It depresses me to think that pilots are flying while taking anti-depressant medications

I am concerned about the new ruling that lets pilots fly while taking anti-depressant medication. I do not believe it is a good idea. As both a pilot and a physician, I think there are real risk potentials to flying under the influence of these pharmaceuticals.

A review of the antidepressants literature is worth summarizing here. I am including information from an article in Helpguide* subtitled “When it comes to depression, serotonin doesn’t tell the whole story.” Serotonin is a chemical that is normally found within the brain. Apparently there are many factors that play a role in depression. Serotonin, however, may only be a bit player. Therefore drugs that promote levels of serotonin in the brain, may or may not positively affect depression. I bring this up because all the drugs recently approved by the FAA: Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, and Lexapro are all part of the class of serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRI’s.

More importantly, these meds like almost all meds, may have side effects. Specifically these class of drugs (SSRI’s) may have the following side effects (SE’s):
Nausea
Insomnia
Anxiety
Restlessness
Decreased sex drive
Dizzyness
Weight gain or loss
Tremors
Sweating
Sleepiness
Fatigue
Dry mouth
Diarrhea
Constipation
Headaches
Although the article in Helpguide stated the above side effects as common, no actual incidence data was given. An additional warning was that there may be serious withdrawl effects if the drug is stopped too rapidly.

In the above list of possible SE’s, there are several that would be particularly bad for a pilot e.g: dizziness, anxiety, tremors, nausea and sleeepiness. Would you like to be a passenger flown by a pilot who may have some or all of these SE’s? No, I don’t think so. Or imagine a pilot executing an ILS approach in low IFR conditions, who suddenly becomes apprehensive or dizzy or even nauseas for example. Those “side effects” could lead to disaster.

I have read the argument that millions of drivers take untold millions of medications, some with deleterious effects on their driving skills. But at least someone driving with a sudden bad reaction can pull over to the curb. Yes if one is lucky. I had an example of a bad reaction to a "safe" drug while undergoing treatment for routine enlargemant of the prostate. While returning from the restroom at a local reataurant, I suddenly felt light headed and passed out cold. This was a known possible side effect of that medication. Luckily I wasn't driving or worse flying a plane! Without a co-pilot to bail one out, no pilot should be taking any medication unless they are totally familiar with it and its possible side effects.

So, I challenge the FAA medical experts to counter some of these concerns of mine. In the mean time. Don’t take any medications until you know without a doubt how it affects you.

* http://helpguide.org/mental/medications_depression.htm 4/16/2010

Gear down and locked

Old themes are sometimes worth revisiting. This time it’s lowering the gear in time to have it fully locked in the down position. I don’t think the reported gear “collapses”on the FAA accident site are due to mechanical problems very often. Rather, it most likely is a result of dropping the gear as an afterthought at the last minute

It takes some time to lower the gear and have the locks engage. Different planes take different times. Some lower in less than 5 seconds, others take longer. My old Cessna 172RG went through some gyrations to extend. The old Mooneys’ gear was lowered by the pilot moving a large chrome handle from the horizontal to the vertical. It took an effort, and the plane sometimes did a bit of a dip, but you knew the gear were down. The way you can tell if the gear is down and locked is when you get one or three green lights. There is a micro type switch at the wheels that closes when the gear is down in the locked position. I must add that I am not an A&E mechanic and that the specifics of gear operation and the light indications should be verified for each airplane. Yesterday I spoke with a licensed A&E who suggested that a persistence of a red transit light should be a warning that all is not secure. Not all planes have a red transit light however. Therefore if the green light or lights don’t come on, beware. Options are: recycle the gear. If still not right, try the mechanical crank down method. Some pilots will try to fly over the runway and have an observer give their impression. Just be prepared for a rough landing without the greens being lit. One last bit. Usually the bulbs can be tested by pressing on the light covers. This should be done before deciding that one or all the wheels are not down and locked if one of the lights is not on.

So watching for the lights is important. The next time you are on the web go the FAA site and check out the number of “gear ups” that are reported every weekend on the Monday log. On the 29March report, 7 out of 25 accidents involved the gear.

In my article: Three In The Green Or Else!, 10April2009, I discuss various ways to try and insure that the pilot lowers the gear before landing. They worked for me for years and I can recommend them. Try them out. Good habits can save one from a bunch of headaches and bills. Happy and safe landings.

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.