FLYING LESSONS for November 12, 2015 suggested by this week s aircraft mishap reports

Transcription

1 FLYING LESSONS for November 12, 2015 suggested by this week s aircraft mishap reports FLYING LESSONS uses the past week s mishap reports to consider what might have contributed to accidents, so you can make better decisions if you face similar circumstances. In almost all cases design characteristics of a specific make and model airplane have little direct bearing on the possible causes of aircraft accidents, so apply these FLYING LESSONS to any airplane you fly. Verify all technical information before applying it to your aircraft or operation, with manufacturers data and recommendations taking precedence. You are pilot in command, and are ultimately responsible for the decisions you make. FLYING LESSONS is an independent product of MASTERY FLIGHT TRAINING, INC. This week s lessons: A riveting video made the rounds last week, the image of a small airplane swinging beneath its rescuing canopy under a layer of clouds, the aircraft s occupants delivered safely to an airplane-crunching landing. Shortly after the video went viral I received an from a FLYING LESSONS reader: See Did you look at the Cirrus chute pull accident? From 10,000 feet you should be able to find a landing spot and use the airplane. Looks like it took around 10 minutes to get down and his speed looks high for glide (or he had a hell of a tailwind). Do you think it was a [Cirrus Aircraft Protection System, or CAPS] pull instead of proper emergency procedure (i.e., land)? It does not appear the airplane was on fire. I replied: I don't have enough information yet to decide. The video shows the airplane was swinging back and forth quite a bit almost all the way to the ground. That suggests the pilot pulled The Red Handle [activated CAPS] shortly before, close to the ground. It may be that he attempted a glide to a point he was not comfortable with his options, then activated the CAPS to protect his passengers and himself. The NTSB s preliminary report suggests the pilot did just that. See As far as a "proper emergency procedure," here's how I look at it: When the pilot of a twin-engine airplane loses an engine just after takeoff and loses control, we don't ask why he didn't pull both throttles to idle and land straight ahead, we ask why he did not maintain control of the airplane to benefit from the potential safety of the second engine. When an instrument-rated pilot attempts visual flight into instrument meteorological conditions and crashes (AOPA tells us about half of all VFR into IMC crashes involve an IFR-rated pilot), we don't ask why he lost control or impacted terrain, we ask why he didn't file IFR to achieve the added safety of the rating he holds. In the case of the Fayetteville Cirrus, if the pilot had continued to an off-airport crash and someone got hurt worse than the minor injuries all four (and one person on the ground) suffered in this case, we'd all be asking "why didn't he pull the 'chute?" We all talk about the airplane being expendable, but its occupants are not. We joke about calling the insurance company after a crash to ask what it wants done with "it's" airplane. But we continue to let pilot ego in the way, to think that we should attempt heroic efforts to save an airframe even when we have a much less risky option available...if only we're trained, proficient and mentally ready to use it. In the case of the twin, the pilot should be ready, willing and able to feather the dead engine's propeller and make a single-engine landing. In an IFR aircraft flown by an instrument-rated pilot, we expect the pilot to retain the skills he demonstrated to proficiency on the IFR checkride to keep his passengers and himself safe in IMC. A Cirrus is almost unique in the general aviation world in that it gives the pilot an option in the event of engine, control failure or structural failure that most pilots do not have. He/she should 2015 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

2 be ready, willing and able to use it, doing whatever it takes to give passengers and him/herself the best chances of survival. The reason for the failure (that required an emergency response) is another story for another day. Most engine failures in flight can be traced to the pilot's fuel management or attempting/continuing flight with a known engine discrepancy. Most catastrophic engine failures are related to parts integrity or engine assembly or overhaul. The investigation may determine the Fayetteville Cirrus pilot could have foreseen or prevented the failure, and taken action to land the airplane (or never take off) before he issue became critical. But once the engine failure occurs, it is never wrong to employ a safety device that gives the airplane's occupants their best chance of survival. Protecting the airplane is important only so far as it protects the occupants through touchdown, wherever that occurs. Sorry to be so long winded, but it took that explanation to back up my response to your question, which is: in this case all evidence is that the pilot did perform the proper emergency procedure, using the resources available to him at the time. The reader replied: I appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective since you have studied this extensively. I've been working on how [the pilot of a non-caps equipped airplane] would do in that situation. My concern is that while the CAPS is a great safety device, I image the temptation to be complacent is there. The system needs to be re-packed every ten years at a cost of $15,000, so without a chute you could spend $1500 on training a year. Definitely interesting conversation. Thanks again for the perspective. My response: True, but in all aircraft emergency training should be oriented toward maximum use of available resources. In non-brs [Ballistic Recovery System, i.e., whole-airplane parachutes) airplanes gliding to an off-airport landing is the only option. As I teach, land Wings level, Under control, at the Slowest Safe speed, and the chances of survival are optimized. In the Cirrus, maximum use of available resources includes when and how to use CAPS. The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association had taken many years to develop an effective Critical Decision-Making (CDM) course that addresses all sorts of emergency responses, including (but not limited to) CAPS deployment. COPA found pilots don't want to "give up" and pull The Red Handle. Being pilots, they want to fly the airplane. In fact, my military instructor friends tell me one of the hardest things to teach fighter pilots is when to punch out. We all want to be the hero, and we all feel we have the extraordinary skills to pull it off. Just as a multiengine pilot needs substantial training on how and when to shut down one engine and continue to a landing on the other, so also there is a significant pilot training effort necessary to give the pilot the skills to exercise the CAPS option, in airplanes so equipped. It is possible that the pilot of a CAPS-equipped airplane can become complacent, or take extraordinary risks. In some ways, it adds to the training requirement, just as a twin-engine airplane requires more training than a single-engine aircraft. Also this week a similar airplane crashed, fatally, shortly after taking off at Colorado Springs, Colorado. Local news reports state the pilot radioed he had experienced engine failure and was attempting to return to the airport. Either the airplane was not within safe altitude parameters to deploy the CAPS or he made a decision (conscious or not) to try to save the airplane in addition to his passenger and himself Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 2

3 Either way, this tragedy is a reminder that safety devices don t always protect us, whether those devices be a parachute, a second engine, or some other design or device. Lose an engine in most single-engine airplanes and it s likely you may need to sacrifice the airframe to save its occupants. Lose an engine in twin and most of the time you can fly away, if you re proficient but there are circumstances when you need to chop both throttles and ride it straight ahead into the ground just like an engine-out single. You must be prepared and willing to make that decision. And in a parachute-equipped airplane, personal valor should not enter into the equation. Pull the chute if at any time the successful outcome of your engine-out glide is in doubt. Ultimately it all rides on good airmanship and decision-making. We don t often have a lot of time to determine the proper emergency procedure for a given situation. That s why you need to consciously think about what your response should be if something bad happens in a given phase of flight so your decision is already made when disaster occurs. Then your task is far easier: just do what you already decided to do. In all cases, make the maximum use of all available resources to protect your passengers, yourself and people on the ground. Protecting the airplane itself is important only to the extent it protects the people involved. That is the proper emergency procedure. Questions? Comments? Let us know, at mastery.flight.training@cox.net See Debrief: Readers write about recent (and some not-so-recent) FLYING LESSONS: Several readers wrote about last week s LESSONS about the lack of pre-landing crosswind calculation and decision-making as a contributor to Loss of Directional Control while Landing (LODC-L) mishaps. Charles McDougal writes: The LESSON on Loss of Directional Control on landing raises some good points, but I feel [it] misses the elephant in the room. The article focuses on improving pilot judgment and mental preparation for the current wind conditions, which is certainly a good idea. However the real problem is a widespread lack of attitude flying skill in our pilot population. This as a result of poor understanding of this skill/discipline on the part of many CFIs. Handling a 10-knot crosswind is arguably a pre-solo maneuver. If a pilot is actually using the runway environment as his/her primary attitude reference during approach and landing, staying on the runway is not hard. It's only when attention is inappropriately diverted, or this attention on the correct primary reference was never present to begin with, that crosswind landing becomes such a boogie man. This articles focus on ADM is understandable however, as the FAA has been telling us for more than a decade that accidents are being caused by poor ADM and SRM, not by loss of control. Only this year, after loss of control made the NTSB's most wanted list, has the FAA now begun to focus on aircraft control skills at a higher level. Attitude control is aircraft control, and thus the cure for loss of control. Thank you, Charles. FLYING LESSONS has devoted many, many issues to the stick and rudder skills necessary for directional control on the runway, both for takeoff and landing. Last week s LESSON does not diminish that; instead, it adds to the discussion. My original intent last week was to continue the LESSON to discuss those airmanship skills, but the narrative was too long for a single issue. I will revisit that portion of the discussion in the near future, but took a pause this 2015 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 3

4 week to address the top-of-mind Cirrus video that raises questions for pilots of all types. Recent subscriber Martin Towsley writes: I am a recent subscriber to FLYING LESSONS and have been enjoying the reading. Regarding the LODC-L events I have a possible solution. If you have the ability to get tailwheel training, get it. Tailwheel aircraft will open your eyes as to crosswinds and directional control. I remember on some days the crosswind training beat me up, but it all ultimately came together. I exclusively fly a light (1200 lb gross), tailwheel-equipped aircraft, and am always cognizant of wind direction and velocity. I fly out of a Class C airport and the controllers are very good at giving me my requested runway, even if it isn't one of the actives. Thanks for the articles! That s true, Martin. I owned a (tailwheel) Cessna 120 for many years early in my flying career. You learn a lot...but you also cancel a lot when you might fly in a nosewheel airplane, if you re current on crosswinds. Unfortunately, it s become extremely challenging to find a tailwheel instruction facility without having to travel for most people. It may be worth a mini-vacation to get in a weekend of tailwheel flying. Martin responds: I am too aware, hence why I bought a Taylorcraft to learn tailwheel aircraft about eleven years ago. I have owned three: two 1946's and a I preemptively stated "If you have the ability..." knowing it is getting very difficult to get tailwheel training. As I am sure you are aware, people seem to have dead feet in nosedraggers. I have been reading of late of the loss of stick-and-rudder skills. It is unfortunate that lack of aircraft, and prohibitively costly insurance, is part of the problem. Keep up the great work, I am really enjoying the weekly s! Thank you, Martin. Readers Taylor Albrecht and Brad Whitsitt are with Crosswind Concepts, teaching with Redbird Simulation s Crosswind Simulator in Denver, Colorado. After EAA AirVenture 2015 I wrote a short piece with my positive review of this training device, lamenting only that its one-task orientation may make many pilots less willing to travel to get this fantastic experience. Taylor writes about last week s LESSONS: Brad adds: Fantastic article and focus for [last] week s Weekly. As you know, crosswind operations are near and dear to my heart. Pilots rarely get enough crosswind practice. Almost never is crosswind technique demonstrated during a practical exam. And what practice we do get provides very limited experience - somewhere between 5 and 20 seconds of view and muscle memory for each landing. This is why we are so enthusiastic about the Redbird Xwind trainer and program that we employ at Crosswind Concepts. Pilots in our training receive more crosswind experience in one hour than most will receive in years of flying. Clearly crosswinds are top of mind with many pilots, and prevent them from flying. This was evident at our seminars at AirVenture this year, where over 575 pilots attended our Mastering Crosswind sessions. Thanks for coming by the Redbird booth at AirVenture to get a taste of how we are trying to help pilots be more confident and skillful with crosswinds. Well said. I have been working on crosswind landing training and simulation for the last 14 years. I have done substantial research on the subject, looking into all of the factors that contribute to crosswind landing excellence. You are one of the few to point out that most crosswind related or LODC-L events occur in relatively mild wind conditions. This matches what I have found. I have first-hand knowledge of a C182 accident in a 7-knot crosswind on a great weather day. Many observers just can t figure out why an instrument rated pilot would bang up an airplane on such a good day. At the same time, this event is concealed and not openly discussed because the local airport is trying to avoid reporting an accident. The secrecy was very interesting and this caused nobody else to learn from that event. It did not change training behavior at that airport. The Avemco president told me that 25% of every claim dollar is paid out for LODC-L events. It is more likely that metal will be bent due this problem than any other single issue. And they say, only 1 in 4 of this type of accident is reported. In my view, there are many factors that contribute to the aptitude of a crosswind pilot and it is not always the same problem for all. If I were to point to the most significant issue that I discovered through trial and error in training with a crosswind trainer, it is this: Many pilots are not mentally or physically prepared to 2015 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 4

5 aggressively use the rudder pedals to point the nose down the runway. Everything from the posture of the body, to having the eyes ready for a great field of view, to posture of the feet, to seat position, all contribute to readiness. The detail that I rank as #1 - when we aggressively focused on the idea point your nose with your toes, everything else got better quickly. It is pretty easy to argue that if the nose is pointing left or right out in the corn, bad things are about to happen. Thank you both. Keep up the good work. See Frequent Debriefer and tailwheel/aerobatics instructor Tony Johnstone wraps it up for us this week: [A] couple of thoughts here. First of all, on crosswind landings, I see too many pilots who don't figure out the crosswind early enough in the approach. Your assessment echoes this. Other than listening to the ATIS/AWOS (and actually thinking it through), drifting toward or away from the runway on downwind on a visual approach, or having a significant crab on final on an instrument approach, should be the first clue. Ideally, establish a slip sometime before the flare so you can see if you can actually keep the airplane tracking straight down the centerline before you try and land. Remember you can correct for a crosswind up to and including the airspeed with a crab BUT YOU CAN'T LAND unless you can maintain directional control on touchdown. That basically means the point where you run out of rudder and the time to find that out is not three feet off the runway. Establish the slip early so you know if you can land safely or need to go elsewhere. For a simplification I teach John Morrisey's method for figuring out which rudder to use for spin recovery. An inverted spin to the right looks like an upright spin to the left (when teaching inverted spins I say "right rudder spin" as opposed to "right spin"), but if you look over the nose at the ground and see which direction your shoulders are moving that will give you the correct answer every time. Shoulders moving right, use left rudder. Shoulders moving left, right rudder. Works every time! Appreciate it, Tony. What do you think? Let us learn from you, at mastery.flight.training@cox.net It takes most people about five minutes to read an issue of FLYING LESSONS Weekly. That adds up to about four hours each year. If you ve enjoyed at least the equivalent of one hour s worth of dual instruction from the approximately 50 FLYING LESSONS you ve received this year, please consider donating what you d pay an instructor for that hour in the aircraft you fly. If you have benefited more please consider that as well. Income from this source will be used to make FLYING LESSONS more visual and more meaningful to you and your family s safety and enjoyment of personal aviation in Thank you, and fly safely! Please be a FLYING LESSONS supporter through the secure PayPal donations button or the mailing address at Thank you, generous supporters. Share safer skies. Forward FLYING LESSONS to a friend Personal Aviation: Freedom. Choices. Responsibility. Thomas P. Turner, M.S. Aviation Safety, Three-time Master CFI Flight Instructor Hall of Fame 2010 National FAA Safety Team Representative of the Year 2008 FAA Central Region CFI of the Year FLYING LESSONS is 2015 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. For more information see or contact mastery.flight.training@cox.net Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 5