Flight Safety
Sponsored by:
Flying While Impaired - December 2009
Gene Benson
The accident rate in general aviation may be improving, remaining the same, or getting worse, depending on which article we are reading at the moment. The simple fact is that we don’t know what our accident rate is because we have no way to accurately track the amount of flying or the number of takeoffs and landings done by general aviation. So with that statement as a backdrop, this article is based on my observations with no statistics to back it up. Oh well. Statistics can be boring anyway.
It seems to me, based on reading NTSB accident reports, that an increasing number of pilots who die in aircraft accidents have substances in their blood that shouldn’t be there. I can only address accidents in which the pilot was killed because the FAA toxicology testing is only done on those pilots. We have no idea how many pilots are flying with no-no substances in their systems if they either don’t have an accident or don’t die in the crash.
In most cases the NTSB does not list impairment from these substances as one of the probable causes of the accident. After all, the pilot who loses control of the airplane in the vicinity of a thunderstorm might have done so even without a prohibited substance in the blood. But, did that substance contribute to spatial disorientation? We can’t be sure. Or, did that substance contribute to a bad decision to fly in the vicinity of a thunderstorm? Again, we can’t be sure.
The prohibited substances in question are usually not illegal drugs or alcohol. They are more frequently over-the-counter or prescription medications. In some cases pilots have failed to report their use of disqualifying prescription medications when applying for their FAA Aviation Medical Certificate. In some cases pilots have been prescribed a new medication and have begun to use it before their flight physical is up for renewal. In yet other cases, over-the-counter medications are being used on a temporary basis to relieve cold or allergy symptoms.
My article appearing in this space last month discussed “external factors.” These are the things that cause pilots to do things that they would not normally do except for some outside pressure. Taking over-the-counter medications to relieve symptoms so that a flight can be made would certainly fall into that category.
The FAA uses lots of acronyms and one of them is the IMSAFE checklist. The first two letters apply here. The “I” is for illness and the “M” is for medication. They are trying to make the point that if a pilot is ill he or she shouldn’t fly. If a medication masks symptoms, the side effects of the medication might impair the pilot’s ability to perform safely.
So let’s always choose to be safe. Unless an Aviation Medical Examiner specifically says it is OK to fly while taking a specific medication, let’s not do it. We can’t possibly know all the possible effects that a medication might have on our alertness, ability to concentrate, balance, or judgment. Let’s not end up with our blood chemistry posted on the NTSB website.
External Factors - November 2009
Gene Benson
As a group, we pilots are pretty smart. First, we had to figure out a way to be able to afford to fly. Second, we had to learn a whole bunch of academic stuff that included a new vocabulary. Finally, we had to master how to make an ungainly assemblage of sheet metal, an engine, and some other miscellaneous parts behave the way we wanted it to do. And oh yes, along the way we might have encountered a need to overcome opposition from a significant other.
Sometimes, all too frequently, a member of our group does something that doesn’t appear to be very smart and has an accident with an airplane. Unfortunately, none of us is immune from making that transition from smart person, respected pilot, to dumb pilot who really messed up
Why do we do some of the seemingly dumb things we do? Why do we run out of fuel when it’s an easy process to figure out how long the engine will run with the amount of fuel available and simply not fly longer than that? Why do VFR pilots knowingly continue into IFR conditions or try to scud run and lose control of the airplane or collide with obstacles or terrain. Why do pilots continue an obviously bad, unstabilized approach and crunch the expensive aluminum rather than abort the landing and come back for another try?
The psychology of human factors and risk management indicates that smart people doing seemingly dumb things, is overwhelmingly caused by external factors. The most common external factor is a perceived need to make or complete a flight as planned. The responsible, competent pilot would state that he or she would not take any chances with fuel and always maintain an adequate reserve. But this same pilot when faced with strong headwinds on the way to a meeting, a funeral, or a wedding, just might take the chance rather than arrive late due to an unscheduled fuel stop. The otherwise competent, conscientious pilot might try to duck under some low clouds rather than divert to an airport with better weather if someone is waiting for his or her arrival at the intended destination. Likewise, a tight schedule or someone waiting and watching might cause a pilot to continue a bad approach.
Other external factors would include cost. The cost of the additional aircraft time to divert around weather, the extra time on the Hobbs meter to execute a go-around, or the expense of doing some recurrent training can be an important factor to the pilot who is struggling financially.
Another external factor is pride. We all want to look like top gun aces to our non-pilot friends and family. Canceling a trip because the weather is beyond our capabilities does not promote that image.
So here are a few ideas on how we might be able to prevent external factors from influencing our otherwise smart selves. Plan ahead. If a trip is really important let’s have a Plan B to get there. It might be to drive, fly commercially, or take a more experienced pilot along. Think about how we would communicate to someone waiting at the airport if we need to divert to an alternate destination. We should have at least a mobile phone number for the person so we can call them once we are on the ground at our alternate airport.
For costs, again, let’s plan ahead. Let’s do some financial planning along with our flight planning. We should consider the anticipated cost of the flight, plus any additional costs incurred by extra flight time. We must also plan for hotel and meals expense for an extra overnight, and the cost of overnight parking or hangar if we have to wait out some weather. If the possible added expenses put the flight out of our means, we must consider finding a less costly way to travel.
We can soften the damage to our pride when we cancel a trip by explaining well before the trip is to begin that there is always the possibility that weather, mechanical issues, or other factors might cause a cancellation. We can remind our passengers that even the airlines cancel flights. Then, deciding to cancel early will make the act of delivering the news less painful to our pride. It is much easier to break the news before people have left for the airport or at least while they are still in the FBO rather than after everyone is loaded into the airplane.
So we are pretty smart as a group. Let’s keep up that perception and not allow external factors to cause us to do dumb things.
Show the Colors! - October 2009
Gene Benson
Summer has once again come and gone. That seems to happen much too quickly for those of us living and flying in this part of our country. It was just three months ago that I was writing an article for CNY Aviation that was a reminder of some considerations when flying in the summer heat. Oh well, each new season brings us new opportunities to enjoy our freedom to fly.
With October comes the spectacle of fall foliage all across New York and New England. This presents a perfect opportunity to get out there, enjoy the beautiful scenery and even help promote general aviation by taking along a passenger or two who has never witnessed the colorful panorama from a few thousand feet above. The procrastinators among us can still have this opportunity by flying further south to follow the colors. In mid November last year I traveled to Asheville, NC to make a presentation to pilots and found that I was smack in the middle of their peak foliage season.
Since this is primarily a safety column, let’s take a look at a few considerations when leaf peeping. The densest concentration of colorful trees is found in the foothills and mountains. Flying over this terrain should trigger a couple of caution flags. Wind follows the terrain and can produce strong updrafts and downdrafts around mountains. Sometimes these currents, especially the downdrafts, can be felt several miles from the leeward side of the offending mountain. We are not dealing with the severe conditions of the Rockies here in New York and New England, but the effects can still be disastrous if the airplane is heavy or operating near the limits of its performance envelope. To help mitigate the risk of flying in mountainous terrain, avoid the temptation to fly low or in the valleys to get a better look. Keep a good safety margin above the terrain in case one of those downdrafts decides to show its stuff. If a downdraft is encountered, turning away from the offending mountain is usually the best course of action.
Altitude is our friend in yet another way. If the airplane only has one engine, it’s prudent to always have a suitable landing site in mind. The greater our altitude, the greater is the radius to find a suitable site. If we are flying over the Adirondacks of New York, the Green Mountains of Vermont, or the White Mountains of New Hampshire, we may have to lower our standards as to what is a suitable landing site. There are very few nice long grassy fields and even fewer airports. A flat area with small trees might be as good as it gets. Each pilot must evaluate the added risk of flying in sparsely populated, mountainous areas and decide whether or not the risk is acceptable.
The risk can’t be avoided, but it can be somewhat mitigated by following a few simple steps. A few months ago, I wrote an article for CNY Aviation called “Too Much Air”. The title referred to the fact that by far, most engine failures are caused by too little fuel and thus too much air in the tanks. Make sure the fuel quantity is verified visually before takeoff and plan the flight so as to land with at least the required thirty-minute reserve for day VFR. Keep close track of the time while flying. More than one airplane has been lost because the pilot got so involved in enjoying scenery that the time and the fuel just flew by. Just like for any flight, let’s make sure the airplane is well maintained and that everything is working well before departure.
Fall flying over sparsely populated areas with greater distances to airports requires extra diligence in monitoring weather. Autumn is a time of change and deep over the Adirondacks isn’t the place to be caught unaware that a front has decided to accelerate its movement. Know where the weather systems are located and know which way to head if things start looking nasty.
If the added risks of flying over the sparsely populated, mountainous areas seem too great, plenty of great foliage can still be seen around Central New York. Wherever you fly, just don’t miss this great, and arguably the best, flying season.
Tools - September 2009
Gene Benson
One of my most vivid childhood memories is going with my father to visit the workshop of one of our neighbors. The envy of all the neighborhood men, this basement wonder was equipped with the finest hand and power tools, maple workbenches, and cabinets filled with the shiniest new hardware that the late 1950s could provide. After a few months I began to hear comments on the lack of finished projects coming out of this hobby palace. The theory was that the neighbor, sporting more greenbacks than grey matter, had no clue as to how to use any of these tools. That theory gained credence one Sunday afternoon when a frantic call from the neighbor’s wife indicated that he had been badly cut with a power saw and needed a ride to the hospital.
Fast-forward fifty years. An instrument rated private pilot embarked on a night VFR cross-country flight to fulfill a requirement for a commercial pilot certificate. The flight was to be from Billings, Montana to Powell, Wyoming. He was flying a Piper Archer equipped with the Avidyne PFD and MFD as well as two Garmin 430 GPS units. The weather forecast called for mostly VFR conditions with isolated showers and AIRMETs for icing and mountain obscuration. During the flight he encountered a storm consisting of rain and snow. He could not see the lights on the ground and decided to turn around. He disconnected the autopilot and entered a standard rate turn to the left and the GPS units flashed a terrain warning. The pilot began a climb. That is the last thing he remembered until waking up still strapped in the airplane on the top of a ridge. Miraculously, he suffered only minor injuries and was rescued by helicopter the next morning.
The pilot reported that he incorrectly entered magnetic course rather than true course into the GPS and that he did not verify ground checkpoints as the flight progressed. The autopilot was engaged until the terrain warning was received. He relied too heavily on his cockpit automation and failed to maintain situational awareness.
There have been numerous serious accidents involving loss of aircraft control. Interestingly, aircraft manufactured by Cirrus seem to have at least their fair share of these accidents even though all Cirrus airplanes are equipped with a ballistic parachute. There have been many accidents in which the pilot apparently failed to deploy the chute after loss of control even though there was sufficient altitude to facilitate a safe descent.
So what is the common thread between the neighbor’s cut hand, the crash into the ridge, and failure to deploy a life-saving ballistic chute? They all involve the improper use of tools. The amateur woodworker got hurt because he didn’t use his radial arm saw properly. The pilot got hurt because he relied too heavily on his advanced avionics and didn’t use them properly. The Cirrus pilots died because they didn’t properly use a safety device.
Tools are fabulous things, especially when they are new and exotic. But tools are useless at best and dangerous at worst when their capabilities, limitations, and proper use are not thoroughly understood.
Modern avionics illustrates this very well. Several VFR into IFR accidents have resulted from a pilot’s over reliance on the GPS. Several airspace violations have been caused by the pilot’s lack of understanding of how to program an advanced system. These systems are complex and cannot be learned during the taxi to the runway. There are a variety of good training options, many of them free online.
The problem is particularly serious among renter pilots who sometimes learn what equipment is in the airplane when they unlock the door to begin the preflight. Just because a pilot has completed a rental check out in a Cessna 172 with steam gages doesn’t mean that he or she is qualified to depart on a night cross-country in a Cessna equipped with a G-1000 panel. The pilot must take the initiative to learn what equipment will be in the airplane well in advance of the planned flight.
As for aircraft equipped with ballistic chutes, pilots should learn the proper use of the chute and the limitations of the device. They should think through situations in which the chute should be deployed, including a floor altitude for chute deployment. In other words, if control is lost at altitude (which happened in at least one case due to icing) a minimum AGL altitude should be established at which attempts to regain control will be abandoned and the chute will be deployed. If loss of control occurs at a lower altitude, the chute will be deployed immediately.
It’s OK to fumble around pushing buttons on the TV remote in an effort to coax it into cooperation, but that approach to advanced avionics during flight is a disaster in waiting. It’s OK to spend an hour trying to save the family room carpet by scrubbing out the spilled wine, but taking too much time and altitude trying to save the airplane rather than firing the rocket can have an extremely high cost.
Quiet - August 2009
Gene Benson
OK, here’s an easy question. What sound do we not want to hear in our airplane? The simple answer: we don’t want to hear the sound of bending metal. But other than that, we don’t want to hear the sound of silence. We like to hear the roar of a strong engine or two. A sudden outbreak of silence will immediately be followed by a sudden shot of adrenalin and perhaps a need for upholstery shampoo.
It’s widely believed that a complete and sudden engine failure is quite rare. Or is it? That used to be a fact but I’m not so sure that it still holds true. A search of the NTSB database for 2008 shows 339 airplane accidents and incidents resulting from a loss of engine power. The actual number of engine failures is probably considerably much greater since many successful forced landings go unreported. So it’s safe to assume that on the average, at least once each day, a pilot is faced with sudden silence.
There are many reasons for these quiet moments. The most common cause continues to be too much air and too little fuel in the tanks. Coming in second place is fuel contamination from water or another foreign substance. Aside from fuel problems, various mechanical problems as well as induction system icing spoil the fun. Power loss accidents that do not result in death or serious injury are no longer fully investigated to determine the cause. “Power loss for undetermined reasons” is now frequently found in the NTSB probable cause findings.
So, the knowledge that our engine might fail during our next flight is a real bummer. But let’s turn lemons into lemonade. We can accept the possibility of an engine failure as a new challenge and use it to continue our growth as pilots. After all, there is nothing as rewarding as the realization that we have accomplished another goal and we are better pilots than before.
There should be three elements to our quest. The first element is intended to avoid the engine failure. Let’s make sure that we take every possible precaution to avoid the sudden silence. Let’s calculate the fuel quantity needed before each flight, visually verify fuel quantity as part of the preflight inspection, and track time and fuel consumption as the flight progresses. Let’s also carefully sample fuel before each flight and especially after the airplane has been refueled. Let’s pay attention to conditions favorable to the formation of carburetor icing in carbureted engines and induction icing in fuel-injected mills. Let’s insist on flying only airplanes that have been well maintained and that are current on all required inspections, airworthiness directives and service bulletins.
The second element requires us to be able to effectively deal with an engine failure. A big part of this element requires us to maintain constant situational awareness regarding the terrain over which we are planning to fly. Terrain with few suitable forced landing locations should dictate a higher altitude to allow a greater glide distance. If weather or other factors prohibit flight at a safe altitude, then an alternate route should be selected. Even in a traffic pattern we must be aware of possible forced landing areas. The downwind and base legs must be planned so that the airplane is always within gliding distance of the runway. If the pattern has to be extended for traffic considerations then altitude should be increased accordingly.
Of course, the third and final element in our quest to master the sudden silence is skill. We need to acquire and maintain the skill to manage the airplane’s energy so that we can land on the desired spot. This is the fun part! Find a competent instructor and go practice. Of course we don’t want to actually shut off the engine nor do we want to create a real emergency by forgetting to use carb heat with a low power setting. We also don’t want to go so low that we create a hazard or violate regulations. Review best glide speeds and don’t try to stretch a glide. If you get too low, just power up and practice your go-around technique.
I think the best way to practice the energy management part of a simulated forced landing is to use a non-towered airport that is not busy. By using an airport, you can take the airplane right down to the runway to demonstrate that you would actually make it. Make appropriate radio calls in the pattern to alert other pilots of your intentions. Remember that there might be airplanes operating without radios, so keep the eyeballs moving too. Be sure to observe any airplane limitations regarding slips with flaps extended, but by all means practice slips. Select a target touchdown point that is a little way down the runway rather than right at the threshold. That will provide a little extra safety margin.
Perform your simulated forced landings both with the throttle fully closed and also with a small amount of power. The closed throttle will simulate the glide characteristics with a windmilling prop. Keeping a little power in will simulate the lesser drag produced if the prop stops turning.
Make a game of it! Challenge your instructor to come closer to the selected touchdown spot. We CFIs can always use an extra helping of humility!
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)