An Article About What Ifs And How They Can Help One Deal With Tough Situations

I thought that I would try something new. Instead of dealing with particular known or actual situations I would try an lead us to anticipate and thereby fend off possible disastrous scenarios.

I’ll start off with an actual flight I had shortly before hanging up the headset for good. My chief co-pilot, my wife and I were returning to the Beaufort, NC airport at night. Although a fairly seasoned flyer at the time, she was still nervous in the right seat. The WHAT IF started with: What if we have to land in a hurry because of an engine problem? A good question, as we were flying at night in an A-36 Bonanza, a single engine plane. I thought for a bit and replied, “Just look at the Garmin GPS and note the airports.” Then I showed her how we could move the cursor to the airport symbol and get an immediate heading and distance. This helped her anxiety by keeping her busy, while accomplishing an important mission, helping keep us safe by planning ahead and thereby minimizing a What If.

Another somewhat more complex situation occurs when the weather is the prime consideration. This What If involves both pilot instrument capabilities and the amount of fuel aboard or range. Here I can relate an experience I had many years ago, before being instrument rated. Flying a Piper Cherokee with three passengers, we left Syracuse (SYR) heading for Boston (BOS). Great tailwind so time enroute a piece of cake. Weather VFR but some question at our ETA in BOS. Checking weather along the route still AOK but the KBOS forecast was getting downgraded to snow showers and some possible IFR. We kept on, passing good VFR alternates with impunity. When about 30 miles out of KBOS approach advises “BOS is IFR what are your intentions?” As I wasn’t IFR qualified I was stuck. Gulp, now what? As I looked at the fuel gages I realized that I was at about ½ full. The alternates we passed inbound to KBOS were now in and out of IFR also. So I turned around and advised approach that we were returning to Syracuse. Great except that now instead of a big tailwind we a big headwind. The long and the short of it: we just made it back to KSYR with about 20 minutes of fuel in the tanks. All alternates on the way back had become IFR.
The moral here is to assume the worst and plan for it!

Another What If I have thought of over the years is this. Suppose you are on a long flight in a single or a twin in unstable weather, ie VFR /moderate IFR that could go to low IFR at any time. Let us say that you are reasonably competent at executing an ILS approach to low minimums(200 ceiling with 1/2 mile viz). As you are talking with approach you find out that the field is closed, weather has gone to 0/0. Also there is no alternate available with in your fuel range. Just when you are starting to sweat, the engine lights start to blink a warning. What are you going to do? The only thing you can, unless you have a parachute, shoot an ILS and hope for the best. Just fly the needles and set up a low sink rate unttil ground contact is made. It is better to crash on the field, where help is available, then in some parking lot or farm field.

One other scenario. What If there is no ILS available. If you have an IFR certified GPS, fly it to the runway, line up and do a descent as before. The GPS accuracies are supposedly to 3 feet. Better than VOR or ADF and the parking lot. You can practice some of these things in good weather and your confidence will improve.

So you don't get caught with no options, think these hypothetical situations out ahead and plan to use them when needed. Without any plan, panic is sure to set in, with a predictable outcome.

What Ifs may never come to pass, but at least you may have thought things through before they actually occur.

You May Not Be Able To Prevent Significant Icing From Forming On Your Plane

Even with all the preventative measures in force, you may not be able to prevent significant icing from forming on your plane.

A recent accident in Texas involving a sophisticated turboprop was the result of airframe icing. This plane had pneumatic boots, deicing capability for the props and windshields as well. In spite of that, the heavy mixed icing reported by the pilot brought the plane down. Miraculously, the pilot lived, in spite of having crashed, the plane uncontrollable. Another plane, also recently in Texas, crashed on landing. This was a fancy twin, also with presumed de-icing gear available. The pilot reported having ¼ to ½ inch of ice on the wings (and presumably elsewhere too). He was able to put the plane on the runway, but ran off the end into a fence. I am guessing that he wisely increased his airspeed to account for the negative airfoil effect of the ice, ie stall speed increases significantly due to airfoil changes.

My personnel experience with severe icing came by proxy while resting after a flight at the Burlington, Vt FBO where I worked part time. I was chatting with a Cessna Caravan pilot, who was about to depart on his freight run. The Caravan was a turboprop, large single engine tank of a plane, with "full de-icing". That evening there were two such flights heading out of BTV. Both, I learned later, crashed shortly after take-off with fatal results. Yet, I had flown in to Burlington just a short time before their departures without any icing encountered. It was determined both of these flights had experienced severe icing, the cause of the crashes. Later, Cessna modified the leading edge wing boots so as to extend further back over the cockpit. Unfortunately, it didn't help those two pilots.

So, what’s the problem with having ice on the wings, tail, windshield etc? Mainly two things: the shape of the airfoil is changed and the ice can add significant weight to the plane. “Icing is a cumulative hazard. It reduces aircraft efficiency by increasing weight, reducing lift, decreasing thrust and increasing drag.”* As well, icing can cause instrumentation errors, impair engine performance, cause radio communication problems and more.

What atmospheric conditions are favorable for icing? There must be visible moisture or droplets, and the temperature around the aircraft must be O degrees C or cooler. Under some circumstances however, the OAT may be slightly above freezing and icing still occur. Depending on variations in the above, there are three types of icing that may occur. These are: Clear ice, rime ice and mixed clear and rime. Of the three types, the clear ice may be the hardest to remove by deicing equipment*.

Since I try offer advice what to do if problems are encountered, I will offer this sage bit. Avoidance of ice is the only way to assure a safe outcome. The recent turboprop that crashed after encountering ice (presumed), could have descended to a lower altitude, presumably warmer, and therefore avoided an icing situation. Just because one has all the bells and whistles doesn’t guarantee a good outcome, even if they are all used properly.

One of the ways one can avoid a dangerous weather condition is to listen to the pilot reports on your frequency. They may have been there ahead of you just a few miles in front. Interestingly though, even that is no guarantee of safe passage. There are numerous accounts of several planes flying the same course, separated only by a few miles, each encountering different weather scenarios.

I will offer some advice for those pilots flying a plane with de-icing boots. The latest on how to use the boots is: as soon as any icing is detected on the leading edges of the wings the pneumatic system should be activated. This has replaced old wisdom, which was to wait until a reasonable shell of ice had formed to prevent “bridging” of the ice.

If you want to learn more about the specifics of the type clouds and nitty-gritty of icing consult: Aviation Weather*.

My final advice is to enjoy the ice at the hockey rink, but avoid it all costs when in the air.

*Aviation Weather- For Pilots and Flight Operations Personnel-Revised 1975
DOT, FAA, Flight Standards Service

Another good article:AOPA Safety Advisor, Weather No. 1, Aircraft Icing (Available on the internet)

As it is the last day of the year, I thought I might review some of the accidents that occurred, that I believe would have been avoidable. Some seem almost too silly to have happened, but I’ll mention them anyway.

Starting with the almost trivial, would be the accidents occurring during the taxiing phase of flight. I find it hard to understand how one taxies into a fence in broad daylight. Or, manage to flip a plane over on its back unless there is a hurricane blowing. Well, these were reported. If I did it, I must confess that I would try and hush it up, rather than report it. Too embarrassing!

The next, and more serious accidents happened in the flight phase. Almost all seem to be the result of poor decision making. Unfortunately, as occurred in the following two there were no survivors. A recent single engine turboprop, equipped with full deicing capability, bought the farm presumably because of a fatal ice encounter. Just because one has a capability does not guarantee that it will prevent what it is designed for 100% of the time. Icing in particular can be very tricky. It can be relatively slow in accumulating and benign. Or, as what that pilot probably experienced, was ice coating the wings and tail so rapidly that it could not be gotten off, even if one followed instructions to the letter. The moral of flying in icing is: avoid the encounter if at all possible.

The other fatal accident involved a seasoned, rated commercial pilot flying in IFR conditions without filing any flight plan. The destination airfield was VFR only. Yes, scratch your head on that one.

Finally, a single engine plane is number two for approach in VFR weather. He is advised that there is a small business type jet ahead just turning onto base. He apparently never sees the jet. There is poor communication between the pilot and the controller. The trusting small plane pilot keeps on, turns base and then final. Never identifying the jet ahead. Suddenly the jet overflies the small single by 200 ft but the pilot does nothing. The result is that the single apparently gets into jet wash orwake turbulence, and stalls out, falling to the ground. Ouch. That was preventable. Both the pilot and the controller should have called for an immediate go around, turning away from the final approach course. You had better know what’s in the airspace immediately around you at all times.

The moral of all this. You must be engaged and be thinking proactively. And always try to leave yourself a way out.

Have a Happy and Safe 2012. Please don’t end up on the NTSB page.

Tracing Back My Love Affair With Flying Goes Back Some

Tracing my love affair with aviation goes back some. As a little boy, any time I heard the sound of a plane, I would look up and desperately try to see it. It was almost as if I was getting a reward for the number of sightings I could claim. I have to admit I still suffer the same compulsion to seek the cause of the overhead noise. Now, however armed with more knowledge, I am able to identify the type of plane.

As I grew older and had achieved mobility on my bicycle, I discovered the way to nearby Laguardia airport. After only twenty minutes or so, I could be standing at the end of one of the runways. The planes: DC4’s, 6’s or 3’s, with an occasional Connie, would land or take-off over my head. The roar, smell and sights were just great. No security to keep me away, not even a fence at the end of the runway. Just a short row of bushes with large defects in them caused by planes coming in a bit too low. Those were the days.

My first ride in a real plane was as a passenger in a two seater, tandem seaplane on Fourth lake in the Adirondacks. It was a fun ride, setting the tone for my future flying, although not for quite some time after that. No more sea planes, but rather many different types of singles and twins.

When a 2nd Lt in the army, I signed up for flying lessons at Felker Army Airfield at Ft. Eustis, Va. The plane was a Pa-18, a somewhat souped up Piper Cub used by the military, similar to the Bird Dog. It was a very peppy, spirited plane. The problem I had at that time is that I wasn’t ready to fly it. The instructor was a bit overbearing. So, after a few flights I quit. After that I went up occasionally as an “observer” with some pilot friends at the base. One ride I do remember well was in a Huey chopper. Sitting on the left of the pilot, an active duty Captain with a wry sense of humor, meant that I was hanging a bit out of the narrow cockpit. At one point there was loud bang and the pilot yelled into his mike: “lean out and see if we are on fire”. Scared to death, I tried to lean out and look back as he banked the chopper steeply towards my side. He seeing my great discomfort thoroughly enjoyed himself, uproariously laughing. I didn’t appreciate the humor. That was my last chopper ride for a long time.

It wasn’t until I had finished my tour with Uncle Sam and had moved up to the Boston area that I started my real flying career. I joined the flying club at Avco RAD, where I worked as an engineer. They owned two planes: a Piper Cub J-3 and a Cessna 172. Those were two wonderful planes to fly. The Cub is what I soloed in and flew for many happy hours. The cost was $3.50 an hour wet. The larger C-172 cost $7.50 an hour. Prices that are almost unimaginable now. The cub was a super plane to learn the basics of flying. Almost no instrumentation to befuddle the beginner. Just needle, ball, airspeed and altimeter, the simplest and most basic of instruments. But without the modern day clutter, it allowed one to learn what is so important. That any incorrect control input will produce an unwanted force or result. That means the plane will either have an unwanted roll, yaw or pitch. Which means one won’t be flying straight and level. In the newer more sophisticated planes, some of these undesirable results are almost designed out. Meaning that you won’t encounter them under “normal” conditions. (The recent Airbus disaster over the South Atlantic is such an example). Almost all flying is done via the autopilot, completely bypassing any needed pilot inputs. It seems that the pilots had forgotten what was needed when the nose went sky high, and the airspeed approached stall. Yes, the nose of the plane must be made to go down to get above stall speed, so push on the stick! When I read about pilots getting all their training in an advanced type aircraft rather than a basic trainer, I doubt that they even know what they are missing.

For example, landing the J-3 Cub required one to know how to side slip, an essential maneuver to allow one to lose altitude quickly on short final as there were no flaps on the J-3. To side slip agressively one has to apply full aileron in one direction while "standing" on the opposite rudder, to keep the nose straight ahead. It is a fun thing to learn, leaving one glad that their seat belt is strong and tightly secured. But, if you have never practiced it in your advanced type plane, you won’t have the knowledge and experience to do a slip if needed. (For example a failure of the flap system).

After getting my private license in 1963, it was a steady but slow process of adding more capabilities. First came the instrument rating, which I consider paramount to being a good, safe pilot. Then, on to the commercial and finally the multi-engine ratings. I have owned several planes over the years. My favorites were the B-55 Baron and the Cessna 340. The 340 was a very slick, pressurized, turbocharged plane. Both of these planes were super to fly. Responsive to the controls and stable IFR platforms.

Perhaps the culmination of all my training and experience came together when I flew charters in Beech Barons and Piper Navajos in northern Vermont. I mainly flew freight runs with occasional passenger trips and a few air ambulance flights. The latter seemed to always have occurred late at night which added to the challenge. I remember one in particular, the transport of a premi in an incubator from Burlinton, Vt to Boston. The patient was going to be cared for at Boston Childrens Hospital. Frequently it was snowing, as described in an earlier blog (Snow another cause of low IFR-Jan 31, 2010). Other times, it might be all clear, with a wonderful panorama of stars overhead and the glowing moon acting as a navigation beacon.

After that period, it was back to private flying in mix of twin and single engine planes. Trips up and down the coast and elsewhere. My wife Suzanne joined me for most of them. The only exception was when I flew to work, commuting by plane. It made my work commute something to look forward to. Here, I have to offer up a secret. Some years after I sold my last plane, the A-36 Bonanza, my wife admitted that she really had hated flying the whole time. Wow, what a good sport for someone with a basic fear of flying!

Well that’s it in a proverbial nutshell. Forty plus years in retrospect, with no regrets.

Radio Communications Are Important So Be Brief And Precise

Pilot radio communication techniques aren’t usually discussed or commented upon, but here goes a bit of chatter on this topic. So fasten your seatbelts and listen up on your David Clarks for my thoughts about protocols and what not to calls.

This discussion was prompted by my conversation with a US Air captain who graciously shared a few moments and thoughts with me recently at the Charlotte airport. I began the conversation with a brief introduction, and then asked him what bothered him most about private type pilots and their antics. He thought for a moment or two and said: communications. Meaning how the non-professional pilots communicated with ATC. The exact phraseology is key here. Choice of words and speed of talking and the length of time to respond are all important. The reasons are: in the busier areas the pace of communication is sometimes non-stop. Specific words or phrases have definite meanings. For example: after receiving an instruction from ATC the simple reply: roger* means that you have understood the command and are able and will comply. If one cannot comply with the command the reply should be: unable turn to 360 for what ever reason (traffic for example). Don’t say: can’t do it because….Keep it cryptic. Time is of the essence.

When learning about flying early in my flying career I listened by the hour to ATC-pilot chatter on a small hand held aircraft radio while on the roof of my apartment building in Boston. Frequently the pace of talk was non-stop. If you missed your call and the instructions, it was a long time before one could break in and say: United 375 say again. A delay like that could cause some havoc or disruption to the flow of traffic in the terminal high density areas. The point being, that if you are going to fly into busy terminal places be prepared mentally for what is coming. Listen to what the controllers are saying to flights ahead of you and be ready for your call. Also take advantage of the time there and listen to what is said by the responding pilots. Brevity and specificity are key. No one is saying: ahhh Bonanza 32V would like a VOR approach to runway 32. Rather say: Bonanza 32V requests VOR 32 approach. Short and accurate, no hyperbole.

Another example of keeping it simple, accurate and brief is at start up when requesting initial taxi or IFR clearance. Rather than: Piper 472Whiskey with Uniform is looking for clearance to Peoria. Try this: Piper 372 Whiskey with Uniform for clearance Peoria. Just a bit shorter with no excess verbiage. Maybe it sounds trivial but if it is busy you may not get a second chance to call in for a long while. Another example of an initial call-up to clearance delivery: Baron123FG IFR Boston for clearance. As I remember you don’t have to read back everything verbatim. You can just say: roger cleared as filed Peoria.

This attention to detail may seem petty, but doing things professionally is both satisfying and efficient. The next time up there listen to how the pro’s do it.

* According to the FAA, either the word Roger or Wilco may be used to acknowledge the order.

Also: See an earlier blog "Learn to communicate like the pros-June 3 2009

For a complete and interesting discussion on radio techniques by the FAA go to:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0402.html

Taxiing May Be Taxing And More

Recently, one of the daily accident reports listed on the FAA site dealt with quite a few accidents involving taxiing. Yes, the phase of a flight that should be the easiest and least likely to cause a wreck. But not this particular week. Here are some of the types of mishaps: ..went off the side of the runway (into the weeds or worse), ..hit runway lights,
…wing or tail struck another aircraft,..ground looped (common in tailwheel types), ..completely flipped over (hard to imagine). Here I must interject my own mishap. While still a young pilot (a bit wet between the ears), as I was taxiing a Cessna 172, my right wing tip struck a parked plane’s left wing tip, causing minor damage. Easy to do if you are not paying attention or wandering off the yellow line, if one is present.

Reading the accident reports, minor collisions between taxiing airliners are more often between airliners and service vehicles and are quite common. Airliners are a different beast from the smaller prop types I write about. Accidents happen merely due to the force of the blast from the engines, usually as they taxi from the gate areas. Things such as vehicles blown over, people injured and other types of property damage.

Before changing course, how about this? A pilot last week took off in his single engine plane with the tow bar still attached to the nose wheel. It was a noisy, sparky landing. Anyone believe in doing a preflight check? Not a taxiing accident strictly, but close.

I will close by relating a synopsis of a horrific accident due apparently at least in part, to the pilot’s inability or unwillingness to abort a flight after successive take-off attempts. The plane was a twin Beechcraft. The pilot was older with a spotty flight history. The flight began by landing at the wrong airport and asking whether he was at airport A (real names are not being used) The airport A was in fact on a nearby island, something hard to miss. I’ve been there. Any way he proceeded there only to have to return to airport B for fuel, as airport A had none. Remember the 6 P’s-Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Then back to A to pick up his passengers. Now the awful part, almost unbelievable. The pilot made three attempts at take-off. On the first two he aborted about midfield. According to witnesses after each of the aborted take-offs no engine run-up or apparently other type of diagnostic was done to explain an apparent loss of power. On the third attempt, again according to a witness the left engine appeared to be running slower. Nevertheless, the pilot determined to take-off kept on going, the engine sputtering and spewing black smoke. The plane barely got airborne, impacting the center structures of a nearby interstate with disastrous results. The plane ended up inverted and in flames. One of the four on board survived, the rest including the pilot perished.

The lesson here is that if it isn’t right the first time, rather than just try again, find out what the problem is and fix it if you can. If you can’t find out what’s wrong, cancel the flight and make other arrangements. I’ve been there and done just that. I rented a car and lived to fly another day. Be wise and safe.

Two Kinds Of Fatal Errors And How To Avoid Them

So, now it’s official, or at least formally proposed that some pilots are unable to fly when the autopilot quits. What are they talking about? Something that I have alluded to in previous articles. Pilots get more dependent on their digital devices and are then slow or unable to respond to basic flight data such as air speed, attitude etc. Face it with all those big screens showing you the way, who wants to bother checking primary data sources? But still, signs of a stall are not easy to miss. When the flight gets slow and mushy, you push the control column, not pull it back. We all learned that in the infancy of our flight training. And, when the needle of the airspeed indicator is in the yellow or red arc, watch out. You are already or soon will be stalling.

Now to be fair, I never flew the heavy stuff and had the opportunity to fly sexy simulators as the pros do, but even simulators can mimic a stall. In addition to improving flight training, the answer may lie in modifying training and installing yet another type of warning system for those unable to respond to unexpected situations.

Another different type of error may have been at least partly responsible in the recent crash of an airliner in Russia. According to news reports, the plane was slow to gain sufficient airspeed for liftoff, crashing near the end of the runway. There are multiple reasons for slow acceleration including: engine failure, slush or mud on the runway, low tire pressures etc. The failure to accelerate too slowly may be difficult for some pilots to perceive. There are techniques for recognizing and/or dealing with this. For example, I have heard of some aircrews that use a stopwatch to determine whether a critical speed is reached fast enough. This would apply when one has a co-pilot aboard. The technique I used was more basic. To have a point on the runway picked, for example, a building, that when the plane is abreast of it, the plane must be at a certain airspeed. Usually this would be lift-off speed. If too slow at this point, then the take off would be aborted, generally for most smaller airports, this would be about midfield.

In a past blog, I wrote about just such an event. My wife and I were at the Hendersonville airport several years ago. We were in the A-36. The day was warm in late autumn. The take off end, slightly uphill, was covered with loose stones. Since then the runway has been redone. This meant not shoving the throttle to full rpm too quickly to prevent stone damage to the prop. It also meant that the acceleration would be slower than usual. Before starting the take-off roll, I had decided that if we weren’t at takeoff speed by a certain set of buildings we would abort the takeoff. Well, sure enough, after a slow start, when reaching the decision point, airspeed was barely 60 knots. So we aborted. My wife at this point, never a happy flyer anyway, decided that I would make a test takeoff minus her. Oh, yes there were trees opposite the departure end of the runway. Well, the short of it was this. I taxied back for another try. This time however I used a short field technique. This meant one notch of flaps and about a 60-65 knot lift off speed. Then maintaining a slow airspeed just above stall until clear of all obstacles, then retracting the flaps and a return to normal airspeed. It worked perfectly, so I landed, picked up my wife and away we went, using the short field technique.

Again, the message is plan ahead. With regards to short fields, if not fast enough at a designated point, abort and go to plan B. When flying with the autopilot engaged, monitor what’s happening, and have a plan in case the autopilot quits.