subtle effects of heat that might not be obvious. Oil temperature is one. The airplane will be expected to stay at climb power longer to reach cruising altitude. This can cause an excessively high oil temperature that can cause a decrease in the oil’s viscosity. In addition to decreased lubrication, this can increase oil consumption. The less oil, the less effective the cooling and a dangerous cycle can develop. Pilots should verify oil quantity at every stop, make more shallow climbs, and carefully monitor oil temperature. Some engines in common use have an “auto-rich” feature that richens the mixture at full-throttle to provide additional cooling. These engines typically specify that all climbs should be made at full-throttle. Reducing the power setting slightly will only aggravate an overheat situation in these engines. Pilots should be sure to know the operating procedures specified by the manufacturer.
Pilots should consider the convection caused by the different kinds and colors of terrain over which the airplane travels. The air will be rising above the warmer surface and descending above the cooler surface. These rising and descending air currents are a mild annoyance at altitude but can have serious consequences on approach or departure. The temperature difference between water and land can be substantial. A heavy weight, high-temperature departure on a path that takes the airplane over cooler water can be exciting at best and splash-producing at worst. A night approach that takes the airplane over water still warm from the day’s sun toward a runway that has cooled after sunset can result in a very hard landing as the sinking air over the runway takes the airplane along with it.
Summer flying usually means flying with the air vents open. More than one pilot has been surprised when opening a vent in flight resulted in a cabin full of angry bees. A good preflight inspection of the air vents from both inside and outside the airplane can help prevent the sting of this experience.
Passengers are more likely to experience motion sickness when the environment is warm. Add the bumpy air associated with flying on sunny days and some passengers become green, but not necessarily in reference to their concern for the environment. A passenger depositing lunch upon his or her lap can be a dangerous distraction to the pilot. There are several preventative remedies for motion sickness but the issue must be addressed well before the flight is begun if they are to be effective. I have personally had success with providing queasy passengers and students with the elastic wristbands available in most retail pharmacies. I don’t know why they work, but they really do and they avoid the use of drugs that can cause drowsiness. But, when all else fails, pilots should make sure there is a supply of airsickness bags readily available. The pre-takeoff briefing should address the issue and the location of the bags so that the pilot can concentrate on flying the airplane if stomachs turn.
A final note relates to a pilot distraction that I had never experienced until a few years ago. My wife and I flew our Cessna 172 to Oklahoma in the summer to visit our son and his family. The ambient temperature at our destination airport was 103. The approach and landing were uneventful until the airspeed, and thus the cabin airflow, decreased after touchdown. The searing heat caused excessive perspiration on my forehead. The salty liquid immediately ran down into my eyes making it very difficult to safely exit the runway. All worked out well, but a distraction at that point could produce dire consequences. Even after years of extensive experience flying in the Florida summer heat I was not prepared for this. The only remedy I can think of is to wear a sweatband on the forehead when excessive heat is anticipated. I suppose that introduces a certain amount of geek factor. But standing beside an airplane as the P-I-C who just clipped a wingtip or worse doesn’t exactly promote the cool pilot image.
Enjoy the great summer flying, but just consider the impact that the heat will have on each flight.
Keep Your Head in the Game - June 2009
Gene Benson
It’s unfortunate that it often takes a tragedy to raise awareness of the obvious. Such is the case of the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 on February 12 of this year. The NTSB hearing on the accident that occurred outside Buffalo killing fifty people has recently concluded. A probable cause finding has not been released at the time of this writing. Even without an official ruling, it is obvious that, like most accidents, this one did not result from a single cause. One cause that will most certainly be cited is the failure of the flight crew to observe the “sterile cockpit” rule. (For those not familiar with airline operations, the flight crew is supposed to limit any conversation to only pertinent operational items while the aircraft is below 10,000 feet.) The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured extraneous discussion of career and other issues while executing a night IFR approach in icing conditions. The crew apparently failed to notice the deteriorating airspeed until an imminent stall was evidenced by the activation of the stick shaker. The activities of the crew led one investigator to state, “Their heads weren’t in the game.”
Shooting a night IFR approach probably doesn’t seem like a mundane task to most general aviation pilots who do not make a living by flying airplanes. The regional airline crews, especially those operating in the northeast, quickly become accustomed to such operations. Anything well practiced may eventually seem mundane regardless of its complexity. Which of the tasks required of the general aviation pilot seem mundane? The answer probably depends on the experience level of the pilot. The first or second hour student exhibits extreme concentration while taxiing. The ten-hour student works hard at maintaining altitude on a cross-country flight. But as a pilot’s experience grows the tasks become easier and require less conscious effort. The two hundred hour pilot can probably fly a standard traffic pattern at the home airport with ease.
But the outcome of Flight 3407 should be a lesson to us all. We must not let down our guard even when performing those seemingly mundane tasks. Accident reports are awash with examples of pilots making operational errors while executing relatively simple functions. Still many more missteps narrowly avoid causing an accident and therefore go largely unreported. The preflight inspection quickly becomes mundane and results in making a takeoff with the pitot cover, or much worse, the control lock, still installed. Cross-country flying becomes mundane and results in failure to track fuel consumption until the cockpit becomes much too quiet. Approach and landing becomes mundane until a landing is made with the tires still protected by the wheel wells. Multiengine takeoffs seem mundane till that sickening yaw just after rotation when the most recent engine failure training was in the previous decade.
No piloting task should ever become mundane. No pilot should ever become complacent. Just because the envelope has been pressed or a chance has been taken without adverse consequences in the past does not mean that luck will hold. As the financial services and legal firms say in their ads, “Past results are not a guarantee of future performance.” Let’s always keep our heads in the game.
Planning Beyond The Landing - May 2009
Gene Benson
It’s been said that takeoffs are optional but landings are mandatory. As student pilots we all spent a generous amount of our precious Hobbs time going around the pattern in search of the ability to execute acceptable mandatory flight endings. We eventually progressed beyond the “acceptable” level and became quite proficient in rejoining the earth in a graceful manner.
The most recently released 2008 Nall Report, summarizing accident data for the calendar year 2007, shows that fatal accidents are down slightly but that total accidents are up slightly. That of course indicates a significant rise in non-fatal accidents. A large number of these involve a landing gone awry. Experienced pilots account for a disturbingly high percentage of these landing accidents.
So how can an experienced pilot botch a landing to the extent that the airplane is damaged and perhaps injuries result? There will always be the unusual situation that catches a pilot unaware. But we are looking at a disturbing trend. As always, I have an opinion and a recommendation.
A study of the actual accident reports shows that the bending of the airplane frequently occurs during an attempt to recover from a bad landing. We can help to minimize these accidents in two ways.
First, don’t make bad landings. Seriously. When was the last time an experienced pilot was totally surprised by a bad landing? We almost always know whether or not we are properly established on final approach. The concept of the stabilized approach has been previously addressed in my monthly columns for CNY Aviation. If the approach isn’t good, the landing won’t be good so let’s execute an early go-around and get ourselves and the airplane stabilized on the next approach. It’s much easier and safer to make a smooth transition to a go-around from a few hundred feet in the air than it is to recover from a bad landing with an airplane careening wildly about a runway centerline.
Second, plan the go-around as part of every landing. Be aware of terrain and obstacles at the far end of the runway. Think about density altitude and what the climb performance of the airplane will be like if there is a need to abort. These factors will help determine a point by which a go-around decision must be made.
The importance of making the decision to go around early can’t be stressed enough. Every foot that the airplane descends is another foot that must be recovered on the climb and most airplanes descend more easily than they climb.
Finally, make sure that the airplane arrives at the destination with sufficient fuel to allow for a couple of go-arounds. Don’t be trapped into continuing a bad approach because of a concern for having enough fuel to fly another circuit or execute another approach.
We have all heard the phrase that any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Be assured that this sentiment is not shared by either your insurance company nor by your passengers.
Sweat the Small Stuff - April 2009
Gene Benson
The annual Nall Report was just released. Awaited as anxiously (well, almost as anxiously) as the annual swimsuit edition, the Nall Report is produced by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation. It statistically analyzes general aviation accidents in the U.S. and looks at accident trends. The most recent data shows that the fatal general aviation accident rate has declined even more than the number of general aviation flying hours. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the overall accident rate has actually increased.
I read many accident reports in the course of doing my aviation safety work. I have noticed an apparent increase in accidents caused by a lack of attention to detail. Most of these accidents have been non-fatal, mirroring the trend shown in the Nall Report.
Several recent accidents have come about because a fuel selector was positioned between two detents causing engine failure. Two of these accidents happened on takeoff. There was apparently enough fuel in the lines to get the airplane off the ground, but just beyond the airport fence.
The pilot being distracted by a door popping open on takeoff caused a couple more accidents.
An accident in January of this year apparently resulted from a twin, piston-engine Cessna being fueled with jet fuel. That isn’t supposed to be possible due to the size of the fuel opening versus the size of the fuel nozzle. The line service person admitted to using a “workaround” because he thought the airplane was turbine powered.
And, of course, a mainstay of accidents continues to be fuel exhaustion caused by failure to verify the fuel quantity before flight.
So how can we take steps to prevent these accidents? We need to pay attention to the small details. We need to make sure that fuel selectors are properly positioned and that doors are closed securely. We need to visually check the fuel quantity before each flight and take a fuel sample on the first flight of the day and each time the airplane is refueled.
We can avoid setting ourselves up for a surprise by not moving the fuel selector just prior to takeoff. I like to select the tank with the least amount of fuel prior to engine start, and then switch to the fullest tank before the run-up. That proves that the engine will run on either tank and will consume sufficient fuel during the run-up to use any fuel in the lines just in case there is a problem with the fullest tank.
Finally, let’s do a pre-takeoff briefing, even if only to ourselves. The briefing should include items such as where the wind is coming from, our desired rotation speed, the airspeed and heading to be flown after departure, and what we will do if something nasty happens. The possible nasty items should include a door popping open and engine failure at several points during the takeoff.
Give it a try. Just prior to taking the active runway, run a briefing in your head. Who knows what problem might be prevented. And, there is no substitute for being prepared if something goes wrong.
Airplanes and Critters - March 2009
Gene Benson
March brings us the first day of spring. Even before it’s officially the season of new life, we are already seeing more birds in the air and more animals scurrying about the ground. The abundance of wildlife is great to observe and enjoy. That is, unless the airplane and a creature both try to occupy the same space at the same time.
The first reported bird strike occurred on September 7, 1905 when Orville Wright struck a red-winged blackbird near Dayton, Ohio. The most famous recent aerial wildlife encounter is USAirways Flight 1549 that ended up in the Hudson River after doing battle with some Canadian Geese. That particular accident gained worldwide attention because of its spectacular nature. It is certainly not an isolated incident. An FAA estimate, produced before the Flight 1549 ordeal, claims that $630 million in damages results from civil aircraft encounters with wildlife annually.
As upstate New Yorkers, it is interesting to note that, according to the FAA, New York ranks second only to California in the number of reported bird strikes each year. Our state also ranks second only to Texas in the number of reported mammal strikes annually. The data is not broken down into what type of mammal, but I’m guessing that deer top the list in New York. I won’t speculate about what kind of mammals are running out in front of airplanes in Texas; they’re on their own. Here’s the statistic that really baffled me at first. New York ranks second only to Florida in the annual number of reptile strikes. Having flown extensively in Florida, I have seen large snakes and alligators on runways several times. I don’t ever recall alligators on a runway in New York. (Perhaps that is because I strictly adhere to the “eight-hour bottle to throttle rule”.) Finally I remembered that a turtle is a reptile. I think it’s safe to assume that the reptile strikes in New York involve mostly turtles.
From my ranting in this space on other occasions, one might think that I believe that all aviation accidents are preventable. I do believe that is true for most kinds of accidents, but wildlife encounters are much more difficult to avoid. Birds and other forms of wildlife seem to appear from nowhere, often leaving no opportunity to avoid the collision. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take every possible precaution to tip the odds in our favor. So what can we do?
The key word is vigilance. As we operate on the surface and in the first 2000 feet or so above it, we need to keep scanning the area where the airplane will be in the next few seconds. Watch for birds that might be flying into a collision course with the airplane. Scan both sides of the runway or taxiway for signs of deer or other animals that might be a danger. If possible, make a low pass over rural runways before landing, especially at night.
The Fish and Wildlife Service recommends flying higher than minimum altitudes over wildlife sanctuaries and that all external lights be turned on when operating at lower altitudes. They state that when a bird senses danger, it will typically dive away to gain airspeed. So, they recommend that pilots, when possible, pull up when birds are sighted. Obviously, pulling the airplane into a stall is not going to help the situation. And, not all birds will have read the memo about diving away. I recently talked to a pilot who had a close encounter with a bald eagle while flying in Alaska. He is certain that the eagle began a climb as an evasive maneuver.
If a collision with a deer or other large creature appears to be imminent while on the runway, resist the temptation to make the airplane fly when it isn’t ready. Striking a deer isn’t going to be a good thing but it is generally preferable to the consequences of becoming airborne at a speed where the airplane can’t climb.
The good news (not for the wildlife) is that nearly all wildlife encounters are survivable for the occupants of the airplane. In fact, most encounters do not result in personal injury to the humans.
So spring and better flying weather are upon us or at least are not far off. Enjoy flying and do your best to avoid the critters.
The Unexpected - February 2009
Gene Benson
It’s a pretty safe bet that when the flight crew for USAirways flight 1549 reported for duty on the morning of January 15, 2009 they did not expect to end their workday by supervising a water evacuation of their airplane as it floated in the Hudson River. Such a significant encounter with birds that apparently caused a double engine failure is extremely rare and unlikely. The need to ditch an airplane that is flying the routes normally flown by this crew is equally rare and unlikely. It is fortunate for the passengers on that flight that Capt. Sullenberger took his responsibilities seriously enough to learn about water landings even though it was very unlikely that he would ever have to execute one. It is fortunate for the people on the ground in the vicinity of LaGuardia Airport that he took his responsibilities seriously enough to be familiar with the flying characteristics of the airplane as a glider. Had he made any decision other than to ditch in the Hudson it is quite probable that there would have been considerable carnage not only on the airplane but also in the heavily populated area below. Finally, it is also fortunate that the flight attendants took their responsibilities seriously enough to learn how to handle a water landing evacuation even though the possibility of it happening on their usual routes was remote.
Even though this flight, a large transport category multiengine jet, departing from a very busy airport, with a professional crew, seems far removed from the typical flight in a small, general aviation airplane, it offers us a valuable lesson. That lesson is that we must be prepared for the unexpected. Modern general aviation airplanes with their Lycoming or Continental engines are reliable. The Airbus A320 with its CFM-56 engines is also reliable. The challenge for all pilots, whether a seventy hour private pilot or a twenty-five thousand hour airline captain, is to overcome the temptation to believe that the next flight will be as uneventful as the previous flight.
For general aviation pilots, the simulated engine failure over an airport on a flight review every two years is simply not sufficient. We must be prepared for the serious emergencies but we also must be prepared for the more benign issues that can become serious emergencies if not handled properly.
The go-around is a perfect example. Our instructors taught all of us that if a landing isn’t looking good, go around and try again. That’s good advice as long as the pilot is aware of the go-around procedure for the particular airplane and of the terrain surrounding the airport. The accident records have plenty of entries where the pilot decided to execute a go-around but botched it in one way or another. Go-around procedures must be reviewed regularly and go-arounds must be practiced.
Of course simulated engine failure must also be practiced. This is particularly important for the pilot who flies a multiengine airplane. There are many multiengine pilots who regularly fly multiengine airplanes but have not had a simulated engine failure since their multiengine checkride. Yes, that’s legal. A flight review in a single-engine airplane is less costly and counts for all of the categories and classes in which the pilot is rated. It has been said that an airplane with two engines is twice as likely to have an engine failure. It is also a fact the fatality rate is higher for engine failures in multiengine airplanes than for engine failures in single-engine airplanes. Loss of one engine can easily lead to loss of control if the pilot is not well practiced in dealing with engine failure in multiengine airplanes. Let’s note that simulating engine failures near the ground is not wise and that any practice relating to engine failure should be done under the supervision of a competent instructor. Oh, if we only had high fidelity simulators readily available for general aviation.
There are other unexpected scenarios worthy of our training attention. Unanticipated wind causes us to run long on time and short of fuel on a cross-country flight. Smoke billows from behind the instrument panel. The engine begins to run rough and develops only partial power. There is a complete electrical failure on a night flight. The list can go on. Some scenarios warrant practicing with an instructor. Some can be addressed by simply thinking through the situation while safely on the ground.
We can never prepare ourselves for every eventuality but we can be aware of and practiced in the procedures necessary to deal with many issues that seem unlikely until they actually occur. Very many people should be grateful that the crew of flight 1549 was proficient in handling an unexpected situation on that cold, January afternoon.
Sometimes Boring Is Better Than Exciting - January 2009
Gene Benson
There probably isn’t anything in aviation more boring than calculating the weight and balance for the airplane. Then again, there probably isn’t anything much more exciting than seeing a windshield full of terrain because the airplane wasn’t loaded properly. Boring trumps exciting when it comes down to breaking the airplane and perhaps oneself in the process.
The regulations require us to become familiar with all available information pertaining to the flight as part of our preflight preparation. Many pilots ignore this requirement, but let’s not forget that the regulations under which we fly were written in pilot blood. The regulations have evolved in an effort to prevent accidents.
An overweight airplane, or out-of-balance airplane, is being flown by a test pilot. The flight characteristics may be dramatically different for an improperly loaded airplane than for the same airplane loaded within the limits specified by the manufacturer. The discovery that the airplane is difficult to manage is not a welcome surprise right after rotation. In fact, it can be quite exciting but the excitement probably won’t last very long.
The airplane doesn’t have to be very far out of the envelope to present a problem. There are many accident reports where the airplane was only marginally overloaded or out of balance. As just one example, four people escaped injury in October 2007 when a Cessna 182 crashed in North Carolina. The pilot stated that the airplane was “right at max gross weight” but admitted that he did not actually perform the calculation. Further investigation revealed that the airplane was actually 185 pounds over the maximum allowable gross weight. This is only 6% above the maximum allowable weight but it was enough to prevent the airplane from climbing on a high density altitude day.
It’s also important to know if the airplane is loaded differently than is usual for the pilot. Of course, it is impossible to know this if the calculations aren’t routinely done. Here’s an example. Four people escaped injury in July of 2005 when a Piper Cherokee 180 crashed while on approach for landing. At the time of the accident, the airplane’s weight was 143 pounds less than the maximum allowable gross weight and the center of gravity was 0.3 inches aft of the forward limit. The airplane was loaded within the parameters set up by the manufacturer but the pilot was unfamiliar with flying the airplane loaded in this way. His lack of familiarity resulted in an undershoot and a collision with the airport boundary fence.
Of course, we can’t compute accurate weight and balance data without accurate information. The aircraft documents must be kept up to date and they must be referred to when doing the calculations. Accurate weights for people and objects loaded aboard must be known. That isn’t always so easy especially when it comes to passengers. It seems rude to ask someone how much he or she weighs. It’s even ruder to injure someone because the airplane wasn’t loaded correctly. But asking a person to tell you their weight doesn’t always provide accurate information either. Some people will lie about their weight (Imagine that!) and some people simply don’t know how much they weigh. When it comes to the baggage, the “calibrated bicep” probably isn’t sufficiently accurate. So what is a pilot to do? Simple answer: the twenty-dollar bathroom scale. Yep, you’ll get some ridicule. Sure, you’ll have some uncomfortable moments when you ask your passengers to step on. So be it.
It’s also necessary to be aware of and comply with any special limitations such as maximum weight in the baggage compartment. These are usually structural limitations that can become critical in turbulence. The normal category airplane must be able to handle a load factor of 3.8. That means that that the floor of the baggage compartment limited to 200 pounds must be able to support 760 pounds. If 250 pounds is loaded in and the turbulence takes the airplane to the 3.8 load factor, the floor will be subjected to 950 pounds.
It is also important to remember to account for everything aboard. I have seen many pilots calculate everything to the tenth pound then neglect to add the thirty-pound flight bag on the floor between the seats.
And, oh, don’t forget to add the weight of the bathroom scale if you take it along!
.gif)