FLYING LESSONS for March 15, 2018

Transcription

1 FLYING LESSONS for March 15, 2018 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 Last Sunday five passengers aboard an Airbus Helicopters AS350B2 helicopter died when a tourist helicopter crashed into New York s East River. The pilot alone survived. The National Transportation Safety Board provided a brief update two days later: The pilot had contacted the LaGuardia Airport air traffic control tower for entry into the Class B airspace while flying at an altitude of 2000 feet. Approximately five minutes later, the pilot declared Mayday and stated that the helicopter s engine had failed. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the scheduled 30-minute aerial photography flight [which] originated from Helo Kearny Heliport (65NJ), Kearny, New Jersey. An online news report adds: The pilot said one of the passenger's bags may have inadvertently hit the emergency fuel shutoff button, leading to the crash that killed five passengers. See As pilot-in-command we take on many roles. We re responsible for thoroughly planning and masterfully conducting the flight. We are tasked with knowing the specific aircraft, its equipment and avionics to the level of an expert. We must be prepared to handle any procedure or technique the regulations, the Airman Certification Standards/Practical Test Standards, the Aeronautical Information Manual, and/or the Airplane Flying Manual (AFM) or Pilot s Operating Handbook (POH) or any of their international equivalents can throw at us in any foreseeable normal, abnormal or emergency condition. Equally important, we assume responsibility for taking care of our passengers and for protecting them, and ourselves, from hazards that arise from their lack of familiarity with aircraft. Passengers probably don t know how their actions might potentially affect aircraft operation. It s our job to brief them, to ensure they follow safety rules and suggestions, and to keep them from intentionally or inadvertently touching controls and switches. Take a fresh look at your aircraft s cabin from the viewpoint of a passenger. Where would you put bags and equipment you bring on board? What would you use as handholds, and where would you put your feet while boarding the aircraft? How might you move in your seat in turbulence, or while maneuvering, or if working in the aircraft (for instance, taking photographs), or simply to stretch and move over time? Where might baggage and personal items go if bounced or kicked around in flight? 2018 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

2 How close are their hands, feet, body, equipment or baggage to flight controls, fuel selectors, door or window latches, or other moving parts? Where are the possible points of contact that could affect safety of flight? After completing this cabin and passenger/baggage motion study, brief your passengers on specific places for their belongings in the cabin. Advise them where to step and hold on, and where not to step or grab. Point out specific things to avoid controls, latches, power controls and fuel controls. What do you command when you accept responsibility as pilot-in-command? You are master of the aircraft. And you are commander of those aboard your aircraft. As PIC you are responsible for the outcome, even including protecting your passengers from themselves. Comments? Questions? Let us learn from you, at See You are doing all of us pilots a great service. I always find your analysis, recommendations and instruction spot on. Thanks! Anthony Crescimanno Thank you very much, Tony. You, and all our generous supporters. 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 Debrief: Readers write about recent FLYING LESSONS: Reader Jay Rossignol anticipated I might write about the East River helicopter tragedy. He ed: With the recent helicopter tragedy in the NYC area, I would like to refresh myself on the emergency egress procedures for exiting [my Beech] Bonanza. I m ashamed to admit that I have never personally opened one of the rear window emergency exits. Can you please review this in your next newsletter? Thanks for the great publication. Hi, Jay. I happen to know how it works in your Bonanza. The window exists will either have a pin you pull fully out of the window bottom latch, or a safety-wired red handle under a Velcro-attached cover that you pull upward, breaking the safety wire. Activating this exit disengages the latch at the bottom of the window, leaving it to swing freely on its hinge at the top of the window. For everyone: Look at the Systems Description section of your Pilot s Operating Handbook (Experimental aircraft excepted). It will describe the emergency exists and how to activate them. If you have any questions, ask your mechanic, or contact the Type Club that supports the aircraft (if one indeed does). You may need a certificated mechanic to re-engage and safety-wire the latches. And history shows emergency exit windows are likely to open in flight if not expertly secured. So look at how the exits work now, but maybe you should wait until your aircraft is in for annual or condition inspection to actually pop them open. Moving on: An obvious LESSON from the helicopter crash is to have an emergency evacuation plan. I ve included advice on this in past FLYING LESSONS. AVWeb s Paul Bertorelli addresses the near-impossibility of underwater passenger egress in the specific case of the East River autorotation in a blog this week. Paul s extremely insightful article includes links to information 2018 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 2

3 and videos about underwater egress training that shows that, even without the special restraints reportedly used by passengers on this flight (but notably, not by the pilot, who was the only person to survive), getting out of a sinking aircraft is extremely difficult and challenging. All the more reason to consider this week s LESSON about preventing passenger-caused cabin hazards as a first line of defense. See Concerning last week s LESSONS about modifications and Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs), reader Grant Haddix writes: Regarding the points about clarifying the POH supplement for STCs, I wholeheartedly support your approach of testing the edge of performance carefully. Your example with tip tanks taking the Bonanza A36 from the Utility to Normal (higher maximum gross) category is a good one. In my experience, those STC POH Supplements are often pretty thin on useful information regarding performance impacts. I ve seen some engine STCs that have zero information on performance changes. To me, it s a bit of an oversight that the FAA does not require creators of these STC modifications to provide at least some rudimentary data to purchasers regarding how performance will be impacted. It seems the exercise is sort of left to the pilot or owner/operator good luck, and caveat emptor! Your views on how this process works in reality is appreciated. Thanks, Grant. Many current STCs were approved at a time when they did not have to prove much about the impact of the capability those modifications provide. They could merely state the performance would meet or exceed original expectations. For example, I always wondered how that works in the case of an engine upgrade, which might indeed exceed book takeoff, climb and speed performance, but by virtue of higher fuel flows would negatively impact endurance and range calculations with nary a mention in the Supplement. The case may be made, however, that even unmodified airplanes actual performance may (or will) differ from book because of airplane rigging, pilot technique and other factors. Even in absolutely stock aircraft, the handbook charts give you a good idea of how the aircraft will perform, but there is still a certain amount of test flying required to be able to accurately predict how that aircraft will behave under those circumstances, the way you fly it. Grant continues: My question is about adverse interactions of multiple STCs applied to one airplane. As our aircraft age, it is not unusual to find particular aircraft in the fleet that have multiple (fairly major) STCs applied. I flew a [Cessna] 182 at one point with a particular engine upgrade STC and also a fuel tank STC. It surely did not fly at all like a stock 182 of the same vintage. Who (or what process) makes sure these STCs don t interact badly and create a Frankenstein airplane that is not safe? That is not an easy question, Grant. There has been quite a bit of discussion of this very topic on the U.S. Federal level the issue of interaction between multiple modifications on the same aircraft. The FAA makes it the STC holder s responsibility to ensure its modification is compatible with the standard aircraft as described by its Type Certificate. But FAA makes it the STC installer s responsibility to ensure that modification is compatible with any other modifications that are already installed on the aircraft. How a lone mechanic in the field makes this determination in the field when you bring your modified airplane to his shop with a box containing your latest STC hardware purchase is unclear. But somehow, he or she has to make that call. Reader Sam Dawson adds: I would add that owners, operators and instructors should be cautious of "Frankenplanes," aircraft that have had more than one "layered" STC that may affect performance and structural integrity and have not been tested together. The most dramatic example I can think of was the P-51 Galloping Ghost crash at the 2011 Reno Air Races, which the May/June 2014 FAA Safety Briefing noted "... [H]ad undergone many structural and flight control modifications that were undocumented and for which no flight testing or analysis had been performed to assess their effects on the airplane s structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics." I'm sure you have seen many Beechcraft that had so many layered STC's that they no longer handled like the original type. See FAA Advisory Circular (AC) Appendix I advises installers: 2018 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 3

4 Previous Alterations or Repairs that May be Affected by This Alteration. Look at the aircraft and review its records to determine if there are any modifications, Supplemental Type Certificates (STC), alterations, or repairs that could cause a problem or conflict with the proposed alteration or repair... Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) CE specifically addresses STC modification airworthiness interrelationship effects, especially as they apply to airspeed limitations and indicator markings. Among many things the SAIB states: STC holders may be able to provide helpful information regarding their STC. Even though they may only have information for their own STC, their information may help in assessing compatibility with other STCs. Type clubs may also have knowledge or experience that can be beneficial. In some cases it may be beneficial for an experienced flight test pilot or engineer to conduct an evaluation to determine the interrelationship of STC modifications. See: An article by Jeff Simon in AOPA Pilot explores this further, including some questions you (the aircraft owner) should ask when you plan to add a new STC. A far more detailed article by Sabrina Woods uses the Frankenstein name to describe the interaction of aircraft modifications, and delves into ways to make the layered STC interaction determination. See: Reader Don Fitzpatrick took my suggestions to heart, first writing: Thanks a lot for the tip tank information. I have a Cessna T206H that is new to me (I have had it for 1 year/ 100 hours). It has Flint Tip Tanks with [a] 180 pound increase in useful load. I can hardly wait to see if I have the right supplement in my POH and read it again. Very useful information and tips. I replied: Thank you. I m glad to have inspired you to check into this. Let me know if, upon rereading your Supplement, you find anything you d forgotten or didn t know about the system or its operational impact. Several days later Don reported back: Boy did my review open my eyes and remind me of a few things. It took me two hours, by the way, so your advice not to review it in the airplane, possibly in IFR conditions, is certainly appropriate. I have flown a M7T 260 Maule with tip tanks for 16 years. So when I bought the Cessna T206H with tip tanks I thought it was not much different. The first thing I found was that I do have the STC in all its detail, in my file at home, and the Supplement (19 pages) [is now] in the airplane. Here is what else I learned: Although the 206 POH is 3.3 pounds! and the Supplements section is 40 percent of that, [when I looked there was] nothing in the Supplement section related to my Flint Tip Tanks, which were added at 55 hours on the airplane (I bought it 20 hours later). There were lots of things in the Supplement section regarding things I don't have, like pressurization, retractable gear, and all kinds of safety and warning supplements, as well as information that "some twins may have wing locker fuel tanks..." I guess Cessna wants to cover all planes with one book or something, and they put lots of stuff in there that is good to know, but few would look there for it. This is just my opinion. Of course the POH is a 5.5 inch by 8.5 inch three ring binder, and the tip tank supplement is 8.5 by 11. To my surprise, all the placards were in place. I had just taken them for granted. The revised weight and balance sheet was included in my POH but has now been superseded [by that in the Supplement]. Someone told me that the increase in [maximum] gross [weight] from 3600 to 3800 pounds requires 8 ply tires instead of 6 ply. That was never mentioned [in the Supplement], probably because you aren't allowed to land at anything over 3600 [pounds]. Hope I never forget something in the hangar and remember just after takeoff at full gross! 2018 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 4

5 I did learn [by reading the Supplement] that takeoff occurs at 3 knots higher, ground roll is 100 feet more, and clearance over a 50 foot obstacle is 166 feet more [at the newer, higher maximum takeoff weight]. The landing ground roll is the same because you can't land at over 3600 pounds gross. Climb performance is [listed as] the same as the original book at 3600 pounds or 3800 pounds, but actually improves if you are 300 to 600 pounds lighter, due to the larger wings [the Flint tip tanks extend the wingtips]. The limitations on airspeeds above 17,000 feet are placarded but I doubt they changed any of the markings on the G1000, so you need to remember the five-knot restriction. The supplement does similar things as the original POH by including two different models, the non-turbo and the turbo. The loading and center of gravity charts are included in the Supplement, but I wonder how often someone would think to look there. My final assessment is that this review was well worth my time and I appreciate your LESSON that prompted me to address this and get the Supplement into the airplane. Even though I fly the airplane without fuel in the tip tanks 80 percent of the time, I sure do appreciate them on the longer trips. There you go, readers: look for your STC supplements, ensure they are in the airplane where they are required to be, and (most importantly) sped some time to read through each Supplement fully to realize the limitations, changes in pilot technique and changes in aircraft performance that come with the newfound capability. Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Let us know, at mastery.flight.training@cox.net Nine Traits Good Pilots Share AOPA Air Safety Institute Executive Director, former USAF Thunderbirds commander (and FLYING LESSONS reader) Richard McSpadden wrote this in the March 2018 AOPA Pilot. As you read the list, ask yourself how many of these traits describe you. Richard expands on each of his points, so read the article: Nine Traits Good Pilots Share 1. They think for themselves. 2. They know a lot about the airplanes they fly. 3. They take calculated risks. 4. They don t mind you questioning a decision [they made]. 5. They are hard on themselves. 6. They enjoy being knowledgeable about aviation. 7. They re good stick-and-rudder pilots. 8. They routinely access safety information. 9. They re calm under pressure. See Comments? Questions? Ideas? Let us learn from you. your input to mastery.flight.training@cox.net. Share safer skies. Forward FLYING LESSONS to a friend Pursue Mastery of Flight. 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