Instrument Flying Part II-It was early one Saturday morning.....

It was early Saturday morning in Burlington VT (BTV). I was there to fly N711EB, a Piper Navajo to Manchester, NH (MHT), a typical freight run. The date was May 30 1989, Memorial day. Weather was basically VFR with a chance for IFR in Manchester. Recent passage of a cold front raised the possibility of some ground fog, especially in the early morning.

Before heading to the flight line to do my preflight check of the plane, I needed to call the Burlington flight service station for a last minute check of the weather and to file my IFR flight plan to Manchester and back. Nothing new with the weather. I requested 9000 feet for altitude going to MHT. Estimated flight time was 30 minutes. Fuel aboard the Pa31 was 4 hours. Plenty to get there and return to BTV if I couldn’t land in Manchester. Did a quick preflight and got up into the cockpit. I loved to fly the Navajos, big and roomy with plenty of power and full de-ice capability.

After engine start and checking the various things on the after start check list, I set up the radios for communication and navigation. First I would listen to ATIS (automated terminal info service) which told weather on the field and gave taxi and runway info. As the ATIS is updated a different letter of the alphabet is assigned to it, e.g. ATIS Info foxtrot. Anyway, I copied the ATIS foxtrot and called ground control or maybe clearance to obtain my IFR routing. “ Burlington clearance N711EB IFR Manchester for clearance”. The reply: N711EB you are cleared to Manchester as filed expect 9000 as final altitude”. After confirming what I had heard I was told to contact ground control. Ground control cleared me to taxi to and hold short of runway 15. After reaching the hold point at runway 15 I did the usual pre take-off check. There is an acronym, CIGAR, standing for controls, instruments, gas, attitude, run-up. This a short cut to a lengthier printed protocol, but is sufficient for the pilot proficient in that airplane. It wouldn’t work for much more complex airline type planes, where checklists are pages long. Anyhow after checking everything: engines, radios, trim, gas and the controls I called the tower for take-off clearance. I was cleared to take-off on runway heading to 3000 feet. I taxied into position and pushed both throttles forward to the stops. Satisfied that all was A_OK I released the brakes and began my take-off roll.

As I rapidly accelerated down the runway, keeping my eye on the ASI (air speed indicator), I started pulling back on the wheel lifting the nose off and beginning my climb out. The runway heading of 150 degrees essentially placed me on the airway (V141), which would take us (the plane and me) all the way to MHT. On route we would fly over LEB (Lebanon, NH) and CON (Concord, NH) with little heading change. Minimum altitudes out of BTV were 6000 once on the airway, to avoid the tops of the Green Mountains.

Once airborne, I was told to contact departure control by the tower operator. “Departure N711EB is out of 1500 for 3000”. “ 711EB clear on course, climb to requested altitude of 9000”. “711EB, roger”. After passing through 6000' I was handed off to Boston Center: "Boston 711EB 6000". They replied" cleared to maintain Niner thousand". In 25 minutes I was passing over LEB vortac (VOR) and then on to Concord VOR (CON). Just a little course correction to the south and we are headed for MHN. Engines are purring nicely, all gages are in the “green”. As we are only about 15 minutes out from our destination, I tune in the MHT ATIS and whoa! The weather is not good. Indefinite ceiling 100’, RVR (runway visual range) 3000’, ground fog. That is below minimums which are:200’ ceiling and visibility ½ mile (200 and a half) for the ILS to runway 17, the active at this time. OK I’ll just continue and hope conditions improve. I can elect to shoot the approach and if I make it because things are better than advertised great, if not I’ll do a missed approach and either try again or enter a hold as directed by ATC. Boston handed me off to Manchester Approach and the fun began.

Before long I was told to descend to 4000‘and intercept the RWY 17 localizer and follow it inbound. Then descend to 3000’ and “cleared for the approach to RWY 17”.
Shortly after I was cleared for the approach by ATC, I was advised that the previous flight had “missed”. After completing the pre landing checklist I decided to continue and give it a try. Down into the murk I we went. Cotton wool all around, absolutely no visual cues. The autopilot was on but I constantly cross checked the attitude indicator, airspeed and altimeter. The navigation indicator for flying the ILS was constantly monitored. It very accurately shows one left or right of course or above or below the glide slope. The latter is most critical when getting down below 500’. At the outer marker, I lowered the landing gear and flaps and began the descent to the field.

Anyway, arriving at the final decision point: altitude 429 feet (200 above the runway) and about ¼ mile short of the runway, still nothing but murk. So after continuing for about 5 seconds, I advanced the throttles and after ascertaining that we had a positive rate of climb, retracted the gear and the flaps. Then after all that done, I advised the tower that I was executing a missed approach. “ Manchester tower 711EB missed approach”. Tower told me to turn left, climb to 3000’ and proceed toward the CON VOR. After I requested another approach, I was handed back to approach control and again told to head back to the CON VOR and hold 10 south on the 172 degree radial. That was good as it essentially placed us right back at the start of the final approach on the localizer, where we had been only a few minutes earlier.

So, long story short. Divine providence intervened. As I was cleared for the second approach, I was told that a 727 aircraft was just taking off and that I should be aware of possible wake turbulence. Hmmm, I thought on that, realizing that in a zero wind situation on the ground the wake turbulence could persist for some time. I decided to press on and went through the same procedure as before. Intercepted the glide slope at the outer marker, gear and flaps, fuel ok, engines and props set, good luck. Well as luck would have it at about 500 or 600 feet of altitude and about ½ mile out the murk parted. The 727 that just left had apparently displaced enough fog so that I could see sufficiently ahead to successfully land. Shortly after I landed, the fog closed in again.

End of story. Persistence, flying by the rules and numbers, leaving one an out and a bit of good luck all blended together for a happy ending to the trip.

Flying On Instruments-Part 1

This is the first in a series telling “all” about flying on instruments. I have written about flying IFR (instrument flight rules), and decision making etc., but not led you through all the nitty gritty. This first part will deal with the basic instruments and radios used.

Regardless of the type of IFR weather, there are certain basics that will always apply. Some of these conditions also must be followed in VFR flight as well. In order to achieve flight, a certain airspeed, as shown on the air speed indicator must be attained. Things that affect necessary air speeds include: temperature, aircraft weight, and flight conditions such as: turbulence, ice etc. Failure to achieve or maintain necessary
speeds may mean inadvertent stall e.g.(recent case in Buffalo). If certain speeds are exceeded however, as in an uncontrolled dive, the plane may disintegrate in mid-air. This maximum safe speed (VNE), is indicated on the air speed indicator with a red line. Prior to that there is a caution zone outlined in yellow. The safe zone is “in the green”.

The airplane attitude (position relative to the horizontal) must be kept within certain reasonable limits. This is done with the aid of info from the artificial horizon, perhaps the most important gage of the instrument flight array. This instrument gives a pictorial image of the plane’s flight with respect to bank angle and pitch (climb or descent). Turns generally shouldn’t involve more than a 30 degree bank angle. Recently a tragic crash occurred near Charlotte with bank angles achieved greater than 60 degrees. These are ok during certain maneuvers but never during instrument flight. Severe bank angles markedly increase stall speeds that may lead to disaster. Similarly, climb and descent angles are limited to relatively small values. All is done in order to maintain positive, safe control of the airplane. Problems arise when for what ever reason, a pilot gets distracted, or is too busy to keep things within safe parameters. Accidents sometimes occur for example, when an inexperienced pilot suddenly encounters instrument conditions (loss of visual cues).

The final primary instrument I will discuss is the easiest to understand, the altimeter. It is nothing more than a barometer calibrated in feet or meters. Usually it can indicate differences of 20 feet and goes from below sea level (flying in a gorge out west) to many thousands of feet. Flying either VFR or IFR generally requires adhering to certain rules that specify what altitude may be flown. In controlled airspace, as for example round major airports definite altitudes will be assigned by controllers (ATC). Almost all IFR flights are conducted under direct ATC oversight, and will entail flying an assigned altitude. Failure to adhere to this altitude may be the set up for a collision, or at least the cause for a collision alert system to activate if present on the plane. All US airliners have these systems aboard.

Finally, a functioning VHF (very high frequency) aircraft radio, preferably two or more must be aboard, enabling the pilot to communicate with ATC. Navigation radios are necessary and are frequently part of the communication radios. Several different types are needed and will be discussed later. Also a transponder is required which allows ATC to positively identify the aircraft position and altitude (mode c). ATC assigns a specific code (four numbers) to each flight.

That’s enough to get started on. I’ll discuss the pilot’s interaction with the above in a subsequent article about a real flight.

Flying IFR With An Option

We are on final vectors to runway 17 at Iwannabeontheground airport. The weather is just awful. Visibility ½ mile in smoke, fog and haze with the possibility of a thunderstorm. Ceiling is 250 feet and lowering. Night time is approaching and we are flying a single engine plane. Doesn’t sound too good does it? How about adding that the ILS just went out and we are left with only the localizer, making this a non-precision approach, with no glideslope (much higher minimums). Fuel aboard is 1 plus 15 or 75 minutes. Maybe, just maybe enough to get an alternate field with better weather. Scary scenario? Yes, but one faced by many pilots everyday. Most make it, but not all.

Some things that can be done that make things much less risky. Perhaps the most important is to always leave yourself an out. An escape route or plan if you will. Instead of trying to land with the weather at minimums at airport A, plan on going to airport B that has a better weather outlook. Ok, it may be farther from your destination, but that’s the price you pay for added safety.

Years ago, I was flying a passenger to Wheeling, WV, in B-58 Baron. The flight from Burlington,Vt was to take about 3 to 31/2 hours. Fuel aboard was 5 hours. As we were approaching the Pittsburgh area things began to cloud up, literally. The weather at KHLG (near Wheeling) was so-so but forecast to get worse and be near minimums. That meant we might not be able to land, but would have to go to our alternate, which would have been Allegheny County Airport (KAGC). Flight time between the two only 30 to 40 minutes. Adding everything up though, if we missed at KHLG we might not have enough fuel to return to Allegheny and still have 45 minutes of fuel remaining. The latter is the rule. The other factor was that the weather in the Pitt area was forecast to go down as well, further complicating things. So, after discussing things with my passenger, we decided the prudent thing was to land at KAGC, and the passenger drive to his destination. Yes, I know, not the most convenient, but the safe and prudent thing to do. There were no complaints and all turned out well. Better certainly than if we had disregarded the weather progs and plowed ahead only to find the weather at KHLG as bad or worse than forecast. That can and does happen.

So, the old adage: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, may have some meaning here.

Fly safely, and do plan ahead. If not, you too may end up a statistic.

It Was Like Flying Into A Black Hole

Night flight is not everyone’s cup of tea, in fact, some pilots dread it. I can certainly understand why particularly in actual IMC conditions in a single engine plane. But if the conditions are right, good VFR, stars above, maybe a moon, it can be just beautiful. In the distance, airport beacons beam their greeting to the sometimes weary traveler. The twinkle of light from houses, and the stream of headlights appearing as a swarm of bees far below on otherwise unseen roads, all help make up this almost mystical experience. Another thing I miss is the friendly glow of all the cockpit instruments, reassuring at a time of relative isolation. So as long as the machinery keeps on purring, there is nothing particular to worry about. Or is there?

Well, for one, landing at night can be tricky if one doesn’t recognize certain differences from daytime flight. Depth perception is limited and can be misleading to the inexperienced pilot. For example, just before touching down for a landing, during the day one looks straight ahead judging height and distance without much difficulty. At night, with the loss of depth perception, one must use their peripheral vision as a judge of height above the runway. If you try and just stare at what appears to be the runway you may be in for a real bounce. By using peripheral vision as well as straight ahead vision for alignment, judgment of height is much improved. To help the pilot judge the correct approach angle on final, VASI (visual approach slope lights) are a big help. Strategically placed at the end of the runway, they appear red if too low, or white if too high. If one is on the 3 degree slope, the light is a mixture of red and white. In other words, a VFR glideslope. Of course there should be threshold lights, and depending on the size of the field, many others as well. If the field is uncontrolled, frequently one can set the brightness of the lighting system by clicking the unicom frequency appropriately.

I remember one flight into a small airport in southern Vermont, one very dark, moonless night. It was like flying into a black hole. Navigating to the airport was easy using VOR aids. The problem was that there were virtually no surrounding lights other than a couple of red beacons on towers on surrounding hills. Runway lights were minimal, on one side of the runway only. Thank goodness for the VASI. I would have made an ILS approach, except there wasn’t one available. Anyhow, I landed safely, and was glad when I reached the terminal area and could shut down the engines.

So, night owl or not. Make sure your eyes are night adapted, keep lighting low in the cockpit and enjoy the darkness.

It pains me to read of another crash

It pains me to read about another plane crash, with all occupants dead, and no explanation other than “pilot error”. The pilot, older, with many years in the cockpit, should have been able to avoid the crash. From what I gather, the landing was balked because the plane was too fast and possibly high for the 4000 foot runway. You just can’t force some planes down on the tarmac if they aren’t ready. The result if you try, is to bounce, possibly porpoise, even hit the prop, as happened here. And, oh no, just read of another landing accident in a similar plane with similar terrible results, several days later.

As I smoke my philosophical pipe, feet propped up, and reflect on things, I wonder why things happen as they do. Have we become complacent to the point of relying on things
rather than knowledge, inherent to what we are doing. Is basic aeronautical science too abstract for the average pilot these days? Are flight instructors too casual in their teachings? Do they put their students through the rugged paces needed to deal with those
unplanned events that can lead to serious trouble? I mean really, a pilot should be able to handle a balked landing with the adroit application of power, and then proceed to land the plane once stabilized, again at the proper speed and attitude. That, as compared to trying to force or slam the plane down on the runway, when it still has enough energy or speed to fly.

Now, in all fairness, some planes are more difficult to land than others. One of the newer fixed gear, speed demons can be difficult to land from what I read. I am of course thinking about the Cirrus. The recommended approach speed is 78kn (1.3 Vso*). That is considerably faster than a Cessna 172RG, a somewhat comparable plane. Slower, but still a notch above many. I used to fly one, and enjoyed it. Vso of the RG was 50kn, and 1.3Vso was then 65kn. Considerably slower than the high performing Cirrus. I am wondering if the pilots that are having problems landing that bird are just not ready. Maybe, and this is only my opinion, they should have more hours flying the lower performers, as the C172’s until they have more flying experience. Then transition to the next higher category. Much as what I did, moving into the light twin category from singles.

On a technical note. One must remember that the kinetic energy of a moving object is proportional to the square of velocity. Therefore, landing at Vso in a Cirrus has 1.44 the energy to dissipate as compared to the Cessna 172 also at Vso. In a crash then, or in an emergency braking situation, there is almost 50% more energy to deal with at the higher speed. That can be a problem.

So, in summary. Getting there fast is nice, but really not all that important in the scheme of things. Rather, just lean back and enjoy the process, no matter how long it takes. When you reflect on your flying experiences, years later, you will remember the process, not how long it took.

*Vso- Stall speed in the landing configuration

If you want to be cool, fly a J-3

It is so hot out that I think the tires of all the airplanes I flew in would melt into a huge black goo. Just been thinking of flying in the heat of summer, and how the coolest and most fun flights were in a J-3 out of Tew-Mac airport. Tew-Mac (B09), was in Tewksbury, Mass., northwest of Boston, and closed in 1997. It was a paved 1850 ft runway heading 3-21. Now converted to condos, the only flyers have feathers.

My flight would begin by doing a quick walk around the plane, including checking the fuel in the gas tank in front of the cockpit, oil and a quick kick of the tires. If alone, I would tie the tail down and proceed to hand prop the engine. It would usually start at the first pull or two. Quickly retard the throttle and untie the tail hook. Hop in to the rear seat if alone, put on the seat belt, feet on the brakes and ready to taxi.

What made it so wonderful to fly in the warm weather was the ability to fly with the side panels open. There were two, one to open up, the other down. Once the challenge of taxiing was over and the throttle advanced, I was airborne in seconds. Stepping hard on the right rudder and some back pressure on the stick was all that was required.

Once airborne, flying at about 65 knots and 500 to 1000 feet altitude one was able to look at the world below as if in a balloon rather than a plane. Slow and peaceful, almost dream like, the delightful, cool air gushing over me. So much better than flying in the tight, stuffy, un-air conditioned cockpits of the newer, faster planes. With a slight headwind, the cars moving on I-93 beneath me were moving faster than me. But that was ok, I wasn’t in a rush.

Some of the real fun was flying at a few hundred feet above the ground, over unpopulated areas, free as a bird and barely faster. The feeling of freedom was unparalleled. It was a stark contrast to the controlled airspace of today. I didn’t even have a radio, as there was no electrical system. No lights either so night flying was out. Navigating was with a map laid across my lap and my eyes scanning for landmarks. The bouncing compass was some help, but tricky to interpret.

I learned a lot about flying with the J-3. Any change in power or attitude required some input on the controls. The auto-pilot was me. The side slip was standard on final as there were no flaps to increase the rate of descent. All that said, it was a dream to fly. Noisy but forgiving. I know, as I soloed in the bird.

My first long cross country was humbling. I was heading west to Fitchburg. I thought I knew just where I was. But after flying for about 45 minutes I wasn’t so sure. Finally I spotted an airport ahead and lined up on the runway and landed after clearing myself visually. After taxing to the ramp and shutting down I walked in to the FBO and found out I wasn’t in Fitchburg but Leominster. Ahem, the effects of a crosswind were impressed on my brain then. Then a nice flight back, to the correct field.

When it was time to land, I had to review effects of cross wind and avoid hitting any planes parked just off the narrow runway. A short taxi back to the tie down and it was over for the day.
Ah yes, those were the good old days.

Stay cool and fly right.

Gear Problems Revisited

As gear problems continue to frequent the accident sites, I thought a brief discussion of landing with a failed nose gear would be of interest.

I just read about a Beech C90 that had a gear problem that resulted in a landing only on the mains. The nose gear mechanism failed, but the mains could be cranked down. Another gear failure with a similar result involved a C-177. It was reported that the plane had a gear malfunction indication, and upon landing the nose wheel failed.

As I thought about these two partial gear failures, and the resultant damage to props, engines, fuselage etc., I thought how damage could be minimized in the case of the single. Yup, you guessed it. Once you can identify that only the nose gear is involved, which may be easier said than done, land the plane as a glider. That means shut the engine off on short final, indexing the prop to horizontal with the starter. Land on the mains, keeping the wheel back until the plane stops and finally noses over. This would prevent damaging prop and engine, assuming one doesn’t stall it in. The latter can be avoided by carefully monitoring your airspeed. Not a procedure recommended for twins unless your last name begins with an S.

Regardless of the gear malfunction, it would be a good idea to do a flyby over the airport where a reliable observer is available. Tower operators usually will cooperate in this regard, weather and traffic permitting.

Remember, look for the gear down lights on final and before. Otherwise you may not “have a nice day”.

Happy and safe flying.