http://www.rjma.com/flight/airwaves/920.htm

Students learn best what they learn first. The FAA's Fundamentals of Instruction calls this notion Primacy of Learning. This is consistent with most theories of learning. Then the FAA goes and creates a series of performance standards in the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) that, if followed by an instrument pilot on an ILS to minimums, could kill him!

The PTS, for example, sets the permissible enroute altitude fluctuation for a private pilot at plus/minus 200'. Whoa . . . a 200' altitude variation on the ILS could put a pilot and his or her passengers in the trees! Remember, Primacy of Learning? The FAA sets broad performance standards for the primary pilot, then expects him to unlearn these standards as he or she moves up the ratings ladder.

The Instrument PTS tightens the permissible altitude fluctuation to plus/minus 100'. This is better but it still misses the mark. Any properly trained, reasonably proficient instrument student can easily maintain an assigned altitude, plus or minus 40', even 20' if he or she is really on their game.. Under the Primacy of Learning premise, if instructors permit plus/minus 100' of assigned altitude, that's how instrument pilots will fly on a non-precision approach to minimums. Flying to this sloppy standard could easily cause an unnecessary missed approach by flying 100' high and going back into the clouds at the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) or worse, by flying 100' low on a circling approach at night.

Defenders of the PTS argue that setting tight altitude standards will lengthen the private pilot training time. Yes, we might have to spend an extra couple of flight hours teaching primary students how to properly trim an aircraft, then how to control altitude with power settings. Once this is accomplished, however, students will be able to fly all their required maneuvers at plus/minus 40'. Then, as these students move up through the ratings ladder, they'll save dozens of hours of training time from not having to UNLEARN what they learned during the PRIMACY phase of their FAA approved private pilot curriculum! More importantly, they'll become more proficient pilots at any rating level.

Below, you will see how Keith Harlock secured his instrument rating in just 50 hours. One major reason for his quick success was that he was taught to a much tighter standard during his private pilot training. We also threw away his foggles when it came to the mandatory three hours of instrument training portion of his private pilot training. Following the Primacy of Learning doctrine, flying in the clouds became a non-event for keith within the first 10 hours of his primary training.

I recently visited with a retired 14,000 hour corporate pilot. I asked him what his greatest safety concerns were. He responded with: (1) in-flight fires, and (2) mid-air collisions. Most experienced pilots would agree with this observation. I might add a couple of my own, e.g., airframe icing and thunderstorms. That's the bad news. The good news is each of these concerns represent manageable risks. Yes, these are just a few of the many risks that threaten every flight we make. But its not the risks that get us; instead, it's how we manage these risks that determine our fate as pilots.

Okay . . . it's time that we all admit that flying is a dangerous business. Anytime we climb into a machine that hurls us through the air at 100 to 700 miles per hour is, by any simple definition, a dangerous activity. See and avoid does not always work . . . besides most of us do not spend as much time scanning the skies all around our airplanes as we should. The "Big Sky" theory is also bunk. With over 5,000 airplanes in this sky during any single hour, the odds of collision, absent any specific defensive maneuvers, are quite high.

Turn on your transponder and squawk altitude. What will this do? First, it will put your airplane on the TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) of every airliner or corporate jet near your airplane. Second, your position and altitude will appear on the radar screen of the controller working your sector. This controller, in turn, can alert other pilots in your vicinity of a pending collision.

On the other hand, if you have an operable transponder with Mode C and you leave it off, you are NOT effectively managing your risk of mid-air collision. You are putting yourself at unnecessary risk. Worse, you are putting other flight crews and passengers at risk.

FAR 91.215(c) states that ". . . in all controlled airpspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder . . . shall operate the transponder, including Mode C if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as asigned by ATC."

This regulation makes it clear that if your airplane is equipped with an operable transponder it must be turned on in ALL airspace other than Class G, and if it has Mode C (altitude encoding), it too, must be turned on.

In its original rule, TSA mandated that all 635,000 U.S. certificated pilots — including some 85,000 resident aliens — have their identification and citizenship verified and recorded, among other onerous provisions. Flight reviews and aircraft checkouts for pilots with a U.S. certificate don't now require citizenship verification. The original date for complying with this rule is today, October 20, 2004. Almost nothing has been done to prepare the aviation community for this rule, including instructing the country's 88,000 CFIs who would be required to collect and file the information.

After the recent actions of AOPA, TSA elected to delay the compliance for pilots (U.S. citizens and aliens) currently holding an FAA certificate, providing a 60-day exemption to December 19, 2004, with compliance taking effect December 20, 2004. However, aliens receiving training in the United States for the first time must comply with the rule now. That means, starting today (October 20, 2004), instructors involved in this training will have to meet the new TSA requirements.

As originally written, the rule required flight instructors to verify a "candidate's" citizenship status prior to providing any kind of flight training, including flight reviews, in aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less.

This rule is downright comical . . . nor for its intent, but by the way it was put forth. It's not an FAA rule, so the FAA has little to say regarding its implementation and/or enforcement. Instead, it came out of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), who has no direct communications link with the flight schools and flight instructors who are supposed to abide by it. So the TSA posted a telephone number that flight schools and flight instructors could call if they had questions. Well, most of the 87,000 CFIs in the country did have questions and, guess what . . . That telephone number was jammed in the first 10 minutes of the day it was announced. AOPA, EAA, and the National Associations of Flight Instructors (NAFI) were given no advance warning of this rule, so they were clueless to help. The Rochester Flight Safety District Office (FSDO) received their first official instructions on this rule on Thurday, October 21, one full day after the rule went into effect . . . and they are still largely in the dark as to how it must be implemented or enforced.

Tom Brokaw's popular book title "The Greatest Generation" captured the remarkable courage, commitment, dedication of American servicemen and women who served in World War II. Sadly, these veterans are passing on at the rate of over 1,000 per day!

Thankfully, many of these great Americans are still with us . . . right here in the Aero Club of Buffalo! They come, often quietly, each month to our board and membership meetings. They ask for no special recognition. They share their experiences, but only when asked. None will accept credit for helping to make America free for democracy. They were called, they served and, sadly, many never came back.

I would like to use a portion of Over the Airwaves each month to recognize a local member of The Greatest Generation by sharing his or her WWII experiences. In reading these accounts, we should all pause and tip our hats for the contributions each made to the War effort.

Meet First Lieutenant Gerald Miller, P-51 Pilot, 351st Squadron, 353rd Fighter Group, 8th Air Force - 22 Missions with 120 Hours of Combat Flight Over Europe (1943-1945) - Click HERE

Jimmy Doolittle was the first pilot to fly an airplane solely by reference to instruments. He was also the pilot credited for creating the need for a whole new industry. That industry is air traffic control. Jimmy figured that as long as there was only one pilot in the clouds, he'd never run into anybody else. However, once other pilots learned to fly in the clouds, there would have to be some way to separate them from each other! Hence, ATC was born.

It was the airplane, specifically instrument airplanes, that created the need for ATC . . . and since that time the role of ATC is to serve airplanes - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! However you define ATC, it is and always has been a service organization to the pilot. I offer this definition with all due respect to our brethren in the radar room and towers. These fine, very talented professionals do a very good job at keeping us from running into each other. Nonetheless, they are there to address the safety needs of pilots, their crews, and their passengers.

Somewhere in current aviation culture, the perception of ATC has changed from one of service to one of absolute authority. Pilot behavior in response to this mis-perception ranges from simple compliance to blind obedience! The pilot trades his or her own position awareness for total submissiveness, yielding - without thought - to ATC instructions. Tragically, pilots and passengers have died because of this blind obediance to mis-placed authority.

In truth, it is the pilot, not the controller, who is ultimately responsible for the safe outcome of every flight. It is the pilot, not the controller, who ultimately determines the heading and altitude to fly. If the controller steers a pilot into a restricted or prohibited area, it's the pilot, not the controller, that receives the violation. If a controller vectors a pilot into the side of a mountain, it's the pilot, not the controller, who dies.

Of course not! FAR 91.123(b) states that Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

Well, if the pilot is the master and ATC is the servant, how do you explain FAR 91.123(b)?

Welcome to the gray area of aviation. As any experienced pilot knows, aviation is not a "black and white" world, with right answers and wrong answers. Instead, aviation is a world of shades of gray. It's a world of individual interpretation and judgement, not blind obedience to regulation. It's a world where the pilot exercises COMMAND authority over the safety of his flight. How, then, does pilot command authority square with FAR 91.123(b)? [I should point out that there are still pilots who "fly by the book." Right/wrong, black or white . . . with no shades of gray. Fortunately, this myopic view of aviation is fading away.]

The best way to reconcile pilot command and FAR 91.123(b) is to recognized and accept the fact that the pilot and ATC represent a flight team. Rather than working in opposition, e.g., ATC says go one way and the pilot wants to go another way, the pilot and ATC decide jointly on what will work for the best outcome of the flight. But remember, every team has a captain. And that captain is and always has been the pilot, not the controller.

Again, the pilot is the boss! The pilot files his or her flight plan. ATC issues clearances in accordance with that plan. If the pilot does not like or is unable to accept those clearances, he advises the controller, and a new set of clearances are issued. This process continues until both the pilot and ATC agree on the the flight is to be flown. Sound confusing? Perhaps so, but here's a list of six rules that will help you, as the pilot, to remain in control of your flight:

If you would like further clarification of these six rules, click HERE. This will open a wonderful article titled The Delicate Art of Negotiating with ATC. This article will affirm the fact that ATC is there for the pilot's convenience and safety, not the other way around.

Here's a man who spends 50 hours a week in the office as a civil engineer, finds time to teach an evening college course, then uses what time he has left to build barn in his back yard . . .all while diligently working and securing his instrument rating in less than 10 months! Oh yes, Keith and Denise are expecting their second child in November!

Keith Secured His Rating in 10 Months with Just 50.5 Hours of Instrument Training . . .

Beginning last December, Keith and I blocked out three hours each week for instrument training [excluding about five weeks for vacations, illness, aircraft maintenance, etc.]. Weather grounded us only twice in 40 weeks . . . and this includes an entire Buffalo winter! Like the Post Office, neither rain, snow, sleet, nor dark of night kept us from our appointed flying. Our ground study emphasized aeronautical decision making including an in-depth study of minimum vectoring altitudes (MVAs), cloud bases and tops, freezing levels, water droplet sizes, and meteorological icing reports. Keith learned which cold winter clouds were safe to fly in and which clouds to stay away from. He also learned how to deal with potential icing emergencies . . . not by precipitating them in actual flight, but by looking out the window and seeing, first hand, the factors that lead to airframe icing. There is simply no way to learn and develop these skills while in simulated instrument flight!

Keith's final stage check flight occurred several days prior to his check ride. We launched on a moonless night, lifted off Akron into solid instrument conditions and flew approaches at Dunkirk and Jamestown. The surface winds were blowing at 17 knots with gusts to 25 knots. The skies were turbulent from the surface to 6,000'. It was no night for the weak of heart! We turned off the portable GPS and relied solely upon VORs for navigation. I had only one training objective in mind that evening. That was, to determine if Keith could fly safely, irrespective of the PTS, in hostile weather. After all, anybody can control the needles in calm air, but it takes a truly proficient instrument pilot to track the localizer/glideslope to actual minimums while combating spacial disorientation caused by turbulence and poor cockpit lighting in a non-radar environment.

Keith Passed His Check Ride with the Skills Required by the Practical Test Standards (PTS) . . . and Them Some!

One of the reasons that Keith performed so well throughout his instrument work was because he had honed a solid base of aeronautical skills in his 10 months of private pilot training. From the very beginning of his primary training with me in March, 2003, Keith flew in the system . . . far from the practice area. Like an Alaskan bush pilot, Keith learned weather flying by flying in the weather.

Aggressive Instrument Flight Training Is Not For Everybody. But It Is for Those Who Plan to Use Their Ticket For Something Other Than Flying To a Fly-In Breakfast . . .

There is great wisdom in flying only in calm winds on clear, sunny days. There's nothing finer than departing to a fly-in breakfast while the warm, early morning sun dries the dew on the grass. This, in fact, is what the new sport pilot/light sport aircraft rules will enable more pilots to enjoy. There is also nothing wrong with learning just enough to pass your check ride if all you ever plan to do is recreational flying. The Practical Test Standards (PTS) are just fine for that.

But if you EVER plan to fly your family and friends to a distant city in the high traffic density northeast region . . . particularly in less than VFR weather, you better hope your primary and instrument training were up to snuff. And you better be sure that your skills, however good they were at check ride time, are still proficient! This means getting out and doing some serious recurrent training twice a year.

Travel Log Crossing the Border . . . to Toronto by Private Air!

It's a world class city . . . and just 38 minutes away from Buffalo by Cessna 172! Despite its proximity, its excitement, its culture, so few local pilots take advantage of this wonderful resource right in our own back yards. That's what local pilot, Tom Corey, said to me just the other day. I asked him, "What are you going to do about it?"

He replied, "Let's go!" That's all I needed to hear - and we were off. We jumped through the necessary flight planning hoops, gave a call to Canadian customs, and just a little while later we were dining on steaks at the Harbour Sixteen Steak House in downtown Toronto! Not only did we enjoy a wonderful evening in Toronto, Tom received valuable flight training experience landing and taking off at Canada's largest commercial airport, Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International, followed by a low-level VFR hop over to the City Center Airport on Toronto Island. Tom is wrapping up his commercial pilot rating, and what better finish-up exercise could there be than to mix it up with the big boys at Pearson?

A Few Easy Steps . . .

Our trip originated at the Akron (NY) Airport in a Cessna 172. Tom called the CANPASS phone number [1-888-CANPASS] to talk with Canadian Customs. A nice lady copied the pertinent information, e.g., name, address, date of birth, aircraft serial number, destination, expected time of arrival, etc.. This call took about 10 minutes to complete. Then he called Buffalo Flight Service to file an instrument flight plan following published airways to Pearson International (YYZ).

We chose Pearson because it had an instrument arrival procedure (IAP). Our plan was to land there, clear customs, then go VFR over to the City Center Airport, which is located just a few minutes walking distance from downtown Toronto. Note: City Center Airport does have an instrument arrival procedure, but it requires distance measuring equipment (DME), which we did not have on the airplane.

Tom completed his pre-flight inspection, taxied to Akron's runway 7 and launched. He picked up his clearance in the air. We received radar vectors from the Toronto arrival controller, direct to Pearson followed by a clearance for the ILS 6L Approach. Toronto had simultaneous operations going on runways 6 Left, 6 Right, and 5. We were making our landing at about 5pm, just as the rush of European flight arrivals were making their way in! We were about 3 miles out on the ILS 6L when the tower controller called and requested that we set up to circle to runway 33 Left. Looking at the airport photo above, you can see how easily one might become confused when suddenly having to pick out runway 33 Left from Pearson's six runways, four of which were now in simultaneous use. [Click on the photo, left, to expand and see the finger pointing to Pearson Airport from about eight miles out.]

Here, again, is an example where primary and instrument training MUST include substantial Class B airport experience! In fact, I'll go on record in saying that any private or instrument training that does NOT include substantial Class B airport experience leaves the student seriously under prepared - thereby becoming a risk to himself, his passengers, and to many others around him or her!

Standby for Sticker Shock . . .

Tom successfully maneuvered for landing on runway 33 Left and taxied to the Piedmont-Hawthorne FBO. We radioed ahead to Piedmont, requesting they advise customs of our imminent arrival. As it turned out, all we had to do was phone customs from the ramp to announce our arrival. That was it . . . no customs inspector, no inspection, nothing. We then walked into the FBO to relax a couple of minutes before continuing on to the City Center Airport . . . and to pay our landing fee of $155.00! That turned out to be the surprise of the day.

Our next stop was the City Center Airport on Toronto Island. This airport, like Meigs Airport in Chicago, has fallen under local political attack - which is threatening its future. Anyway, we departed Pearson VFR with ATC instructions to remain at our below 1,500' MSL as they vectored us directly over downtown Toronto to Toronto Island. This put us barely 1,000' above the ground (well below the height of the CN Tower)! The City Center tower took the handoff from Toronto Departure and cleared us to land on runway 26.

The photos below show Tom Corey at City Center Airport (left) and the ferry boat that links Toronto Island with mainland (right).

We boarded the ferry linking Toronto Island with the mainland (this ferry operates every 15 minutes until 10:45pm). From there, we walked several blocks to the Harbor Sixteen Steak House where Tom treated me to one of the very best Porter House steaks I've ever had! Note: Tom owns and operates Lord Chumley's Restaurant on Delaware Avenue in Buffalo - so his endorsement of the Harbor Sixteen Steak House says a lot! After supper, the restaurant folks gave us a ride back to the airport.

Tom paid the $35 landing and parking fees, filed a VFR flight plan back to Buffalo where we cleared U.S. Customs. We then took a quick hop back to the Akron Airport where our delightful evening came to an end. All in all, our training and supper flight to Toronto was a lot of fun. Toronto is a world class city, just minutes by air from Buffalo. The flight over and back is really quite easy . . . so put Toronto on your flight travel plans real soon!

Lateral vs. Logical Thinking Skills . . . Could Save Your Life!

Many years ago in a small Indian village, a farmer had the misfortune of owing a large sum of money to a village moneylender. The moneylender, who was old and ugly, fancied the farmer's beautiful daughter. So he proposed a bargain. He said he would forgo the farmer's debt if he could marry his daughter.

Both the farmer and his daughter were horrified by the proposal. So the cunning money-lender suggested that they let providence decide the matter. He told them that he would put a black pebble and a white pebble into an empty money bag. Then the girl would have to pick one pebble from the bag.

1) If she picked the black pebble, she would become his wife and her father's debt would be forgiven.

2) If she picked the white pebble she need not marry him and her father's debt would still be forgiven.

3) But if she refused to pick a pebble, her father would be thrown into jail.

They were standing on a pebble strewn path in the farmer's field. As they talked, the moneylender bent over to pick up two pebbles. As he picked them up, the sharp-eyed girl noticed that he had picked up two black pebbles and put them into the bag. He then asked the girl to pick a pebble from the bag.

What's A Girl Supposed to DO?

Now, imagine that you were standing in the field. What would you have done if you were the girl? If you had to advise her, what would you have told her? Careful analysis would produce three possibilities:

1. The girl should refuse to take a pebble.

2. The girl should show that there were two black pebbles in the bag and expose the money-lender as a cheat.

3. The girl should pick a black pebble and sacrifice herself in order to save her father from his debt and imprisonment.

This story is illustrative of the difference between lateral and logical thinking. The girl's dilemma cannot be solved with logical thinking.

Using lateral thinking to solve the problem, the girl put her hand into the moneybag and drew out a pebble. Without looking at it, she fumbled and let it fall onto the pebble-strewn path where it immediately became lost among all the other pebbles. "Oh, how clumsy of me," she said. "But never mind, if you look into the bag for the one that is left, you will be able to tell which pebble I picked." Since the remaining pebble is black, it must be assumed that she had picked the white one. And since the money-lender dared not admit his dishonesty, the girl changed what seemed an impossible situation into an extremely advantageous one.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Most complex problems do have a solution. Traditional logical thinking among pilots draws upon the rote lessons we learned in the typical training environment. Hopefully, all of the things we were taught will cover every eventuality we might encounter in the sky. Ideally, our emergency checklists will provide a solution to even the nastiest emergency we might encounter. But what if this is not true? What if we have exhausted all of the LOGICAL solutions? We suffer a psychological event called RESIGNATION. We resign ourselves to the ultimate fate of our emergency . . . we give up and die.

Lateral thinking is not taught in most traditional flight training programs. Without the ability to engage in lateral thinking, we focus on LOGICAL solutions. Had the farmer's daughter engaged in logical thinking, any choice she made would have been unpleasant. A quick recollection of Captain Al Haines' remarkable landing of the catastrophically disabled United Flight 232 in 1989 is an example of lateral thinking. There were no emergency checklists addressing the simultanous loss of all three independent hydraulic systems in the DC-10 . . . because the odds for such an event occurring were greater than a billion to one! Captain Haines and his crew effectively re-wrote the book on crew resource management by applying lateral thinking to their in-flight emergency.

What's Real and What Isn't

A simulator session where the CFII pretends to be the real controller is okay to a point, but for that in-the-system feeling you need to fly - where else? -- in the system, during the day in crappy weather amid lots of other airplanes. With 20 voices on the frequency --- six on bum radios, and two paid by the syllable --- you either learn or run away screaming.

You can review phraseology at home, but when you're in the clag with vectors streaming from a take-no-prisoner controller, the words need to spit from your mouth with rivet-gun effect. Only repeated exposure to the system makes you that sharp.

-- Paul Berge, Editor, IFR Magazine

I am often asked about the merits of either pc-based flight simulators or full-up walk in sims as pictured above. My answer is always the same. Simulators are great for practicing instrument procedures. With video replay capability, the instrument student can stop, back-up, and see precisely how he or she flew the procedure. Procedural mistakes can be easily seen and corrected.

The Fatal Comparison:

The simulator is to the pilot what the firing range is to the combat soldier. It is an excellent practice device, but it is no match for the real thing. People who do well in the simulator ought not think that they can do well in the real thing.

The biggest difference is the absence of genuine fear in the simulator (or firing range). Regardless of how bad a situation the sim operator creates, the student knows that he can always get up and walk out. Not so in the real world. This fear thing can paralyze a pilot when he or she is up against overwhelming odds in the real IFR world. Similarly, it is impossible to experience vertigo in the typical GA simulator such as the one pictured above; nor can you experience the sensation of hanging by your shoulder harness as turbulence whips you around on the ILS.

Again . . . embrace the simulator for what it can do (practice procedures), but don't ever let it become a substitute for real world IFR flight!

I learned that danger is relative, and that inexperience can be a magnifying glass.

— Charles A. Lindbergh

There is no getting around the fact that flying is dangerous. But all of its associated hazards can be dramatically reduced in the hands of a well-trained, proficient pilot. I asked the 14,000 hour corporate jet pilot mentioned above to recount any emergencies he had experienced over his 40 year flying career. He replied, "I've only had two in-flight emergencies and both were relatively minor and the outcomes were inconsequential."

He then shared his view on the hazards of flying. He said, "In-flight emergencies are largely non-events to properly trained, proficient pilots who continually plan ahead on every flight. This planning ahead means always having a Plan-B, knowing and understanding your airplane's systems, and comprehending the vagaries of weather."

The operative word in Lindbergh's quote above is INEXPERIENCE. Inexperience is a very dangerous thing, whether recoverying from an icy skid on the highway or handling a firearem. We can read all the training manuals we want; we can look at training videos; and we can even simulate various hazardous situations. But we cannot gain experience by sitting in the classrooms of life. Just as we cannot TELL a child how to ride a bike, we cannot TELL a pilot how to recover from a spin, how to land in a 22 knot cross-wind, or how to recover from a bounced or ballooned landing. The ONLY way to learn mountain flying is to fly in the mountains; the ONLY way to learn how to fly on instruments is to fly in the clouds; the ONLY we can can learn to deal with structural icing is to do a lot of winterime flying.

If this issue of Over the Airwaves was forwarded to you by a friend, you can order your own free future copies of this e-publication by simply clicking HERE and completing the very brief signup form.

Over the Airwaves is not intended to be your typical training, official news, or club-type social journal. Instead, its intent is to stimulate thought, enhance aviation critical thinking skills, to encourage the strong pilot, and to disturb the weaker pilot. With this breadth of scope, Over the Airwaves will evoke a number of reactions. Please feel free to share these reactions with me by clicking HERE.

Rule #1: Don't be shy...ask ATC for what you want.

Rule #2: Treat every ATC clearance as the opening bid in a negotiation.

Rule #3: If ATC turns down your request, be persistent.

Rule #4: If you're unable, say so...and make ATC a counter-offer.

Rule #5: It sometimes helps to give ATC the reason for your request.

Rule #6: Don't hesitate to use your command authority.