In Flight USA Article Categories
In Flight USA Articles
Loss of Control (LOC) needs to be Re-Examined
By Quest Richlife
Mark Twain was a stickler when it came to using the right word in the right spot for the right effect. I feel the same way about the prevalent misuse of the phrase “Loss of Control” (LOC) within the aviation community, and it should be addressed.
LOC is an inaccurate nametag for basic pilot error. This pilot error continues to be the cause of a high percentage of aircraft accidents, which occur even while there is a fully functioning human at the controls. Because of the fact that the FAA, NTSB, and others continue to use the term LOC, everyone down the line uses it too. And they do so without questioning its efficacy. But it’s not an accurate descriptor, which will help lead us to solutions for reducing accidents and fatalities in GA. To better attack this problem, we need a phrase, which tells a more complete story of what’s going on in these scenarios.
You see, pilots do more than just control the aircraft they’re flying. Yes, there are control surfaces, control systems, control cables and rods, control inputs, control pressures, and even “the controls” such as the yoke, stick and rudder pedals. But the term we should be using for the operation of those controls by the pilot is: command. That’s because from the very moment that any aircraft moves for the purpose of flight until that aircraft comes to a complete stop again, every fraction of an inch of the movement of that aircraft is COMMANDED by the pilot. If this isn’t true, then who or what IS commanding that aircraft? Is the airplane, helicopter, glider, etc. commanding itself? Do today’s aircraft really have the ability to command themselves? I’ve heard it said with tongue-in-cheek that there’s such a thing as “airplane in command” when a pilot wasn’t doing a very good job of piloting. And if it weren’t for the fact that this quip gets a chuckle from us, it could be sobering as a deadly true statement regarding ineffective piloting technique.
Opinion on Loss of Control
By Ed Downs in Response to Quest Richlife
As the primary editorial contributor to In Flight USA, an active CFI, former Exec with a major airline and seminar instructor who works with more than 300 students per year, I applaud the thoughts offered up by Quest Richlife. The fact is, this writer agrees with virtually everything Quest said, with one exception that will be address, but fears the opinions offered are tilting at the wrong windmill. I believe many in the real world of pilot training agree with the “command” concept, but the FAA does not… and the FAA is a pretty big windmill.
Flight Instructor Refresher Clinics (FIRCs) are required to present FAA-approved courses, with content carefully supervised by the FAA. Failure to use FAA safety terminology as taught in the official FAA thinking process called “Aeronautical Decision Making” (ADM) can result in de-certification of a training course. Virtually all FAA published training manuals now carry large chapters on ADM. As new technology, fully auto integrated, aircraft came into common use almost 15 years ago, the FAA concluded that basic flying skills would no longer be needed, but a process of thinking and behavior would be stressed to manage these new aircraft. And here is where Quest and this writer are forced to part way, if only by a little.
Editorial: Bad is Good?
By Ed Downs
To be sure, editorial comment should have a purpose other than promoting just the opinions or ego of the writer. This writer would like to think that In Flight USA editorial views would inform and be of benefit to at least a large part of our readership. Having set this lofty goal, subject matter becomes important. Fortunately, in this fast-moving world of aerospace, recreational flying, science, and the ever-changing world of Federal regulations, topics are typically easy to find. At least, that is normally the case.
This writer follows PR, news, recent events, and throws in a bit of personal experience to try to be informative and topical; all good intentions, but sometimes hard to achieve. At this time in our country’s history, it seems like our entire news and information world, including virtually every form of social media, is focused on the claptrap we politely refer to as the “political arena.” And with that, this writer comes to the title of this month’s topic… When is bad, good?
Editorial: The “Flying Season” and Safety
By Ed Downs
Okay, not an exciting title, but give it chance. There really is a “Flying Season.” Logically, it takes place between May and October, obviously due to improved weather vacation travel. Generally, up to 70 percent of the flying hours flown during a year occur during these months, and the same percentage applies to revenues earned by aviation- related businesses. Regrettably, the NTSB and FAA also have to gear up, as accident rates increase with activity. No magic to those stats, more planes, more pilots, more accidents. So let’s see if there are any lessons from the past or new programs that might reduce this predictable trend.
The FAA came to an interesting conclusion early in this century. New technology airplanes were hitting the market, advanced GPS-based navigation systems came into play, and auto-flight control systems became increasingly sophisticated. This trend has accelerated. Many students learning to fly today begin their experience in planes like the Cirrus and new Cessna, which are fully decked out with advanced, integrated auto-flight and navigation systems.
NTSB Unveils 2016 Most Wanted List, Stresses Technology
The National Transportation Safety Board unveiled its 2016 Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements this month, calling it a “road map from lessons learned to lives saved.” The list focuses on 10 broad safety improvements on which the NTSB has made recommendations that have not yet been implemented.
Several items on the list demonstrate the importance of technology in saving lives, preventing accidents and lessening the number and severity of injuries from accidents. For example, the list calls for promoting both the availability of collision avoidance technology in highway vehicles, and the completion of rail safety initiatives to prevent accidents. The list also calls for strengthening occupant protection in all modes of transportation, including laws mandating primary enforcement of seatbelt use, and age-appropriate child restraints.
Twenty years ago, the NTSB issued its first recommendation on the use of technology to prevent rear-end collisions. Implementation of this technology could significantly reduce motor vehicle crashes – by far the leading cause of death and injuries in transportation. Although federal regulators have made progress toward including such technologies in the five-star safety rating on new vehicles, the NTSB advocates, including such new technologies as standard equipment on all new highway vehicles – including commercial vehicles – just as airbags and seatbelts are now standard equipment.
FAA to Issue New Guidance on Sleep Apnea
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) continually works with the aviation and medical communities to ensure that pilots are fit to fly. On March 2, the FAA will issue new medical guidance to Aviation Medical Examiners (AMEs) that incorporates industry and Congressional feedback balanced with the FAA and National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) safety concerns about pilots flying with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA).
OSA inhibits restorative sleep. Untreated OSA always has been a disqualifying medical condition and will continue to be disqualifying. The FAA is not changing its medical standards related to OSA; however, it is revising the screening approach to help AMEs find undiagnosed and untreated OSA. The new guidance will improve safety and pilot health by reducing the burdens and disincentives that may have prevented some pilots from seeking an OSA evaluation and treatment.
NBAA Responds to USA Today’s Latest Distortions About General Aviation Safety
NBAA responded swiftly this week to a “biased [and] sensationalist” article published in USA Today, alleging that general aviation (GA) manufacturers and federal regulators have deliberately withheld safety improvements to reduce the risk of post-impact aircraft fires.
In his Oct. 27 article “Investigation: Post-crash fires in small planes cost 600 lives,” writer Thomas Frank asserts that concerns over equipment costs have prevented manufacturers from improving post-impact fire safety in GA aircraft.
“On behalf of the more than 10,000 Member Companies of the National Business Aviation Association using general aviation as a safe mode of transportation across the country and around the globe,” wrote NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen in a response to the newspaper’s letters editor. “I find it unfortunate that USA Today has again published what seems to be a biased, sensationalist opinion piece [that] paints an unfair and inaccurate portrait of our industry, rather than presenting an objective and fact-based analysis of the many facets that have contributed to safer GA operations over the past several years.
AOPA Refutes USA Today’s Misleading Report on General Aviation Safety
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) recently responded to a USA Today article written by reporter, Thomas Frank. This extremely flawed article paints a misleading picture about the safety of general aviation: It gets the general aviation safety record wrong, it ignores efforts by the industry to make general aviation safer, and it violates basic tenets of fairness and accuracy when it comes to good journalism.
The article leads one to believe that general aviation is an unsafe form of transportation, but in truth, general aviation has demonstrated significant progress in safety. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the number of fatalities has declined by more than 40 percent since the early 1990s. Of course mentioning that sort of fact would have undermined Mr. Frank’s narrative; you won’t find those statistics in his piece.
GAMA Responds to Sensationalistic USA Today Story on GA Safety
By Pete Bunce
President and CEO, General Aviation Manufacturers Association
President and CEO Pete Bunce issued the following response to Thomas Frank’s sensationalistic story in, “Unfit for Flight:”
Thomas Frank’s sensationalistic three-part series in USA Today (Unfit for Flight, June 18, 2014) fails to acknowledge the significant progress general aviation manufacturers have made to improve safety.
The reality is that the number of fatal accidents in general aviation aircraft has declined substantially in recent years. In fact, the goal of one fatal accident per 100,000 hours flown by 2018 now appears increasingly likely.
Aircraft manufacturers spend significant time and expense to ensure the safety of their aircraft. This process begins with a three-to-six year period in which the manufacturer demonstrates to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that each design meets the applicable regulations. The tightly controlled aircraft design process results in a specific design approval – the type certified design, or TC – which applies only to that particular approved design that can then be produced. If a manufacturer wants to make something different, it must go through another safety review process for approval.
Editorial: Where The Heck Are We?
By Ed Downs
As is often the case, this month’s editorial thoughts were triggered by a press release. In many instances, press releases and/or news announcements offer current information that requires further investigation or thought. In this case, the press release was sent by one of In Flight USA’s premier advertisers, DuraCharts. The details of this release are in this issue, but what caught my attention was the announcement that sectional chart subscriptions are no longer available from the FAA.
Okay, not a big deal you may think? After all, with modern electronic flight bags, cell phone apps and advanced aircraft technology, the old concept of messing around with a big piece of paper in the cockpit seems incredibly old fashioned. But there is a “rest of the story” to be told about this announcement from the FAA.
AOPA Urges FAA to Withdraw Airworthiness Directive on ECi Cylinders
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has filed formal comments with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) opposing a proposed airworthiness directive that could affect thousands of ECi cylinders. AOPA is asking the FAA to withdraw the proposal and re-examine the data before taking any further action.
AOPA’s comments warn that the drastic course proposed by the AD is not supported by the data, could cost much more than the FAA estimates and has the potential to cause more safety problems than it solves.
The AD, proposed by the FAA in August, calls for repetitive inspection and early retirement of replacement cylinders with serial numbers manufactured between May 2003 and October 2009 by Airmotive Engineering Corporation and marketed by Engine Components International Division, better known as ECi.
Safe Landings - November 2013
Flying With Faber - August 2013
I’m a Nerdy Pilot and Proud of It!
By Stuart J. Faber
We’ve all heard about the tragic accident involving Asiana Flight 214. Many of my non-pilot friends and acquaintances have asked my opinion on the cause of the crash. In response, I have gathered my thoughts about the crash into this article. Here are a few caveats. First, I am neither a flight instructor nor an accident reconstruction expert. Second, I don’t know the definitive cause of the Asiana accident – that’s up to NTSB to determine. No inference should be made that my remarks constitute an opinion as to the cause of the crash. My comments herein are designed to promote safe piloting and hopefully to enlighten the public. Third, portions of the article may seem quite elementary and pedantic to the experienced pilot. The reason is that I wrote this article as a “public relations” piece for the general public. As a fierce supporter of general aviation, I feel that all pilots have an obligation to educate the public about the worthiness and importance of general aviation and to dispel many of the misconceptions held by the non-pilot public. For that reason, I have digressed from submitting a destination article for this month with the hope that this article contributes to those objectives.
Safety Committee’s Report Focuses on Loss-of-Control Accidents
By Dan Namowitz for AOPA
A work group of the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee, an FAA/industry panel dedicated to reducing fatal general aviation accidents, has completed its report on loss-of-control accidents in the approach and landing phase of flight, including recommendations for safety improvements.
AOPA’s Air Safety Institute co-chairs the joint steering committee, and AOPA participated in the working group. A second work group – focused on en route and departure loss-of-control accidents – is chaired by AOPA and the FAA.
The work group focused on loss-of-control accidents because an FAA overview of fatal general aviation accidents from 2001 to 2010 concluded that 40.2 percent of fatal accidents during that period had loss of control as a cause.
The Pylon Place - September 2012
Reno Air Racing Prep - 2012
By Marilyn Dash
Keeping up with the news surrounding the Reno Air Races this year has been exhausting. Racers and fans alike have so many questions, i.e., are we racing, what changes will we see, who will be there, who won’t, will the fans notice any changes? These are all good questions. I hope that I have, through this column, helped everyone understand what the process has been following the horrific event of September 16, 2011. I have tried to listen to the questions the fans have been asking and answer them here.
Editorial: Good Old Days
By Ed Downs
A recent conversation with friend and fellow writer, Steve Weaver, sparked some memories and brought to mind a safety issue that has heads spinning in the magical world of FAA training gurus. As “old” pilots often do, we reminisced about the days when basic skills and common sense were considered “high technology.” Today’s version of “high technology” has progressed in the manner one might expect when having crossed into a new millennium, but some are concerned about that progression.
This writer turned back the mental clock and joined Steve in remembering how simple, and potentially frightening, the “good old days” really were. My “good old days” began in the mid 1950s. The flight school I flew with sold a “student pilot course” which included 12 hours of dual instruction in a Champ, and a 20-hour ground school. The cost was $175, including materials. The idea was that you were “issued” your student pilot certificate (solo and cross country endorsement) at the conclusion of the 12-hour program. After this, you were welcome to rent their Champs and go flying. Whether or not you decided to get a private certificate so you could carry passengers was optional. There were no multiple endorsements, no 90-day “solo sign offs,” or multitude of authorizations. The Champ had only a wind-driven generator that spun fast enough to recharge a battery if flying at about 10 mph above cruising speed, meaning the battery was constantly going dead! The low frequency radio could transmit on only one frequency and you tuned the receiver like a Motorola console radio out of the 1930s. There was no starter or workable nav system. With 12 gallons of fuel, all-important in-flight decisions had to be made in about two and half hours, or the “in flight” part of the trip came to an abrupt end. Drawing lines on big, 25 cent, sectional charts was the order of the day, with a whiskey compass and E-6B your only navigation tools. Knowing where you were and having alternatives in mind were essential, as even a mild wind could greatly affect your flight.
NTSB To Participate in AirVenture
Final Agenda for NTSB's General Aviation Search and Rescue Forum Announced
NTSB Provides Investigative Update and Issues Recommendations to Increase Safety at Air Races
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) provided an investigative update on April 10, 2012, on last year’s crash of a highly modified P-51D airplane at the National Championship Air Races in Reno, Nev. On Sept. 16, 2011, the pilot of the Galloping Ghost experienced an upset while turning between pylons 8 and 9 on the racecourse. The airplane crashed on the ramp in the box seat spectator area. The pilot and 10 spectators were killed and more than 60 others were injured.
In addition to the investigative update, NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman announced that the agency was issuing a total of seven safety recommendations to make the National Championship Air Races a safer event for pilots and spectators alike.
“We are not here to put a stop to air racing,” said Chairman Hersman. “We are here to make it safer.”
The Pylon Place - May 2012
State of the Races
By Marilyn Dash
Waiting for September (Mike Arnold)On April 10, the NTSB presented their preliminary recommendations during a well-attended Press Conference at the Reno Tahoe Airport. Unable to attend in person, I was able to view the on-line version. I will say, the first time I really believed we were racing in September was after I heard the words of NTSB Chairperson, Deborah Hersman, state, “We are not here to put a stop to air racing, we are here to make it safer.” With those words, I saw a bright light at the end of this long, dark tunnel.
During the conference, several recommendations were addressed. I will review several here and give my comments.