FLYING LESSONS for December 20, 2018

Transcription

1 FLYING LESSONS for December 20, 2018 by Thomas P. Turner, Mastery Flight Training, Inc. National Flight Instructor Hall of Fame inductee FLYING LESSONS uses recent 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 airplane have little direct bearing on the possible causes of aircraft accidents but knowing how your airplane s systems respond can make the difference as a scenario unfolds. So apply these FLYING LESSONS to the specific 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: Pursue Mastery of Flight I ll let the folks from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) deliver this week s LESSONS, from a final accident report published this week: While descending through 450 ft for landing, [a Cessna 172RG s] propeller speed reduced to 1300 rpm. The pilot turned on the carburetor heat and switched the fuel tanks selection from BOTH to LEFT [in accordance with the Cessna 172 checklist], however the engine did not respond. The pilot realised there was not enough altitude to reach the runway and that a forced landing was necessary. The pilot turned the aircraft towards an unlit area [it was 6 pm in July, near the shortest day of the year] and positioned the aircraft to achieve its maximum glide distance. As it descended, the aircraft struck treetops. The nose wheel then struck a power line and the aircraft collided with terrain. The pilot received minor injuries and the aircraft was substantially damaged. The ATSB found the power loss was likely the result of carburetor icing. This accident demonstrates the importance of flying in a controlled manner wings level and at the recommended glide speed to improve survivability of a forced landing after experiencing power loss. In addition, the accident is a reminder of the need to apply carburetor heat during descent to prevent an ice-related power loss. See Bob Hoover famously advised to fly the thing as far into the crash as possible. Many times I ve written that if a crash is survivable, you will probably only survive it if you land Wings level, Under Control at the slowest Safe Speed (Best Glide until short final, then Landing Without Power speed to touchdown). Then, if you have shoulder harnesses, the airplane s structure will protect you. Of course, if you have an all-airplane parachute system you ll have more options, and therefore more decisions to make. I ll come back to that in a future FLYING LESSONS. Questions? Ideas? Opinions? Send them to mastery.flight.training@cox.net 2018 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

2 See Debrief: Readers write about recent FLYING LESSONS: Reader Mark Sletten continues our discussion of the legalities and the realities of airframe icing: I get Mr. Snider's position. When they support safety we safety nuts often use the regs as a bludgeon. I think it's fair to acknowledge when they offer flexibility to a "reasonable and prudent" (to which I would add "knowledgeable") pilot. Flying around ice is no different than flying around any other hazard (mountains, MVFR, etc.); you have to know the risks and how to manage them. Exactly, Mark. Flying in the mountains? Pre-plan a route and altitudes to avoid blind canyons and clear ridges and the turbulence that goes with them. Flying visually in marginal weather conditions, such as I was at the beginning of the flight that prompted these LESSONS? Ensure you have the terrain and cloud clearance you need, and the visibility to ensure you do so. Are the temperatures aloft at your planned altitude between about +5 C and -40 C? Plan your flight to remain clear of clouds and visible precipitation unless your airplane is equipped and certified for flight in icing conditions, and then operating within the certified limitations of that equipment (no flight in supercooled liquid droplet conditions, for example). Always have a way out in case your attempts at avoidance fail. See Reader Gary Garavaglia adds: Thank you for your service to the pilot community! You have great commentary and practical advice for pilots and I applaud you for that. Your recent description of the delayed trip due to icing was very thought provoking indeed. However, someone wrote in the comments that were published the following: the FAA now considers forecast icing to the same as known icing. It is illegal to take an aircraft not certified for flight in icing conditions into forecast or actual icing conditions. The statement that the FAA now considers forecast icing to be the same as known icing is simply not true and should be corrected. Every day at every altitude below freezing from surface to cloud top has the potential for icing. It is not illegal nor necessarily unsafe to operate in the cloud at temp[erature]s below freezing; no matter if your airplane is certified or not. The pilot must consider all risks and make an informed decision. I have a fair amount of experience in winter flying from C172s, to numerous transport airplanes. I have been flying in the winter months in clouds for almost 50 years. Yes, there are significant hazards that must be considered, understood and often avoided but it is not illegal in any sense to fly in an Airmet area. You re correct, Gary, at least for U.S. readers. FAA Advisory Circular 91-74B indeed does give pilots wide latitude to determine whether ice formation is likely under a given set of conditions the lauded prudent pilot standard. Let s look more deeply. See Key definitions in the Advisory Circular (AC) include: Forecast Icing Conditions. Environmental conditions expected by an NWS or an FAA-approved weather provider to be conducive to the formation of in-flight icing on aircraft. Known, Observed, or Detected Ice Accretion. Actual ice that is observed visually to be on the aircraft by the flightcrew or identified by onboard sensors Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 2

3 It also contains this footnote to the definition of light icing (emphasis added): It is assumed that the aircraft is approved to fly in the cited icing conditions. Otherwise, immediate exit from any of these intensity categories is required by regulations (14 CFR part (a) and , part , part , and part ). Further clarification/complication of interpreting the AC includes: It is imperative that the pilot ensure the aircraft is certificated to fly in icing conditions and that the appropriate deicing/anti-icing equipment is installed and operational prior to operating in icing conditions. It is also critical that the pilot understand and comply with the applicable limitations and procedures when operating in icing conditions. b. Flight Planning. If an aircraft is not certificated for flight in icing conditions, each flight should be planned carefully so that icing conditions are avoided. AC 91-74B states emphatically that: The pilot of an aircraft that is not certificated for flight in icing conditions should avoid all icing conditions. And a 2009 FAA letter of interpretation (also cited last week) contains the final standard (that I think is strangely missing from the supposedly definitive AC that was published six years later) includes this passage: Known ice involves the situation where ice formation is actually detected or observed. Known icing conditions involve instead circumstances when a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all the information available to that pilot. Where known icing conditions are not defined by regulation [for light airplanes], the term has been used in legal proceedings involving violations of FAA safety regulations that relate to inflight icing. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has held on a number of occasions that known icing conditions exist when a pilot knows or reasonably should know about weather reports in which icing conditions are reported or forecast. In those cases the pilots chose to continue their flights without implementing an icing exit strategy or an alternative course of action and the aircraft experienced heavy ice formation that validated the forecast danger to the aircraft. The Board s decisions are consistent with the FAA s long-held position in enforcement actions that the pilot must consider the reasonable likelihood of encountering ice when operating an aircraft. And finally, the statement most often quoted from this letter (emphasis added): If the composite information [the sum total of weather reports and forecasts] indicates to a reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will be operating the aircraft under conditions that will cause ice to adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight, then known icing conditions likely exist. If the pilot operates the aircraft in known icing conditions contrary to the requirements of 91.9(a), the FAA may take enforcement action. 14 CFR 91.9(a) is the regulation that mandates adherence to airplane limitations. It s important to note these points about or from the FAA letter: The NTSB acts as the court of appeals for pilots (and other certificate holders) who have received FAA certificate enforcement actions. The NTSB interpretation is pertinent because they are the legal confirmation that action against certain pilots in cases of flight in icing conditions has been upheld. Forecasts of substantial ice fit the definition of known ice, but substantial is not an FAA-defined icing accumulation rate or quantity term. Failure to obtain available weather information is not an excuse for missing reports or forecasts for the possibility of ice. Flying an airplane not certificated for flight in icing conditions is not in and of itself illegal, but failure to have a strategy for successful exit and to implement that escape plan immediately upon the onset of any ice accumulation is a violation of Federal Air Regulations. See: Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 3

4 Regardless of a pilot s standard of reasonable prudence, if the airplane is not certificated for flight in icing conditions the instant ice begins to form it becomes illegal to continue flight in those conditions because of airplane limitations carry the force of Federal law. If your airplane s Type Certificate (TCDS), Pilot s Operating Handbook (POH), or Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) contains a statement that flight in icing conditions is prohibited, not approved for flight in icing conditions, etc., then it is illegal to fly in ice unless it also has a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) that modifies or removes this limitation. So is that all clear? No it isn t, not really. When plotting my departure from Cape Girardeau I wasn t thinking much about whether I could legally go. I was concerned about how unpredictable ice formation is, and how rapidly control is sometimes lost if ice does begin to form a side effect (positive, I think) of reading every mishap report that comes across the accident reporting websites. As pilot-in-command, the FAA gives you some leeway to create an ice-avoidance strategy and still remain legal. The larger issue, I believe, is determining whether it is reasonable or prudent to fly an aircraft not equipped for ice in visible moisture or precipitation when temperatures are conducive to ice formation. The same adage that applies elsewhere in aviation means a lot here too: just because it s legal doesn t necessarily make it safe. Now, you get to choose. Thanks, everyone who addressed this topic. Accident investigator and flight instructor Jeff Edwards responds to my December 6 th LESSONS, where I asked a Flight Review student about attempting engine restart when in a (simulated) engine-out glide. Jeff writes: In my review of aircraft accidents with a surviving pilot where an engine anomaly or failure occurs, the pilot often fails to follow checklists, including attempting a restart. Two recent cases occurred because the pilots starved the engine of fuel with fuel onboard but did not attempt a restart, even though they were above 5000 feet AGL. As I wrote that week, I think part of the reason is that pilots are rarely if ever presented repairable engine failures in training and Flight Reviews. Students expect to glide to a landing spot; we instructors expect them to glide to a landing spot. I think we need to let pilots fix simulated engine failures frequently enough that they see value in attempting a restart when time permits. Thanks, Jeff. See Reader Michael Madigan continues: The importance of always running the engine failure checklist was instilled in me in a very memorable way (although maybe not in a "best practice" way). I was working on my private pilot license back in Sweden in 1978 flying the then-new PA38 Tomahawk. My instructor, who was also an ag pilot, pulled the mixture (we were at 1000 ft over his familiar ag fields area). I did my aviate, navigate (picked my field), investigate... I vividly remember to this date the shock when I got to the mixture and the engine restarted. For this to work well, you have to actually do the restart checklist when you practice, actually change fuel tanks etc. and not just go through the motions. Another thing that was instilled in me (and was taught by all flight schools in Sweden) was to always recite the emergency checklist before each take off from memory after you have put your checklist away. I must admit I do not do this before each flight in my [Beech] A36 but I do the flow maybe once a month and I do remind myself that if I have a sudden engine failure during takeoff with full tanks, the first thing I may want to do (after flying the plane) is to reach for the electric fuel pump. It sounds like there were some good instructors in Sweden. Thanks, Mike. Reader and aerospace engineer (and my Kailua, Hawaii high school classmate) Paul Siegmund takes us back to the practical symbolism of staying on the runway and taxiway centerline: 2018 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 4

5 Here is a bit more ammo for your LESSON from a couple weeks ago (I m catching up) about sticking to the centerline. You posted a photo of a 747 landing on a narrow, hilly runway. Here's one more from the aftermath. The attached photo does not suffer from distortion effects of a telephoto lens as the long-range final [approach] photo does. Look at the wing landing gears and the edges of the asphalt. Then look at the smiles on the two check captains who are happily touching the centerline. (Obviously the nose gear of this 18-wheeler is behind the photographer, but we guess what it is straddling.) This was one of two deliveries by South African Airways of retiring 747 Classics to their national air museum at Rand, the original city airport of Johannesburg. One was a B, the other a 747SP, and I can't [tell] which is which in either photo, although I think the -200 is in the approach photo. It was in 2004 or so. Rand's elevation and runway length are both 5500 feet. The width is 15m, or 49 feet. A 747's wing gear, from outer to outer sidewall, is 47 feet. That's not apparent in the long photo but it is in the parked view. Do you see the problem? Yes, SAA did this twice. No, they did not brush any grass...with a 2-3 knot crosswind component. I believe the same crews landed both. None have left, nor will. And as far as I know no other 747s have ever landed on a 50-foot-wide runway. In fact, 100 foot runways are rare for them (also forbidden without a special permit.) If you stick the centerline you can do great things. But don't try this at home even if your home is a narrow, encroached urban airport and you have a couple of spare whales that need parking places. Outstanding follow-up, Paul. Aloha. See Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Let us know, at mastery.flight.training@cox.net I really enjoy reading these and get a lot out of them for both general aviation and work flying. - Reader and FLYING LESSONS financial supporter Stephen Freedman Readers, please help cover the costs of providing FLYING LESSONS through the secure PayPal donations button at Or send a check to Mastery Flight Training, Inc. 247 Tiffany Street, Rose Hill, Kansas USA Thank you, generous supporters. Merry Christmas to those who observe the holiday; Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all my readers and FLYING LESSONS supporters around the world. If you fly by personal or business aircraft over the holiday, or even as an air carrier or military pilot, let us know about the challenges you faced for your holiday flying, and the decisions you made to mitigate the risks. Pursue Mastery of Flight. Share safer skies. Forward FLYING LESSONS to a friend Thomas P. Turner, M.S. Aviation Safety Flight Instructor Hall of Fame 2015 Inductee 2010 National FAA Safety Team Representative of the Year 2008 FAA Central Region CFI of the Year Three-time Master CFI FLYING LESSONS is 2018 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. For more information see or contact mastery.flight.training@cox.net Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 5