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: Something Has Changed
By Ed Downs
Another birthday, another reason to reflect. This writer and his twin brother have made it through another year with an evening spent with family, giving “the twins” a chance to reflect on careers in aviation that span 60 years. Yes, twins often have much in common and our choice of careers certainly points that out. While considerably beyond a traditional retirement age, this writer and his brother, Earl, continue to fly as active CFIs, work in the aviation industry, and deal heavily in subjects relating to flight safety, training, the promotion of recreational flying, and the future of general aviation through a direct interface with the FAA and government. As the evening’s musings of past adventures turned to reflecting upon “the good old days,” we realized that both of us were concluding that, “something has changed.”
Recreational flying is certainly not what it was 50 or 60 years ago. Expense has gone up dramatically, and the technological sophistication of GA airplanes, even old planes that have been retrofitted with modern avionics, is absolutely amazing. Having started flight training in the mid 1950s, we concluded that much has improved since we first flew in an Aeronca Champ with a wind driven generator and a two channel, low frequency radio. Mind you, that was considered to be a well-equipped trainer, being flown from busy Van Nuys Airport in Southern California. The training was rigorous, with maneuvers like 720 steep turns, spins, accelerated (and aggravated) stalls, and steep spiral descents all included in the CAA approved curriculum. No training flight was conducted without a simulated engine failure, frequently followed with a landing to a full stop. Of course, almost all private training done in this timeframe used planes like Champs, Cubs, T-crafts and other tail draggers, so both full stall and wheel landings were the order of the day.