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.
If the term “Loss of Control” is truly accurate, then what specifically is it that has been lost? Is it the pilot who has lost something physically tangible? Has the aircraft lost something rendering it unable to maintain flight? Has there been a loss of a control surface, control cable, or of a control such as the yoke or stick? Is it possible for this loss to be reversed such that there can be a positive “Regaining of Control” by the pilot? And for those who accept this “Loss of Control” concept, is this something that, once it’s lost, is lost forever, and can never again be regained by the pilot?
In my view, the truth of the matter is that the LOC phrase, (and the accident or incident problems associated with its use), is a mental and conceptual series of errors that are perpetuated by the incorrect use of words and terms ala Twain.
I’ve been scrutinizing alternates that can be used to replace the LOC terminology and mindset, which would emphasize continuous proactive pilot involvement, rather than the “loss” of something. A more accurate terminology would use the word COMMAND, as this is truly what any pilot is doing when they cause pressures to be exerted on the CONTROLS. In this case, the full LOC phrase should be replaced with: FTCS, or: Failure to Command Safely. This takes the place of the phrase LOC that is much more at home describing an over-confident skier who has chosen to go down a ski run that is well beyond his or her abilities, and who is, in the true sense of the phrase: Out of Control. But in aviation, unless an aircraft has actually lost a control surface, or anything else in the control system, then let’s stop pointing fingers at what the ineffective pilot might have LOST, and start to place blame where it really belongs: on the failure of the pilot to COMMAND his or her craft to travel safely through the air.
Until we can really switch over to a new paradigm that emphasizes the strict concept of COMMAND of an aircraft based on aerodynamics and physics, instead of the current, wimpy, “loss-of-control,” helpless-pilot attitude, then we’re still going to have these problems. We’ll continue to see perfectly good aircraft fly their pilots into the ground because these pilots failed to command their craft by the proper, safe use of all the controls. These tragic outcomes seem to imply that the innocent pilot has ended up in an unwanted battle with a recalcitrant airplane and then has lost this wrestling match because the machine stubbornly wouldn’t comply with the arrogant wishes of the pilot.
In the future, we can continue to give creedence to this fantasy-based concept of Airplane in Command, with the pilot as a hapless co-enabler of this phantom “Loss of Control” problem. Or, we can re-emphasize the important concept of complete COMMAND of an aircraft, after which we’ll understand the sobering opposite, which is: Failure to Command Safely.
Aviation great R.A. “Bob” Hoover (RIP) was famously quoted as saying: “If you’re faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the crash as possible.” The visual imagery engendered by this quote is striking. And it becomes even more poignant if you substitute the word “Fly” with “Command.” As long as the aircraft is going through the air in one piece, with sufficient airflow over the surfaces to alter its course through that air, then it’s NOT simply being controlled. It must still be COMMANDED. We need to get back to teaching the importance of COMMANDING an aircraft, and not the inaccurate concept that we pilots are simply controlling them (or somehow “losing control” of them!). Pilots may erroneously claim to “lose control,” but we must never fail to COMMAND.
There’s no special new “gadget” panacea cure-all that will drastically reduce accidents due to unsafe maneuvering, C-FIT, stall/spins, etc. The solution to this problem will be through more comprehensive flight instruction and better teaching methods so that pilots truly master the art of flying and are always in complete COMMAND of their craft, no matter what situation they might get themselves into.
The term “Loss of Control” (LOC) is ready to be tossed onto the ash heap of inaccurate, outdated, and simply misleading terminologies that are currently used within the aviation community. The replacement phrase, Failure To Command Safely (FTCS), will wake up the aviation and pilot communities with a newfound sense of responsibility for each pilot’s own fate.
The views expressed herein are the views of the individual author and not necessarily those of In Flight USA.
