FLYING
LESSONS uses recent aircraft mishap
reports to consider what might have contributed
to accidents, so you can make better decisions
if you face similar circumstances. Verify
all technical information before applying it to
your aircraft or operation, with manufacturer's
data and recommendations taking precedence.
YOU are the pilot-in-command, and are
solely responsible for the decisions you
make.
© 2012 Mastery Flight Training,
Inc.
“General aviation
is safer now than it has ever
been.” “The rate of fatal accidents is
very low, and consistent.” “There are
always going to be pilots who crash.
Flying is as safe as it’s ever going to get, and
there’s not much we can do to make it
safer.” These quotes, and many more like
them, have appeared in aircraft publications in
recent months, some written by persons holding
very prominent positions in aviation
safety.
Some of the data,
however, differs from the overall
message the industry and media have portrayed
for years. Without the full picture of
crash statistics, these reports have been,
unintentionally, misleading.
This is the
chart we usually see (figure 1). It shows a
fairly consistent rate of total GA crashes each
year since 2000, and a very consistent rate of
fatal events—a little over one fatality for
every 100,000 flying hours each year for more
than a decade.
Figure 1: GA accident
rates per estimated 100,000 flying hours
(NTSB)
What we usually
don’t see, however, is a breakdown of
the fatal accident rates by type of general
aviation operation (figure 2).
Noncommercial (US Part 91) flying encompasses a
lot of very different things, including
instructional flight, professionally flown
corporate jets and turboprops, business flying
(by pilots not employed specifically as pilots)
and the personal/recreational flying most of us
do. The data reveal some significant
differences between these categories of general
aviation, and some trends that the mainstream
media have missed.
Figure
2: GA accident rates per estimated 100,000
flying hours, by category
(NTSB)
Note that while
the overall GA accident rate has
remained steady, as we’ve seen before (the
turquoise line), the rate of corporate flying is
almost nil, the business flying rate has held
low and steady, and instructional accidents are
actually down per estimated 100,000 flying
hours. The rate of accidents among
personal flying, however, has actually
gone up 20% in the last
decade. Have you read that
recently in the aviation
press?
The
chart of fatal crash rates by type of
GA operation (Figure 3) shows a similar
pattern. While the overall fatal rate has
held very steady since 2000, corporate flying
fatalities are almost nil, the business flying
record has varied but averaged low and steady,
and the instructional fatal crash rate has
trendy slightly down, the rate of fatalities per
estimated 100,000 flying hours in personal
aviation has increased about
25% in the last decade.
Figure 3: Fatal GA
accident rates per estimated 100,000 flying
hours, by category
(NTSB)
Why has personal
aviation become demonstrably less safe in the
past decade? What are the
differences between personal flying—recreational
and non-business aerial transportation—and the
very similar business aviation category that
makes personal flying’s record so much
worse?
We can speculate
the worsening personal aviation record
it has to do with the cost of flying and the
average age of the pilot population. When
we fly less we become less proficient; as we age
our reactions slow, and we may become more
susceptible to fatigue. This may be an
oversimplification, but certainly both these
factors play a part in the increased crash and
fatal crash rates.
The
irony is that when we can fly
less, we need to train
more.
Many FLYING
LESSONS readers are “business”
pilots, or fly as part of a corporate flight
crew. Your professional record is good,
but even it can be better. And even
corporate and business pilots tend to do at
least some personal flying.
It’s
natural we’ve been complacent, with
most of the aviation media telling us the
general aviation mishap rate is declining and
the rate of fatalities very low and
steady. A closer look at the statistics,
however, reveals we’ve got to do things
differently than we’ve been doing them
if we want to continue to safely enjoy the
tremendous benefits of personal
aviation.
Next:
The leading causes of personal aviation
fatalities, the differences between personal and
business flight that affect the crash record,
and what we’re going to do in 2013 to reverse
this awful
trend.
Debrief: Readers
write about recent FLYING
LESSONSReader Jim Quinlin writes
about the list of 15 tasks a student
pilot must experience before being permitted to
solo (under U.S. rules), and a recent
LESSON suggesting that list serves as a
good regimen for any pilot’s continuing
education:
With regard to tales of
soloing after only 4 or 5 hours back in the day,
it's important to understand that the current
political and legal climate today doesn't even
resemble what it did back then. For
example, fifty or sixty years ago, making an
off-field landing in a field would get you an
audience of curious onlookers and maybe a
helping hand. Today, depending upon
location, you might be greeted by a SWAT team
or, at the very least, slapped with a lawsuit by
the property owner. At the risk of
sounding cynical, these are the realities of
general aviation in the 21st
century.
That may indeed be a
factor, Jim. If so, it’s more a reality of
the late 20th century—the regulation requiring
exposure to 15 tasks and a written test before
solo went into effect in 1989. I suspect
the litigious component was due more to serious
crashes among very inexperienced solo pilots
leading up to the rules change, which went into
effect just after I began instructing. Do
any FLYING LESSONS readers have
first-handle knowledge of environment in which
the list of 15 presolo requirements came
about?
Reader Woodie Diamond
addresses last week’s LESSONS about
landing in radiation, or ground
fog.
I was always told that
ground fog acts just like a convex mirror,
“things in the mirror are closer than they
appear”. Thus a normal approach leads to a
nasty surprise when the runway is actually
closer than it appeared. Is this not
true?
I don’t know, Woodie, and
I could not find anything in the
literature. Perhaps a reader better versed
in optics will answer your question for us, at
mastery.flight.training@cox.net.
Reader Karl
Thomas continues:
Wow, right on point for
me. My son is moving to Del Rio [Texas]
and I flew there last Saturday evening to pick
him up and take back to Houston. TAF for
Sunday am (my original arrival time) was 300ft
& 0.5mi in fog. Following the TAF for
the last week or so shows this to be a common
event for the area. We actually left DRT
at midday with 700ft & 1mi visibility.
Thankfully I'm IFR current and with the
excellent lighting @ DRT, I don't think it will
be much of an issue, just
interesting!!
Thanks, Karl. Light
twin owner and retired airline captain Larry
Olson writes:
Good page about fog, and
a great review.
I'd like more discussion
about how to "fly the fog". Your cautions
in the article are great, and there is risk in
"fog flying". However, I believe there's some
options that make it doable…. to a
point.
Often one has a situation where the
airport is "half or three quarters" socked in
but the runway end is visible. It can be awkward
to maneuver for a landing on an IFR flight plan,
especially in controlled airspace. One cannot
[request or] accept a contact approach because
the ground visibility is probably below a mile.
However, one could accept any approach with a
circle[-to-land maneuver], regardless of ground
visibility, as long as flight visibility [was]
one mile (or what was required for the circle).
They could really be above the fog, in good
visual conditions during the circle, and really
circle until lined up with the runway where a
safe landing could be made.
Of course,
one has to consider the roll out, if it takes
one into the fog, could be very limiting. And
your point about "glowing" runway lights are a
good clue of reduced visibility, which we need
to take into consideration.
Thoughts?
The Beechcraft Bonanza
mishap that led to last week’s fog LESSON
was a VFR-pattern arrival. All
appeared normal for the night landing until the
pilot descended into the fog on final
approach. Visibility went to near zero and
the pilot became disoriented and lost
control.
Although an IFR arrival to
circling minimums, and as I presume from your
post, using the circling maneuver to evaluate
runway conditions and, ultimately, to descend
for landing, the foggy-weather arrival would not
differ much when compared to the visual
pattern. In either case, the fog may be
invisible until the airplane enters
it.
In the case where fog partially
covers the airfield, but permits landing outside
of the fog bank—I’ve done that very thing once,
in a turbocharged Baron at a rural New Jersey
airport just east of
Philadelphia. I could not see
the fog in the dark; we touched down normally
but as I rolled to a stop the Baron entered a
very thick fog.
The first problem
was that the Beechcraft’s two cowling-mounted
landing lights nearly blinded me in the sudden
plunge into fog—it was like driving a car in fog
with your bright headlights on. Luckily I
was nearly stopped, and had the clarity of
thought to immediately snap off the landing
lights. Now in a silky, pitch dark, I
could barely see the runway lights to either
side of my wingtips. I turned around, and
taxied until I found the blue glow of taxiway
lights. Turning onto the taxiway, I
suddenly thought about the airplanes on the ramp
ahead I could not see. So I shut down the
engines where I was and got out.
I was
meeting a friend who had seen us land. He
walked out with a flashlight, followed by the
FBO manager. We got the airplane into the
first available tiedown off the runway.
Strangely, as I finished securing the airplane
the fog completely cleared, a mounting wind
swirling the moisture back into
suspension.
Back to Larry’s comments: a
circling approach does not provide better
protection from a low-lying, dark fog than a
visual traffic pattern. Either maneuver,
however, gives the pilot time to evaluate the
surface conditions, with a glow around runway
and taxiway lights being the telltale sign of
ground fog. If ground fog is present,
reported or strongly suspected, my experience
landing the Baron (and the incident that spark
last week’s discussion) is that it’s time to
divert to another runway in air known to have
acceptable visibility. Overly
conservative? Perhaps. But I know
how easily I could have lost directional control
when rolling into the fog, and how tempted after
landing I was to taxi to parking when it was so
very likely I would have driven right into
another airplane.
Thank you,
Larry.What do you
think? Let us hear from you
at mftsurvey@cox.net.
“I'm just one of 1000s
that enjoy your weekly FLYING LESSONS,
and thought it time I contributed a
little!
Feel free to pass this on; perhaps
more will do the same!!!!!”
- Richard Benson, Bend
Oregon
FLYING LESSONS
friend Gene Benson is offering a
three-session, online Human Factors ground
school in January. Sessions will be recorded and
available for later online viewing. The course
will serve as a fundraiser to help support
Gene’s safety initiative in 2013. Learn
more at www.genebenson.com.
Flying home for the
holidays? Give yourself plenty of time and
options. Make it home for (and back from)
safely.
Something to
say? Let us learn from you,
at mftsurvey@cox.net.
Question of the
Week
Readers continue the
discussion on What makes a good
instructor? Readers
respond:Maybe after initial
training, it is the ones who have the
ability to make you sweat! “Nice”
instructors are just that, they don't teach you
much. Flying lessons costs a lot of
money and the training follows you the rest of
your life. In aviation a relaxed mindset and
poor training can kill you.
Did I enjoy
flying with the one nameless instructor that I
remember? Not at all! I was a bundle of
nerves. But the lessons taught have stayed with
me until today. Like he said, "I haven't had any
of my students kill themselves yet, and you
aren't going to be the
first"!
***
This is an easy one.
I used to put on a FAASTeam presentation on
how to find and keep a good instructor. We were
three Master CFI's who put the presentation
together. One of the presenters said he wouldn't
fly with a CFI that had less than 1000 hours
instruction given. My position is very clear.
Your best instructor is one that truly
wants you to learn.
When getting
my rotorcraft rating, I had an instructor with
less than 300 hours total time and was literally
half my age. He was fantastic because he
was motivated to teach me. Our lessons where
never completed until he felt that I learned
something, whether it be in the helicopter or on
the ground.
If you find a CFI that
truly wants to teach you, that's your
guy/gal!!!
The consensus continues:
When it comes to superior flight instructors,
challenging beats chummy, and the ability to
teach is independent of hours in an
instructor's logbook.
What do you
think makes a good instructor pilot? Let us
know!
 Aviation:
Freedom. Choices.
Responsibility.
Thomas P.
Turner, M.S. Aviation Safety MCFI
2010
National FAA Safety Team Representative of the
Year
2008 FAA Central Region Flight
Instructor of the Year
I welcome your
comments and suggestions.
Contact mastery.flight.training@cox.net. If
someone has forwarded this message to you and
you want to have FLYING
LESSONS sent directly to you each
week, you may subscribe for free.
Holder of an ATP certificate with
instructor, CFII and MEI ratings and a Masters
Degree in Aviation Safety, 2010 National FAA
Safety Team Representative of the Year and 2008
FAA Central Region CFI of the Year, Master CFI
Thomas P. Turner has been Lead Instructor for
Bonanza pilot training program at the Beechcraft
factory; production test pilot for engine
modifications; aviation insurance underwriter;
corporate pilot and safety expert; Captain in
the United States Air Force; and contract course
developer for Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University. He now directs the education
and safety arm of a 9300-member pilots’
organization. With over 3800 hours logged,
including more than 2400 as an instructor, Tom
writes, lectures and instructs extensively from
his home at THE AIR CAPITAL--Wichita,
Kansas.
For Piston Beechcraft
Pilots
10 Tips for
Avoiding Gear Up and Gear Collapse
Mishaps
There are those who have...and
those who won't have a landing
gear-related mishap (LGRM), if they
know the most common scenarios of LGRMs, and the
10 techniques for avoidance. If you fly a
retractable gear airplane, you need to view Those Who Won't.
$25 may prevent totaling your
airplane.
|