Do all the latest digital gadgets make one a better, safer pilot?

The other day while sitting at a traffic light, I watched a young driver texting furiously in between glancing up at the traffic signal. Amazingly the driver did not miss the change from red to green by many milliseconds but……it made me wonder how many pilots were doing the same thing while at the controls. Talking on the cell phone, texting, getting the latest stock results or some such other nonsense. How many milliseconds did I have to avoid that bogey (errant plane) streaking across my path? Just enough, because I wasn’t doing any of the above. It doesn’t take much distraction to miss a frequency from center, or an urgent call from approach to turn immediately or descend or climb. You get the point, one must pay attention.

Yes, your full undivided attention is required to safely navigate the current skies. Tempting as it may be to watch a video, do a sudoku or read a magazine, your eyes need to be on your primary flight data: altitude, heading, attitude and airspeed at least once a minute. The rest of the time you should be looking out the windshield for traffic or just enjoying the scenery. Even while flying on autopilot, regular checks of the above must be made. Autopilots do fail, often at the worst times.

Some time ago at a local air show at Rock Hill Airport (UZA), I was looking at the cockpit setup of a new C-172. Some of the new fancy models cost just under $300,000 and still only go 120 knots. I couldn’t get over the Glass Displays. Two large screens that could be filled with all kinds of data such as: GPS data, satellite radar, nav data and who knows what else. All the above in addition to the basics listed above. What struck me between the eyes was the paucity of “raw data” or basic instruments. Directly under the two mega- screens are three normal sized dials. The airspeed indicator, artificial horizon and altimeter. Where is a back-up vor/ils gage? What happens when something goes haywire with those two big screens? Are you prepared to go back to the basic three gages above?

Well those are some of the questions I ask when I read about pilots flying into the ground while executing an ILS approach. Do you have the latest correct approach plates out in front of you clipped to the yoke? Does anyone still know what an NDB is? OK I’ve been around too long. Maybe, but I warrant it is easier to go to a fancy big screen with follow the arrows type game plan if you once thoroughly understood the old fashioned way. So what I’m saying is: when you have the ability to navigate the airways and land at minimums on the old gages maybe then you can transition to the big screens.

To summarize. Flying is an activity that requires a lot from participants sometimes, with periods of tedium at others. But, it should never be dull or boring. If it becomes so, rather than turn on your digital toys, land the plane and park it until you are ready to seriously fly. And please don’t ever forget the basics.

Who me worry?

It is just awful to read about air carrier crashes that are in part due to crew incompetence. The example that immediately comes to mind is the Buffalo crash earlier this winter. That crash was the result of two people who shouldn't have been in the cockpit of that (or any plane in the case of the captain). The co-pilot wasn't nearly trained /experienced enough, but in time she may well have been ok. The captain, who flunked several flight checks, clearly didn't belong there.

So, what are the minimum hours of flight time a new hire should have before flying as a professioanl in the right seat? Are 250 hours enough or are 1500 more appropriate. Remember a co-pilot or first officer can be upgraded to captain the instant the captain becomes incapcitated.

Well obviously, the more hours the better unless they aren't "good hours". That is hours spent exposed to all the complex facets of aviation, like flying in all types of weather conditions. Learning to make timely decisions such as going to an alternate when things are really bad. Or knowing how to communicate properly, not only with ATC but "company" to ask for help if and when it is needed. Are pilots too dependent and lulled by all the automation aboard the newer planes?

I am afraid that some of the newer academy trained pilots get the minimum exposure to the really bad situations a pilot may experience. Such as losing an engine on take-off in the fog and mist. A simulator just can't make the hair stand up on the back of your head or make you stain your pants the way the real thing can. Getting an inch or so of rime ice on the wings that won't come off as the boots are inflated will do it though. So you get the point. Training for two or three hundred hours in sunny Florida or California just isn't going to expose you to many weather extremes. And the weather is the number one bugaboo after all. I realize that there are various ways to get valuable flight experience, but never can it be "enough" in two or three hundred hours.

In my case as I earned my ratings at my own speed, it was done in years rather than months. The advantages of that was it gave me time to learn and integrate all my experiences. I learned to deal with mountains, ice and snow, coastal weather,the far West as well as many different type airports, as I flew in different areas of the country. Some more like a cow pasture to the biggies such as KBOS, KJFK, KATL and KOKC. I just couldn't have done it all in six months. And yes I realize that it is not practical for someone interested in a flying career to take ten years to get their ratings, but you get the idea. Too short a time, and too few hours, with limited exposure to different areas, just won't make one a smart experienced safe pilot.

The recent expose on public tv about the regional air carriers touched on some of these things. The limited training some commuter pilots have. The pay and long hours all are negatives that need to be addressed. I am not as relaxed as I used to be when contemplating air travel. I worry that some of the pilots are so reliant on all the auto systems the newer planes have, that they won't be able to respond when the alarm bells go off. Not the least of my worries is that I have more time in my logbook than one or both of the pilots up front.

Snow another cause of low IFR

This recent snow storm caused me to remember a flight I made in a Pa-31 Navaho Chieftan in the middle of the night into Saranac Lake, NY (KSLK) one January. I got a call late in the evening from the FBO whom I flew for occasionally. They needed me to fly to KSLK and pick up an injured skier and bring him back to Burlington,Vt as he apparently was badly hurt. I agreed to fly the charter . When I arrived the plane was already on the tarmac, free of ice and snow, having been hangared. I checked the weather and filed an IFR roundtrip to Saranac Lake and back. The weather at Burlington was not bad. Light to moderate snow 1 mile viz and a ceiling on the order of 1000 feet. It wasn't clear exactly what to expect at KSLK. The plan then was to fly to Saranac, shoot the ILS and hope to get in. If I couldn't land my alternate was back in Burlington, if not there Montreal or maybe even Albany.

The flight to Saranac Lake took about 15 minutes. I filed for 6000' the minimum safe altitude due to a 3800' mountain located only 8 miles to the SE of the airport. I made sure my pitot heat was on and frequently checked the wing leading edges with the ice light to make sure there was no ice accumulation. The approach went well. Intercepting the localizer about 10 miles out and then tracking it and the glide slope to the minimum altitude (1863'). As I didn't know if the field was above minimums, I studied the missed approach procedure and hoped for the best. Fortunately, as we neared the MDA (minimum descent altitude) the field showed up through the snow and haze. It was a welcome site as otherwise I would have had to execute the missed approach and try again or head back. The landing went well in spite of three to four inches of fresh snow on the runway. Feeling somewhat relieved, I taxied to the terminal and spotted the waiting ambulance.

The patient was carefully placed in the back of the plane and strapped down in the stretcher. A nurse came with him and we headed back. Fortunately, Burlington stayed well above minimums so landing there was no problem.

The moral of the story. Sometimes you have to make a flight without knowing exactly what conditions to expect. As long as you follow all the approved procedures (especially MDA's) you can give it a try. If unsuccessful, go around on a published missed approach procedure and try again, fuel permitting or go to your alternate.

You can't land when even the birds are grounded

It is awful to read about skilled pilots trying to land in the fog, way below minimums. Even trying unsuccessfully to land in heavy IFR conditions at an airport with only an Rnav approach. You don't believe me? Go to the December 09 NTSB reports. One pilot on a short business flight in Texas in a Bonanza tried to land in 1/4 mile visibility with an indefinite ceiling flying a presumed RNAV approach with 1300 ft minimums. This guy had all the ratings including ATP, Instr. instructor etc. He augured in 750 ft off the runway. What was he thinking?

The next one was also in Texas in a Pa-34. Another qualified pilot (on paper): Commercial-Instr.-Instructor. There was no published instrument approach at this airport and the nearest reported weather reports were about 20 miles away. Although they had almost VFR weather there, it was unknown at the desired destination. Anyway it did not deter this maniac from trying to make up his own approach and land in uncertain conditions. He was observed by approach control to desend to 700 ft and then disappear from radar. He crashed in a body of water killing the occupants. That was irresponsible.

The moral of the story is not to second guess the weather and fly only published approaches observing all the Notams and not busting minimums. This latter thing, busting minimums is a classic killer and part of the "get home itus" syndrome. I remember a case of that I had several years ago when trying to return to Kenansville,NC from Raleigh in my C-340. I got so close but at minimums couldn't see a thing. Fog! Rather than try again, sometimes that works, but it was dark out and unlikely to improve so I returned to Raleigh and rented a car to get home. Frustrating yes, but I lived to write about it.

So if you want to avoid the above fates, don't try to beat the system. Rather, follow the rules, use good sound judgement and live to fly another day.

Keep it on the runway

The recent AA faux pas in Jamaica, almost going for a bath rather than a simple landing, reminded me of an early flight of mine that ended in a bad way. I was trying to land a Cessna 172 at NY38, Nedrow Air Park, a 2100 ft. paved runway with 50 ft trees at the north end. The field is no longer there ( I wish it hadn't been there then). Anyway I came in too high and fast and couldn't stop on the runway even by standing on the brakes. Unfortunately no reverse thrust available on the 172. However forward momentum was arrested by a well placed tree at the south end of the runway. I was lucky then to learn several lessons about landing. Lessons that stayed with me for the rest of my flying career.

So what were those pilots thinking as they tried to land a 737-800 with a questionable strong tailwind and a wet runway? Both of these factors: tailwind and water on the runway can significantly increase stopping distance of a landing airplane. These factors become much more critical if you are too high and too fast. In fact every 2 knots of tailwind will increase the landing distance (over no wind) by 10%. Standing water on the runway can increase the stoppping distance required by as much as 15%. So adding these things together makes for a challenging landing requiring speeds to be precise and touchdown as close to the threshold numbers as possible (not halfway down the runway).

According to Blake & Elliot in commercial aviation there is only one overrun per 3.6 million flights. They also state that 42% of commercial aviation accidents occur during final approach and landing.

So to avoid being a statistic when landing a pilot must plan his/her approach carefully keeping the following in mind. Fly the proper approach speed for plane configuration( no flaps to full flaps), wind conditions on the runway (allowing for gusts, head or tailwind etc), runway condition( dry,wet or icy). And of course length of runway including obstructions.

May your next landing be smooth and uneventful.

Are you ready to go?

Preflighting the plane isn't something pilots talk about much, not unless they are discussing some of the potentially disasterous things that may have happened to them. Things like forgetting to take the tow bar off the nose wheel before taxiing, or checking the fuel level in the tanks, or peeking around in the engine compartment when checking the oil level and finding an oily mechanics rag or a wrench. You get the idea now. An ounce of prevention may eliminate many pounds of pain later.

So what is a good plan for preflighting most singles and light twins? I used to start mine at the entrance to the cabin or cockpit. Then do a counter clockwise walk around the plane. starting out looking at the flaps(first lowering them) and ailerons, actually moving them and checking the hinge pins etc. Next, as you walk around the wingtip, check the lights and then the leading edge including the stall warning. If the master is on, when you flick the stall warning lever it should sound in the cockpit. Sounds like a lot, but if you move steadily and do it regularly it should only heve taken you less then a minute so far. Next of course is checking the fuel, both looking in the fill port to verify level of gas and to go under the wing and drain the sump. Don't just drain and dump, but actually look at what drains out into the cup (not just drain it onto the tarmac). You might have all water in the cup rather than fuel or a mixture. If in doubt, drain it again. Also when under the wing check the tires for inflation and tread. Look at the brakes-rotor and brake pads, or for leaking brake fluid. You never know when you might just badly need those brakes.

Next is a biggie, checking the engine compartment(s). Oil level is primary, but while the cowl or access port is open give the whole compartment the once over as possible. I know some models only have an opening to check the oil level. But if you can look for oil splatter or leaks, loose ignition cables and foreign objects as rags etc. During the spring check for bird nests, a real fire hazard.

Now as you round the nose look over the pitot and any other probe, radome etc. The nose wheel should be looked over and if there are gear doors check them too. Checking the left side of the plane is a repeat of the right. Walking back to the tail look over the fuselage, verifying that the static ports are clear. At the tail, remove all gust locks and move the elevator and rudder to see if they are free and that the hinges are intact. At some point check all the external lights.

Getting into the cockpit now you should be ready to start your before engine start check, to be discussed in another blog.

Enjoy another fun, safe flight. Those 5 to 10 minutes you just spent on exterior preflight may have saved your plane, life or both!

Incidentally I ran across an excellent preflight article at :firstflight.com

It's busy up there

For all the hours I spent in the cockpit, I can't ever remember being bored. There are just so many things that need to be done, overseen and thought about. To even think of entertaining myself with a video or computer game is unthinkable. Hey, but that's me.

So what is there to do? I'll give some examples of the myriad tasks that one can do. First and foremost fly the airplane. That means keep it upright at the desired heading and altitude and free of dangerous conditions such as ice and turbulence. To do the latter requires paying attention to the ever changing weather. That means updating your preflight weather via the radio or using some newer on line technique now available. Part of the problem with the more sophisticated planes is that they can be largely automated. The autopilot takes care of heading, altitude and aids in landing, but it can't think for you. If there is "traffic" at your 12 o'clock and five miles you must be looking out to avoid a midair. That means staying in touch with the ground facility that is watching over you e.g. approach control or center. Another reason to listen to the appropriate radio facility is that there might be an emergency such as a plane in distress that " center " is having trouble hearing and hopefully you can help. That has happened to me. One day center was having trouble communicating with a pilot who was in need of a clearance. I was asked to try and reach the pilot. As I was successful, they had me relay it to the grateful pilot. Made me feel useful and not bored. Also, a conscientious pilot will monitor 121.5, the distress frequency when able. Who knows one day you might be in trouble and need help. There are many examples of airline pilots helping out in cases like this (that is if they are not too busy with nonsense).

Other basic vital tasks include monitoring fuel status. Is there enough aboard to reach the destination with adequate reserve? If flying in IFR conditions is there enough fuel to reach the destination, and if the weather sours and you can't land, fly to the alternate, land with 45 minutes of fuel in reserve?

And so on. Believe me it never gets boring. Especially if you enjoy being up there and take your flying seriously.