 |
|
Sunday, July 24, 2005 Vol. II No. 15
Prepared by Bob Miller, ATP,
MCFI |
|
|
|
Sunday, July 24, 2005 Vol. II No. 15
Prepared by Bob Miller, ATP,
MCFI |
Welcome to the
Over the Airwaves
aviation newsletter. This complimentary bi-weekly e-mailing is
being sent to pilots and aviation enthusiasts around the world.
Its aim
is to promote flight
safety, encourage students and new pilots, and to build enthusiasm
for aviation in general.
Dear Pilots and Aviation Enthusiasts:
We pilots are fully aware that even haulers like a Cherokee Six, Cessna 210, or a Beech Bonanza can carry an impressive load of people and baggage . . . but compared to a Boeing 757, or Airbus 320, let's get real! In reality, our little airplanes, in the hands of a skilled terrorist, have a potential destructive power of a fully loaded Jeep or Buick. Curiously, the public seems to ignore the threat posed by grandpa's motor home. They lose sight of the fact that, in the wrong hands, any of the thousands of large motor homes traversing our nation's highways, crossing strategically significant bridges and tunnels, and parking along side of packed sports stadiums and large municipal buildings pose a far, far greater threat to homeland security than a small airplane. It takes no special license to own and operate these big rigs. There are no birth certificates or passport photos that have to be retained on file by selling dealers. Anybody can walk in off the street and "test drive" one of these beauties anytime they like! Nonetheless, radio, TV, and the print media are able to capture a larger share of their audience by hyping the potential threat posed by a small airplane in the hands of a terrorist. After being whipped into a frenzy, the public naturally looks to their elected officials. "Do something," they cry! Doing something means elected officials have to please the people in return their own job security. When that happens, we little airplane owners and operators pay the price. And that price could be very, very steep! We've got big city mayors calling for a prohibition of all GA flights over "populated" areas. We've got members of the House and Senate calling for aircraft confiscations and $100,000 fines for airspace incursions. And this could be just the beginning! On the airline side, security inspectors are having us take off our shoes because that's where a single terrorist tried to hide his explosive device. Imagine what we'd be doing at airline security checkpoints if that terrorist had attempted to use an explosive suppository! Very fortunately . . . we GA pilots have some muscle on our side as well . . . Any pilot who has a mailbox has heard of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). These are the folks that the Missing Persons Departments of every major city look to when they need to find somebody! These fine, hard working people make it their business to fight back any and all efforts that infringe upon our rights as airmen, airport operators, aviation enthusiasts. AOPA has, in fact, done more to protect the rights of general aviation than any other group out there! Given the spirit of the times, their work is getting harder and harder. Sadly, some of us are not making it any easier for them. When a couple of drunk teenagers without pilots certificates can gain access to an airplane and joyride around the countryside, that hurts us all. When pilots who have lost the skill to fly and navigate are permitted access to little airplanes, that hurts us all, too. Leaving the keys in the ignition and the hangar doors unlocked is no different than leaving loaded shotguns sitting on a bench in the village park. Similarly, permitting suspicious looking characters to nose around our FBOs and tie-down areas leaves us open to criticism as well.
Hey... you lock your car, doncha? Your house?
Anything and everything valuable? Why in the world
wouldn't you do the same for your plane!? Come on!
"Hitting a wall" is how Aviation Safety Magazine editor-in-chief, Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside, describes the observations of pilots who have experienced a wake turbulence encounter. Lest we think that wake turbulence is caused only by large, heavy airplanes developing lift, we better think again! Wake turbulence or wake vortices, as they are sometimes called, are always present whenever an airfoil is developing lift. The question is . . . how bad can they be? In the 17 year period between 1983 and 2000, there have been 130 aircraft accidents attributed to wake turbulence encounters. There's likely many, many more unreported wake turbulence encounters that caused a temporary loss of aircraft control. Wake vortices vary in strength depending a variety of factors. Slower aircraft produce stronger vortices; aircraft with shorter wings produce stronger vortices that those with longer wings; heavier aircraft produce stronger vortices than lighter aircraft. The Big, Bad Boeing 757 . . .
The vortices coming off the Boeing 757 are so strong that the FAA has created separate avoidance criteria for aircraft trailing the 757. How much space should you put between you and aircraft landing in front of you? The table below prescribes the FAA's present separation criteria.
Heavy
= 255,000 pounds or more. Watch out for the little guys as well!
The Husky landed and was slow to exit the runway. The T-34, following close behind, executed a go-around. As he climbed, his left wing suddenly dropped and the aircraft dropped 50 feet. Immediately after than, his right ring dropped 20 feet and he impacted the runway threshold below. The pilot and his passenger were seriously injured.
NTSB Probable Cause: "The inadequacy of the pilot's remedial action taken in an attempt to fly out of an encounter with the wake vortex turbulence created by a preceding aircraft while on short final to land. Factors include calm winds in the area of the final approach course, and the pilot's inadvertent encounter with wake vortex turbulence." According to Pat Veillette, writing in Aviation Safety Magazine (July, 2005), recent research by German investigators revealed that wingtip vortices do not behave as we originally thought. They discovered that vortices tend to rebound to a higher altitude after hitting the ground! This research also showed the vortices may be present in locations where pilots did not expect them. Remember the Wake Turbulence Mantra when landing behind or taking off before another aircraft:
Whenever landing in trail of a larger aircraft, plan to touch down beyond the touch down point of the aircraft ahead. When taking off behind a larger aircraft, plan to rotate before that aircraft's rotation point. These steps will help to keep you clear of wing tip vortices created by those larger aircraft. A word about tower-issued three-minute wake turbulence holds . . . You can expect to receive a three-minute wake turbulence hold from the tower whenever making an intersection departure on a runway where a jet aircraft has just departed. This is designed to add an additional measure of caution. You can, of course, waive this three-minute hold and depart . . . but this definitely not a very good idea! And lastly . . . we GA pilots always want to be good airplane citizens when operating off of a big city airport. Skilled controllers are adept at pushing off departures in rapid fire fashion to keep things moving along. If you find yourself being cleared for takeoff with your wings still rocking from the blast of the large airliner which just departed in front of you, request a two minute delay from the tower. They'll either approve your request or send you to another runway. Either way, you'll live to fly another day!  
It was just a couple
of years ago when the only choice a student pilot had to make was to
use E6B circular slide rule or a pre-programmed, battery operated,
electronic flight calculator.
Back when I learned to fly, the
only choice I had was to either have the instructor shout in my ear
or use head phones! My instructor insisted on shouting!
Today is a different
story. Pilots are being bombarded with a vast array of new
electronic devices for use in the cockpit. They include
electronic charts, up-linked weather sent to PDAs or even cell
phones, and a huge selection of handheld or yoke mounted GPS units.
Should flight
students be permitted to use these devices on check rides?
Only the designated
pilot examiner (DPE) can answer this question. Some would say,
"Use whatever tools you have at hand." Others
might say, "No . . . . because, what if the batteries fail!"
The failed battery
scenario is one of the most oft-used reasons given by examiners for
not allowing this new fangled equipment in the cockpit. (To me, that
statement is about as logical as my mother telling me to always wear
clean underwear in case I get into an accident!")
If it helps me
to reduce the workload . . . I'll use it!
My students all know
that I always keep my Garmin 296 GPS up and running on my right seat
yoke mount in any airplane I instruct in. I do this because I
always want to have instant position awareness whenever I teach.
Sure, I could keep the charts open, watch out the window, dial and
track the VORs like I am supposed to . . . but these tasks reduce
the time I have available for teaching.
The other alternative,
of course, is to limit my teaching to the familiar "practice area,"
but this is BORING both to me and to the student.
But what about
the basics???
Bingo! That IS
the real question.
Back to the student
pilot on a check ride. It is the examiner's responsibility to
determine that the student is fundamentally able to use "standard"
aviation technology to safely operate the aircraft. Today,
this technology includes VORs, DMEs and, yes, even NDBs. This
standard technology also includes paper sectional and low altitude
enroute charts, Airport Facilities Directories, and paper approach
plates (either NOS or Jeppessen).
It is the job of the instructor to assess the student's ability to use the standard
equipment and, if he or she wishes to, whatever else he brings into
the cockpit with him.
Why?
Because once he gets
his certificate, this new stuff will find itself into the cockpit
anyway, and we want to be sure he's prepared for the challenge.
Two Final
Questions . . .
Should a student
first learn how to use an E6B before using an electronic flight
calculator?
Answer: No (in my opinion). . . for the same reasons that most college freshmen
engineering students have never used a slipstick (slide rule)!
Should a pilot carry
paper approach plates and charts if he has a panel mounted or
portable multi-function display containing the same information?
Answer:
Yes! Few people have ever died in flight because their
electronic flight calculator toasted. Instrument
approach plates and sectionals, on the other hand, are "MUST" items. Without them, serious problems could result.
Could it possibly be that blind adherence to the PTS is singularly responsible for leading pilots to an early demise? Take a look at the following accident scenario and you be the judge! This accident occurred near Chesterfield, Missouri in September, 2004. The pilot had completed his private pilot training just one month earlier from a Part 141 FAA approved flight school. He, with three passengers on board a Cessna 182, was attempting a go-around during night VFR conditions. The airplane struck trees and crashed. The pilot and all three passengers were killed. Click HERE to view the NTSB Accident Report. So how is the PTS involved?
Let's take a look at a
note the pilot's flight instructor gave to his flight school prior
to the accident:
Why was this flight student signed off for a check ride? Answer: Simple . . . he apparently met the requirements of the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS)! The instructor and the flight school that employed him had no legal basis to hold him back. Frankly, I wonder what would have happened if the student had expressed an interest in using airplanes for terrorist acts. Would he have still been sent on to the examiner? Time for change . . . Realistically, the PTS is long overdue for change. So are portions of FAR Part 61 that address airmen qualifications, aeronautical experience, and recurrent training requirements. But that is not going to happen anytime soon. So what is the solution? Right now, there is no solution. As long as a flight student satisfies the requirements of FAR Part 61 and the Practical Test Standards for the rating he or she is pursuing, there is nothing the "system" can do to hold him up! In this particular case, it only cost the life of the pilot and three innocent passengers. But there is a moral obligation . . . There is a moral obligation on the part of the (1) flight instructor, (2) the flight school, and the (3) designated pilot examiner (DPE) to look beyond the Practical Test Standards (PTS) to determine a pilot candidate's ability to fly safely. There's even a moral obligation of the part of the pilot candidate himself to determine his own attitudinal fitness to fly. If any one of these four parties feel that a necessary ingredient to safe flight is missing, that should bring the entire process to a close until the matter is resolved.
This week's DPEs' Corner was supplied by David St. George, MCFI, DPE who operates a flight school (East Hill Flying) at the Ithaca, NY Airport. David's observations address an article on short and soft field landings and takeoffs that was included in the last previous edition of "Over the Airwaves." You can find David's comments by clicking HERE. DPEs: Here's an opportunity for you to contribute your thoughts regarding the strengths and weaknesses pilot rating candidates coming to you for checkrides! Your comments will help to improve the overall flight training effort. You can contribute your thoughts by clicking HERE.
  If
you are wondering why your approach plate books are getting fatter
(of if you are spending more time updating you Jepp plates), its
because of the proliferation of many new and/or updated GPS
approaches.
In time, nearly every
airport in the US will have a published GPS approach procedure . . .
but NOT every such airport will offer the lowest possible GPS
minimums. For that to happen, it would first be necessary to
cut down trees, remove power lines, widen and lengthen runways, and
establish approach and departure clearways equal to that of airports
with ILS approaches. That simply isn't going to happen in our
lifetime!
Be sure you know
YOUR GPS minimums . . .
First of all . . .
DON'T ever attempt a GPS approach in IMC conditions with any
handheld GPS unit. Handheld GPSs are intended for position
awareness only. They are NOT AUTHORIZED for navigation
purposes.
 Only panel mounted GPS
units possessing necessary FAA IFR enroute approach certification
and with a current database can be used for navigation and
instrument approaches.
Next, only those panel
mounted GPS units that are WAAS-enabled (wide area augmentation
system) can be used for approaches down to VNAV minimums.
The box below
describes the GPS equipment requirements to descend to the various
minima described in GPS approach plates:
TERMINAL ARRIVAL
AREAS (TAAs)
Most GPS procedure
plan views display three semi-circles depicting the terminal arrival
areas (TAAs) leading to each initial approach fix (IAF).
The objective of the
Terminal Arrival Area (TAA) is to provide a seamless transition from
the enroute structure to the terminal environment for arriving
aircraft equipped with Flight Management System (FMS) and/or Global
Positioning System (GPS) navigational equipment.
The TAA contains
within it a “T” structure that normally provides for a No Procedure
Turn (NoPT) for aircraft using the approach. The TAA provides
the pilot and air traffic controller with a very efficient method
for routing traffic into the the terminal environment with little
required air traffic control interface, and with minimum altitudes
depicted that provide standard obstacle clearance compatible with
the instrument procedure associated with it. The TAA will not be
found on all RNAV procedures, particularly in areas of heavy
concentration of air traffic. When the TAA is published, it replaces
the MSA for that approach procedure.
TAAs may appear on
current and new format GPS and RNAV IAP charts. The standard TAA
consists of three areas defined by the extension of the Intial
Approach Fix (IAF) legs and
the intermediate segment course. These areas are called the straight-in, left-base, and the right-base areas.
TAA area lateral
boundaries are identified by magnetic courses TO the IAF. The
straight-in area can further be divided into pie-shaped sectors with
the boundaries identified by magnetic courses TO the IF/IAF, and
many contain stepdown sections defined by arcs based on RNAV
distances (DME or ATD) from the IF/IAF. The right/left-base areas
can only be subdivided using arcs based on RNAV distances from the
IAF’s for those areas.
GPS approaches
as new to ATC as well!
 Beware . . . the local
Approach Controller may not be familiar with all of the GPS
approaches in their sector. It may take him/her a minute to
locate the procedure before he can either vector you to or clear you
for a particular GPS approach. Equally important, given
the various decision altitudes (DA) and minimum descent altitudes
(MDA), don't expect ATC to issue you low altitude warnings! As
always, all he or she can do is issue you the approach clearance.
How you fly it is up to you!
You can have immediate access to any current and all past issues of "Over the Airwaves" by clicking on the link below. Once you have this linked directory page open, save it (bookmark) in your web browser as one of your favorites. Directory of Current and Past OTA issues Then, anytime you're in the mood to read about neat aviation stuff, you can click on that link. It will all be right there for you to choose from!
One of the most useful . . . but difficult to obtain . . . pieces of information for the instrument pilot is the local minimum vectoring altitudes (MVA). The MVA is the lowest altitude that a controller can "legally" provide radar vectors. This does not mean that his radar cannot see you BELOW these altitudes! The MVA vectoring restriction is based upon the presence of towers or other obstructions in a particular area. Here's where knowing the MVA comes in handy . . . Knowing the MVA provides the instrument pilot with valuable "back door" information. For example, let's say that he or she is concerned about embedded thunderstorms along his route of flight. Knowing the MVA may enable him to fly below overcast cloud bases in order to see and avoid T-storms and still remain on an IFR flight plan. In the winter when icing is a concern, knowing the MVA may enable the instrument pilot to get below either the freezing level or the cloud bases (where icing will not occur) and still remain on an instrument flight plan. Ask the Controller . . . For some unknown reason, the FAA does not circulate MVA charts to pilots. The only way you can determine the MVA along your flight path is to ask the controller. As for your home airport, pay a visit to the air traffic control facility serving your area. They will be happy to describe the MVAs where you do much of your flying.
Today is July 14, 2005. You received a thorough FSS pilot briefing for your instrument flight to Burlington Municipal Airport in Wisconsin. Weather is right down to published minimums for VOR/GPS approach to Runway 29. You fly a flawless approach - perfect in every respect. You break out precisely at the 1,360' MDA published on your current approach plate. The only problem is you struck trees just short of the runway threshold. What happened? Fortunately you survived the incident and began an exhaustive study of what you did wrong. What you did wrong is . . . you violated FAR 91.103 (Requirement to have all available information before beginning any flight). In short, you failed to check FDC NOTAMS for the VOR/GPS Runway 29 Approach. Here's how the FDC NOTAM for this runway read:
Looking closely at this FDC NOTAM, you see the number "2/7495". This means this NOTAM was issued in 2002. It is 7,495th NOTAM issued that year. Reading on, you see the notation "FI/T" just after the airport identifier. Translated, this means "flight information of a temporary nature." Going further, you see the phrase: "AMDT 7 . . . s-29 MDA 1640/HAT 861." Translated, this means that the MDA for runway 29 is 1,640', not the 1,360' that appears in your current approach plate!!!!!! You descended 280' below the actual MDA reported in the FDC NOTAM and hit a stand of untrimmed trees. Not only did you bend your airplane and endured 30 days in the local hospital ICU, the FAA slapped you with a FAA 91.103 violation (failure to have all information) and FAA 91.13 (careless and reckless operation). So why weren't you given this FDC NOTAM in your standard FSS pilot briefing? When FDC NOTAMs such as this are issued, they go into a computerized database that is immediately accessible to the FSS briefer. Eventually, this FDC NOTAM database information is published in a document titled "Notices To Airmen Publication (NTAP)." Once this happens, the computerized FDC NOTAM database is purged. Thus, even if you asked the briefer for FDC NOTAMs, once they're published in the NTAP, he no longer has immediate access to it. He has to go searching for the NTAP. Help!
So why wasn't the approach plate changed to reflect this increased MDA? Even though notice of the increased MDA was issued over three years ago, the FDC NOTAM contained the statement "FI/T". Remember . . . "Flight information of a temporary nature?" Considered temporary, this information is NOT included in approach plate updates! So what is a girl supposed to do? Good question. Guess what . . . the FAA doesn't yet have an answer, but they say they're working on this NOTAM problem! What about the VFR pilot? Does this NOTAM problem impact him or her as well? Yes! Remember, TFRs (temporary flight restrictions) are issued only by FDC NOTAMs! So, it you don't have access to FDC NOTAMs, you may not have all the TFR information along your route of flight. Another Solution . . . There is another solution. That's DUATs. DUATs users can get ALL FDC NOTAMS along their route of flight . . . but be prepared to do a lot of very tight, boring reading!
If you are traveling to Airventure 2005 at Oshkosh, please be sure to stop by and say hello. I'll be camping with EAA Chapter 46 in Camp Scholler, 39th and Lindbergh Ave. I won't be arriving this year until Thursday, July 28 and staying through Sunday, July 31.
Okay . . . so I've got a little health problem that
I neglected to report on my FAA medical
That's what 46 pilots from California thought. These pilots neglected to report that they had medical conditions that would have disqualified them for flight. They were found out as a result of a two-year investigation in which Social Security numbers of pilots were cross-referenced with other databases. Several of these pilots were apparently receiving disability benefits for conditions that would disqualify them from flying. The conditions ranged from heart conditions to serious mental illnesses like paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and even severe suicidal tendencies. Big deal, right? Think again. Falsification or lying on the FAA medical form carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine! It's only a matter of time before the FAA routinely runs cross-records checks on ALL pilot medical forms. . . .
With as many as 50 percent of all general aviation accidents occurring at or immediately around the airport, one can easily see the importance of mastering crosswind landings along with their closely associated ballooned, balked, and bounced landings.
Therein lies the problem . . . RISK! No one can argue that crosswind landings are more challenging (read risky) that normal landings. Therefore, every such crosswind landing an instructor teaches notches up the relative risk of that particular training mission. Ergo, why incur the risk if flight students can get through the checkride with little or no demonstrated crosswind capability. The solution . . . a token crosswind training effort. Realizing the basic requirement to log crosswind training, some instructors will find a day with winds blowing lightly across the runway, say at 6 to 8 knots. They dutifully prepare the student for the day's crosswind training by explaining, then demonstrating the proper crosswind landing technique. The student follows the instructors example and, voila' . . . the student is now crosswind proficient! The appropriate entries are made in the student's logbook, then its on to turns around a point or S-turns over a highway. Time to get serious about crosswind training . . . Let's look at real crosswind challenges for what they are. We're not talking about gentle breezes blowing 6 or 8 knots across the runway. Instead, let's consider blustering winds of 15 to 20 knots with gusts up to 28 knots! Let's also consider the possible results of those gusting winds on aircraft behavior, specifically ballooned, balked, and bounced landings that can leave an airplane dangerously close to stall 30 feet above the runway. Let's not forget the fact that, in such cases, the pilot has less than three or four seconds to apply the correct control inputs to avoid a prop strike, ground loop, or damage caused by runway lights to a careening, out of control airplane. If we could eliminate crosswind landing accidents altogether . . . As with everything else in aviation, the key to safe, accident-free flight is proper training, repeated practice, followed by recurrent training, and more practice. Leave any of these elements out, and crosswind landing accidents will continue to occur. We can no longer tell pilots that they avoid landing accidents by avoiding crosswind landings. Until we can control the direction of the runway with a swivel switch in the cockpit, crosswind landings will be forced upon even the unwilling pilot. And when that happens, accidents occur! Buyer beware . . . If you are a student or a low time pilot (or a high time pilot with weak crosswind landing proficiency), you need to find a qualified, experienced instructor who is skilled at teaching crosswind landing operations. If you're not getting this training from your present instructor, beware! You might consider looking around.
If you are getting weary of reading airplane stuff, take a time out and read about one of life's lessons sent to us by Fran Malczynski Buffalo, NY. It's titled: "A Mayonnaise Jar and two cups of Coffee" Click HERE to learn this valuable lesson!
Being on an IFR flight plan offers far too many advantages to give it up prematurely. By prematurely, I mean giving it up (canceling) when your non-towered destination airport first appears in sight. Remember, a lot can happen in the last five or ten miles of flight. An unexpected cloud or rain shower might obscure your sight of the airport. Unreported traffic might cross your path of flight. Big Sister - Little Brother . . . While it may sound childish or condescending, an IFR flight plan affords the pilot with the same protective services as a big sister taking the hand of her little brother on a walk to grandma's house several blocks away. Sure the little brother may likely make it on his own, but the big sister affords and extra set of eyes, an awareness of the bigger picture, and a sense of needed security that the little brother might benefit from. Cancel when a safe landing is assured! My preference has always been to hang on to the IFR flight plan (or flight following) until I can be assured of an immediate safe landing . . . and not before! If the controller calls out the airport for me and cancels my IFR plan, I request that he or she "stays with me" until I advise otherwise. In most cases, ATC willingly complies with my request.
Doing lots of biennial flight reviews (BFRs), instrument proficiency checks (IPCs), and rental aircraft insurance checkouts, I am able to observe many different pilot proficiency levels. These levels range from proficient to dangerous. Frequently meeting and flying with many different pilots provides me with a unique opportunity to correlate demonstrated pilot proficiency skills with what I see in their logbooks. This relationship between flying skills and logbook entries is striking! The most dramatic comparison between demonstrated skills and logbook entries is instrument approaches in actual IFR conditions. It is highly unlikely that a pilot is able to safely fly an instrument approach to minimums, in actual conditions, if he or she has not flown one in actual conditions to minimums within the previous six months. One the other hand, I have little doubt that most instrument rated pilots can fly a satisfactory simulated (under the hood) instrument approach even if a year has past since they last did this. There is something disarming about actual instrument conditions . . . To appreciate the difference between actual and simulated instrument approaches, picture in your mind a one mile long, six inch wide steel beam. Now picture this beam situated just one foot (12 inches) above the surface of the ground. Could you safely walk across it? Sure! You could probably do it with your eyes shut.
The difference is . . . perceived danger. There is no perceived danger when walking a beam one foot off of the ground. There is serious danger walking across the same beam several thousand feet above the ground. This perception of danger can overpower one's thought process! Beam Walking School If you were to enroll in beam walking school to learn how to walk across a six inch wide steel beam and they left it positioned just one foot off of the ground, you wouldn't learn much. If you wanted to become an instrument rated pilot and your instructor never provided you an opportunity to shoot numerous instrument approaches in actual conditions, what would you learned? The similarity between view limiting devices (hood) and a six inch wide beam positioned only one foot off of the ground is profound! Same is true with instrument proficiency Using a hood and a safety pilot to fulfill the FAA instrument currency requirements is, frankly, a sad, self-deceptive joke that leaves pilots dangerously under-prepared to operate in actual instrument conditions. What's the solution? The solution does not involve rocket science. On the contrary, it simply means being prepared to drop what your are doing, drive to the airport anytime the weather is at or close to IFR minimums, then go shoot instrument approaches. If you are not current or if you feel in any way less than proficient, bring a hard-nosed, fire breathing, take-no-prisoners, instrument instructor along with you (avoid the namby, pamby CFII who will make the necessary course corrections for you, then sign you off good to go)! If an instrument rated pilot is not willing to do this, I would respectfully suggest he or she limit their flying to VFR conditions. Summary There have been lots of promotional efforts by the FAA, AOPA, and the aviation insurance industry to encourage pilots to obtain their instrument ratings. The FAA has even reduced the currency requirements as an added incentive. They all say that this rating enhances flight safety. It does . . . but it is also a two-edged sword. If you have the instrument rating, you ARE a safer pilot. But (this is a BIG but), you must aggressively maintain your instrument skills . . . that is, if you had them in the first place! If your instrument training took place entirely in the Florida or Western New York summer sunshine, under the hood, you better think again about your skills. They may not be there when you need them!
MISSIONS AT THE
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The comments and observations shown below were sent in this past week by "Over the Airwaves" readers.
|
"Your solutions are right on target... the most important
benefit to all of your suggestions is not the cost
saving but that the "PILOT-ERROR INDUCED ACCIDENT
WILL DECLINE" .. Keep up the good work!"
"I'm working
towards my Masters of Science in Aeronautics specializing in safety
and management at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona
Beach, FL. I am a private pilot with hopes of continuing my flying
education. Currently, I'm on an internship with Battelle doing
aviation safety research for NASA and should be graduating next May.
"This is a great
publication and when I took it to my flight school, they now use it
in prep of our Saturday AM classes."
"I just read your
latest newsletter and my first thought was, "where does he find the
time to do this twice per month?" I found the articles informative
and some entertaining (the flight with the three high school
students). I love reading about other pilots' flight experiences. I
look forward to your future newsletters."
Hey Bob... I just LOVE
"Over The Airwaves"!!! I have been licensed for
35 years, (I soloed 35 years ago this coming
week, with only 3.5 hours of dual time.)
My true love is instrument flying and I am a
"lifetime" subscriber to IFR, the Magazine for
the Accomplished Pilot. That publication
along with your publication should be mandatory
reading for everyone who flies whether they are
instrument rated or not!
-- Bruce Blaney, Bethlehem, NH AOPA 01535504 "Several weeks ago you mentioned something about not doing boring takeoffs and landings on the same runway but of switching between runways at Niagara Falls with your private pilot students. While one may save some air time moving between runways for landing practice, I find that my beginning students need several repetitions landing on the same runway to get the knack of that runway's approach environment before pulling the rug out from under them before they have
had some success with landing on a particular
runway. I firmly believe that almost constant
switching of runways actually SLOWS the learning
process and costs the student more money. There
is another close parallel to my assertion of
"reasonable repetitions until you get it."
-- Roy S. Czernikowski, CFI, CFII (and also Ph.D. for whatever that matters) Reply: My multiple runway training article generated numerous positive and negative comments from readers. What my article failed to emphasize was that such multiple runway training is intended to provide a variety of x-wind scenarios and practice tower communications for the pilot who has already learned how to land. Back and forth landing on the same runway (in a towered controlled airport) does, however, provide an excellent opportunity for the non-landing proficient pilot to make multiple landings and take offs in the shortest possible time (cost).
Can't wait for next Sunday. Best reading
material in 60 years. Keep up the good work. I'm
sure it will help a lot of the new & OLD pilots.
After reading your material, I am convinced that
I was not ready for combat. Cross my heart.
-- John F. Lipiarz, Army Air Corps, WWII P-47 pilot Reply: You were ready for combat, John. You survived!
I really enjoy
reading your Over the Airwaves and look forward to them each
fortnight (two weekly for those that do not speak and write the
Queen's English <g>). Surprisingly, even though I am not based in
North America, much of what you write is VERY applicable to us in my
corner of the woods. I came across your publication "by
mistake" when it popped up on a Google search for some or other
flight safety item I was researching. I read what you had written
and signed up for the fortnightly E-Mail immediately! |
Click HERE to view what other readers have had to say about "Over the Airwaves
."|
If this issue of Over the Airwaves was forwarded to you by a friend, you can order your own free future copies of this bi-weekly 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.
Past Issues of
Click
HERE
to open any
previous issue(s) of Over the Airwaves and to search
for any past articles.
|
Fly Safe!
Bob Miller,
ATP, MCFI |
 |
| [Disclaimer: Material contained in this e-newsletter is for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as directive, doctrinal, or instructive. Readers should consult with their flight schools, certificated flight instructors, Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and/or appropriate FAA publications including the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), and applicable FAA Advisory Circulars (ACs) for specific guidance relative to any information or before employing any recommendations contained in this e-publication. Further, nothing in this e-publication is intended to be inconsistent with or contrary to any official FAA rule or regulation, nor should such material be interpreted or construed as such. Over the Airwaves is intended exclusively for the purpose of promoting and enhancing heightened reader awareness of flight safety issues. This website is not a substitute for competent flight instruction. There are no representations or warranties of any kind made pertaining to this service/information and any warranty, express or implied, is excluded and disclaimed including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and/or fitness for a particular purpose. Under no circumstances or theories of liability, including without limitation the negligence of any party, contract, warranty or strict liability in tort, shall the website creator/author or any of its affiliated or related organizations be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential or punitive damages as a result of the use of, or the inability to use, any information provided through this service even if advised of the possibility of such damages. ] |
It's
no secret that the general public maintains a love/hate/fear
relationship with little airplanes. They love to go to air
shows; they hate to have airports in or near their backyards;
and they go bonkers in fear that a little airplane in the hands of
terrorists could possibly wipe out a major U.S. city.
Most
airplane wings produce multiple vortices that interact with each
other in ways that lessen their overall severity. Not so with
the Boeing 757 says Aviation Safety Magazine (July, 2005). The
757's wing creates a more even distribution of lift than most other
wings. This, in turn, creates wing tip vortices that are 50
percent stronger than other aircraft with similar wingspans and
weight!
On
September 28, 2003, an Aviat Husky (like the one picture left) made
a normal, calm wind landing on a runway in McCall, Idaho.
Following him in was a Beech T-34 (like the one pictured below).
What's
wrong with the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS)?
Welcome
to the newest section of "Over the Airwaves!" The
DPEs' Corner will carry unedited feedback from our readers who are
Designated Pilot Examiners (DPEs).
Hmmm
. . . the only way you can obtain an NTAP (and access to this
particular FDC NOTAM) is to subscribe to it for $115/year! The
local FSS should have a copy laying around that you can ask the
briefer to take a look at. Believe me, he won't volunteer to
go looking for it!
form.
What's the big deal?
For
some reason, relatively little time in the instructional process is
devoted to mastering these relatively high risk operations.
The well-intentioned instructor says, "If we have a runway
more closely aligned with the wind, why take risk landing on a
crosswind runway?"
When
should I cancel my IFR flight plan? This question is a little
like, "How far should I escort my five year old daughter
across a busy highway before I permit her to complete the crossing
on her own?" All the way? Half way? How
far???
Next,
picture this same six inch wide steel beam suspended over the Grand
Canyon or Niagara Falls. Would you feel equally confident
walking across it? It's the same beam. You're the same
person. So what's the difference?
Sign
Up for "Over the Airwaves" . . . . .