Ask a Flight Instructor

Archive for the ‘Safety’ Category

Takeoff…

Weather not quite as good as I thought.

It isn’t that bad though…

It could get better.

It should get better.

It has to get beter.

It isn’t getting better.

It could be worse.

It is getting worse…

It’s BAD!

It’s very bad – no horizon.

It’s really bad – the ground is gone!

I don’t believe I’m in this…

I don’t want be in this!

SOMEONE GET ME OUT OF THIS!

There is no one to get me out of this…

Grey everywhere!

The engine is speeding up…

Pull back!! Go up!!

The altimeter is going the wrong way!?

Compass and gyro spinning…

Got to go the other way – which way?

Airspeed redline!?

Airplane SCREAMING!!!

There in the grey…

Black trees leaning down above my nose!?

I’m going up into them…

Big snow mounds…undergrowth…fallen branches…chewed up by the prop…

I shouldn’t…

Taken from FAA General Aviation News March – April 1980.  Text by John V. Graff of the National Weather Service.

As reported in this morning’s AvFlash news, the FAA is soon going to implement a change from “Position and Hold” to “Line Up and Wait” in order to conform with international phraseology standards.  This change is expected to occur in mid-year 2010.  In fact, if you fly in and out of Canadian airspace you know that this particular phraseology has already been in use for sometime (since about March of 2008).

For those who are new to this phrase, here is a basic primer on this new phraseology:

Current Phraseology:

“Taxi into Position” or “Taxi to Position and Wait”

New Phraseology:

“Line Up” or “Line Up and Wait”

Definition: Used by ATC to inform a pilot to taxi onto the departure runway in takeoff position and wait (hold). It is not authorization for takeoff. It is used when takeoff clearance cannot immediately be issued because of traffic or other reasons.

I think short term this might be a change some may grumble about I think overall this is a good change.  I believe that standards only work when applied universally across the board.  The more exceptions that are made to a standard the better chance you have at injecting confusion and error into the system.   This not only helps U.S. pilots flying internationally but also helps reduce confusion from foreign pilots who are flying domestically within the U.S.

What are your thoughts about line up and wait?

A couple of months ago, I shared with you some illustrations that I found on the back cover of some older FAA Aviation News. These illustrations were done by the illustrator and cartoonist Robert C. Osborn. Little did I know that finding and preserving more of these illustrations would turn into my new hobby.

Since my first Osborn post, I have learned a great deal about the artist and his other work. I’ve learned that Osborn contributed to FAA Aviation News for nearly 25 years from the early 60s to the mid 80s. I’ve also learned that Robert Osborn was the creator of the first and original “Dilbert” cartoon character. Osborn drew nearly 2,000 safety posters for the Navy during WWII that featured “Dilbert the Pilot” and “Spoiler the Mechanic”. Dilbert and Spoiler were both the ambassadors of carelessness and recklessness. “Don’t be a Dilbert” was a popular phrase used among pilots to encourage others to think about safety continuously.  Did you know that the popular comic strip Dilbert actually borrowed it’s name from the Dilbert drawn by Osborn?  According to Scott Adam’s blog, the name Dilbert was given to him by a co-worker who later confessed that he saw the name on some of his dad’s military memorabilia.

As I promised earlier, here are some more Robert Osborn illustrations from the FAA Aviation News. You’ll notice a theme with these particular illustrations…winter flying! Unfortunately, that season is upon us and it’s time that we all started thinking about the dangers and complications of flying in icing conditions.   This would be a great time to grab that POH and look over cold winter operation notes and any other limitations that colder weather may pose to your upcoming flights.

Fly Safe (and enjoy)

“Safe to Solo – What every young aviator should know” by Frederick M. Reeder and Robert C. Osborn.  This was published by Harper and Brothers in 1947 (now HarperCollins) but I dare you to find anything in the following paragraphs that isn’t true today.  If you read nothing else on this entire site, please read and think about the following paragraphs.  Your life may depend on it:

Aviation is safe.  It is also safer for some than for others.  The papers say that foolproof planes have been invented and soon everyone will take to the air.  Doubtless this is so, and in the not too distant  future everyone will fly, especially that fool who is going to disprove the foolproof airplane.  Flying is much safer today than it was even a few years ago, and it will become safer and safer as time passes.  However, airplanes are still machines and no one has successfully trained one to think yet.  That is supposed to be where the pilot comes in. If he doesn’t think or is unable to, he is a bad risk regardless of how smart his plane is.

It would be nice if we could tell you that aviation has now reached the point where it is so completely safe that there are no accidents, that you don’t even have to consider safety because that has all been worked out for you by someone else.  However, that is not the story and it never will be.  You must become safety-conscious.  Not so much that you worry yourself or go around tense with fear that something awful is going to happen.  It won’t if you learn to take proper precautions and can think.  You probably have noticed that the word “dangerous” appears frequently in this book, that there are many cautions and warnings regarding safety.  All of these have been derived from personal experience or that of close friends.  When you come across those portions, it will be a good idea for you to keep the subject matter in mind and review it from time to time until you understand it.

…We used to speak of the “Automatic Eliminator” which got rid of the poor pilots.  Not those who were slow learning; those who shouldn’t be flying at all.  Perhaps the foolproof plane will help them some, but the “flying fool” is a dangerous breed and should be avoided like the plague.

Remember that about 80 percent of all aviation accidents are caused by pilot error.  Sometimes accidents can’t be avoided.  However, if you are alert and understand what you are doing, you can probably avoid them entirely.  If you go around showing off in your plane, your chances of having an aviation accident increased immeasurably – leave it alone.

Please, fly safe.

Jim is working on his Instrument rating and spotted an interesting approach procedure:

Not surprisingly, an ILS approach will have lower minimums that a non-precision approach, such as a localizer. However, I have found at least one airport in my area where the localizer MDA (580′ MSL, 564′ AGL) is lower than the ILS DA (743′ MSL, 727′ AGL). I’d like to understand why this is true and under what circumstances I can anticipate a lower minimum for a localizer than the ILS.

Jim is talking specifically about the ILS or LOC/DME Rwy 24 approach to Bowerman Airport (KHQM) in Hoquiam, Washington. There’s an interesting (if not completely confirmed) story behind this approach in particular, but before I get into that I’ll cover the basics.

Profile view (Jeppesen format) for the ILS or LOC/DME Rwy 24 approach at KHQM.

With this approach, as with any ILS, the FAA must certify that no obstacles penetrate a predetermined gradient. This means that even at full-scale glideslope deflection, there is a built in buffer between your airplane and the ground below. If terrain or an obstacle (buildings, trees, antennas, etc) sticks into the approach path, then the FAA has two options: the minimums (ceiling and visibility) for the ILS will increase, or the glidepath angle (currently 3° at KHQM) must be increased to clear the obstacle.

With the localizer-only version of the approach, you can descend to the MDA of 580′ once past WIMET (D3.0 from the localizer). The additional distance fixes on the localizer approach permit a pilot to descend past the obstacle and land safely. Unfortunately, to answer the second part of Jim’s question, there’s no way to predict the inversion in approach minimums unless you’re intimately familiar with the airport and the surrounding terrain. The real answer is to make sure that you thoroughly brief each approach before flying it.

The specific details about Hoquiam are after the break! Read the rest of this entry »

Mike is looking into regaining his currency and asks:

I’m thinking about doing the Recreational Pilot flight review instead of the Private Pilot this time around. I haven’t been able to fly much in the last 15 yrs. but want to restart. Can I do the Rec Pilot and then get a medical and redo a check to Private later?

The short answer is that it doesn’t really matter. The long answer is that since it’s been a while, it could be that you’re actually thinking of Sport pilot, rather than Recreational. This is totally understandable—the FAA doesn’t always make it easy to determine requirements for, and privileges of, different types of pilot certificates. However, recreational pilots still must hold a current medical, as required by the FAA, and (as of 2006) there were fewer than 250 of them left in the country. While there are some caveats, a sport pilot does not need to hold a medical.

However, a flight review is a flight review, regardless of what pilot certificate you hold, and it must consist of at least one hour of flight and one hour of ground. You could do your flight review in a light sport aircraft without a medical, and that would allow you to exercise sport pilot privileges, but you’ll also have to learn new regulations that apply only to sport pilots, and you’d also have to operate within some (potentially significant) limitations.

Given that relatively flew FBOs offer Light Sport aircraft for rental or for training, it may make more sense to simply get a Third Class medical and stick with the Private certificate, and not necessarily in that order. You can certainly start the flight review process without a current medical. I’ve done several flight reviews with pilots who haven’t flown (at all) in over 10 years, and the amount of time it takes them to get used to flying the airplane—and, often more significantly, new regulations—is fairly reasonable, ranging from 2 and 10 hours of flight and ground time.

This question comes from Sylvia:

This came up recently at the airfield coffee shop: what qualifies a pilot to act as a safety pilot? Specifically in terms of the 3 take-offs and landings every 90 days in order to stay current … is it ok to take a pilot with you for safety? Or do you have to do have a qualified instructor if you are nervous about doing your circuits solo, having gone out of date?

Safety Pilot.  As you hang around an airport, you’ll hear this term quite a bit and if you listen to how this word is used you’ll notice that the term has taken on a life of it’s own.  Some people use it to define flying around the pattern with another pilot friend or has someone who works the radios on a cross country flight.  If you are looking for a safety pilot, there is even a Safety Pilot Club website!  However,  I think it is important to begin with the official definition and designation from the FAA.

A safety pilot is mentioned only in a couple of places in the regulations.  The primary reg being 14 CFR 91.109 .  In this reg. you find the official definition and designation of a safety pilot.  The reg says:

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

The only other regulation that mentions a safety pilot is 61.51 which deals with logging of instrument time.  In summary this reg says that you have to record the name of the safety pilot if required by the aforementioned 91.109.

So basically, a safety pilot has one purpose:  Look out the window for traffic when the other pilot isn’t!

So getting back to the question from Sylvia.  It would be my interpretation that you cannot use a safety pilot to get current on landings.  Why?  Because unless they are required for flight in simulated instrument conditions they are not a required crewmember and then would fall into the category of passenger, not pilot.  And in order to fly passengers, you of course, need to meet the requirements of 61.57 – recent flight experience.

Some may argue that you could use a Safety Pilot if the Safety Pilot was fully qualified and current to be PIC and allowed the pilot to take the controls for the 3 required landings.  My question however is then, how would that time be logged?  You couldn’t log it as PIC in your log book (only one crewmember required) and you couldn’t log it as dual received or SIC.

I think the only answer the regulations provide is that you either have to fly by yourself or take a CFI in order to meet the recency requirements of 61.157.   I promise I’m not just saying that because I am a CFI   Again, this is just my humble interpretation and that a $.50 still won’t buy you a coffee.

I think this stresses the need to stay current and the continuing maintenance aspect of becoming a pilot, whatever your level.  I don’t know about you, but I get rusty after not flying for two weeks, I can’t imagine how rough it would be after 3 months!

So make sure you are flying frequently and always

SAFE!

AOPA recently released a video that contains the audio and video showing the radar on March 21 when on March 21, 2008 a F16 pilot apparently tried to successfully scare the absolute living daylights out of two general aviation pilots flying a Pilatus PC-12 and a Beechcraft Premier. Both aircraft were equipped with a TCAS II system which alerts the pilots and if necessary, provides the pilots with TAs (Traffic Advisories) and if necessary, RAs, or Resolution Advisories. If you have never had the privilege of hearing these sounds, I have provided a sample of what a TA and RA sounds like:

Traffic Advisory

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Resolution Advisory

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

So the question is, which one takes precedence? A Resolution advisory or an ATC clearance?

According to FAR 91.123:

When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory.

Another question? Is it ok to fly through a MOA? Let’s take a look at our AIM 3-4-5. It says:

Pilots operating under VFR should exercise extreme caution while flying within a MOA when military activity is being conducted.

Another interesting point about this chapter in the AIM concerning MOAs. Did you know that the military aircraft operating in a MOA can be exempt from at least two rules 1) Aerobatic Flight and 2) Speed *they can operate above 250 knots below 10,000 feet* So, although it might be LEGAL to operate in a MOA, doesn’t sound like a real bright idea.

I uploaded the video to my youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/askacfi) but you can’t watch it here too. (thanks to AOPA for the video)

Fly Safe (especially in a MOA)

Once a month in my email inbox I receive a safety bulletin from the NASA aviation safety reporting system, also known as Callback.  It summarizes and highlights selected reports from the NASA reporting forms.  Think of it as a “Not Top-10 Plays” of aviation.  NASA reporting forms is a volunteer system designed for pilots and other flight crew members to report aviation incidents that they have been involved in.  The ASRS monitors these reports to bring out deficiencies in the National Airspace System and training programs.  Also, NASA is obviously very interested in human factors study so this helps that program as well.  If you haven’t heard about the ASRS system, I would encourage you to read more here.

This month’s report was a entitle, “Out of the Ordinary” and made for some interesting reading.  I especially liked the story about the truck on the runway who realized that an airplane had just landed behind him! Reading it, made me think of this infamous video.

I would encourage you to subscribe to and read these reports.  I always learn a lot from reading other people’s mistakes and identifying ways that I could make the similar decisions that lead to these incidents.  Incidents and dangerous situations can and do happen to EVERY pilot and it is important to make sure these don’t lead to accidents.

I would also encourage you to submit NASA reports when incident’s do occur.  As pilots, we are often not fond of admitting our mistakes but it is important that we do, so that the community and regulators can keep an eye on trends in the industry.  NASA reports can help keep your certificate from suspension in very certain circumstances.  If the FAA is investigating a incident that might have resulted from a unintentional regulation violoation and discover that a NASA report was filed you may receive a waiver.  Read Advisory Circular 00-46D and FAR 91.25 for more information.