Flying - Page 8 Aviation Articles

2015 Business Jet Traveler Readers Expect to Fly More in 2016

The October/November issue of Business Traveler Magazine contains the results of the 5th Annual Readers' Choice Awards.  As with previous surveys, they let the results speak for themselves. Go read it, but first, my observations.

 

Good news for 2016, their readers expect to fly more in 2016 than in 2015 (37.9%) with just over half flying about the same next year. Only 7.3% expect to fly less. This is encouraging since more than one in five (22.7%) reported flying less in 2015 than in 2014. I'd say this is more of a sign of stability or slow growth. Still, slow growth beats a slow decline.

Why people fly is as you think. These private aircraft "save time" by getting people to airports that are not served by the airlines and all the travelers to be productive while en route. These simply spell productivity.  Comfort, privacy and security round out that list. Those last three imply quality of life to me. 

What people fly remains consistent with previous years. It's the economics. That, along with range and cabin are the big three drivers in the aircraft the reader flies. A slight change from 2014 is economics is now the top driver, slightly more than range. Interesting was the number four response: Aircraft Manufacturer. The OEMs try to get brand loyalty and this indicates some level of success in that effort. Aircraft age and speed round off the top half of the list. 

Among the readers using fractional, charter and jet cards, customer service rated top for all three. Overall satisfaction also rated consistently as ver good with no clear advantage to any of them. Value for price paid rated best for Jet Cards. Fractional rated lowest for value which ties into their ranking for residual value terms. That was the lowest average score among all the fractional rating categories. If the reader had not used the provider previously, the biggest factor in selecting the provider was a recommendation of a friend or colleague. Step aside Internet, word of mouth from someone you trust is still the number one reason to buy.

Speaking of value for price paid, for the fixed-wing aircraft, Embraer rated quite well in that category. They also rated very well in cost of maintenance and were close to survey-leader Gulfstream in product support. Kudos to them. Overall, the strongest fixed-wing OEMs were Embraer, Gulfstream, Dassault, and Pilatus. 

Regarding aircraft reliability, Pilatus and Gulfstream received the highest marks. Al the OEMs did well, with Hawker (as in the 800 series) and Bombardier receiving more "fair" ratings and fewer very good to excellent ratings. Regardless, all the fixed-wing OEMs having from 87% to 100% ratings when adding the very good and excellent scores. The wireless and cable providers would love rating like that.

On the helicopter aircraft, Business jet traveler only had sufficient data for Airbus (nee Eurocopter) and Bell. I was surprised that Sikorsky had too few responses. Like last year, neither helicopter OEM received greater than a 40% excellent rating in any category except for reliability, where Bell had 52.4% excellent ratings. That would be last place if put in with the fixed-wing. I'm not sure why the expectations aren't being met.

BJT did ask its reader's that if they could get a year of complimentary flying, which would it be for various categories of aircraft? Read the article to see what folks favored. Most choices were the popular new aircraft for each category. Of note, 6.5% of the Super Mid-Size Cabin Jet readers wanted a Hawker 4000 over the current production offerings. As with last year, no one listed a P51 Mustang. 

2016 looks promising from this survey. It's a small list, but here's hoping its representative. How about you, will you be flying more next year? Let us know if the replies.

The Rise of the Angle of Attack Indicator for General Aviation Airplanes


Earlier this year, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) added the prevention of loss of control accidents in general aviation to its Most Wanted List, a list of advocacy priorities the organization releases yearly.

Loss of control accidents (stalls, spins, etc.) made up 40 percent of fatal fixed wing general aviation accidents between 2001 and 2011, according to NTSB statistics. More than 25 percent of all fatal general aviation accidents occur during the maneuvering phase of flight, and more than half of these maneuvering accidents result in a stall/spin scenario. The NTSB continues to emphasize an industry-wide need to focus on preventing these accidents in order to reduce the accident and fatality rates for general aviation pilots. Preventing loss of control accidents should include awareness, as well as educating and training pilots, says the NTSB, and the organization is taking their own advice - in October the agency will host a forum to discuss some of the ways the industry can improve. The topics of discussion will include a statistical review, new training techniques, and equipment and technology improvements, and will most certainly include the installation and use of angle of attack (AOA) indicators in light general aviation aircraft.

Over the past few years, the NTSB, FAA and General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC), with support from industry groups like AOPA, have been working together to advocate the use of AOA indicators in light airplanes as a way to encourage recognition and prevention of stall accidents. In the past, pilots and aircraft owners haven’t been all that eager to install them, though, based on cost and the red-tape problems associated with the installation process. In 2014, the FAA streamlined the process of installing AOA indicators, making it easier for aircraft owners to enjoy their benefits.

We know that a stall will occur any time the wing’s angle of attack - the angle between the chord line and the relative wind – exceeds its critical limit. But historically, pilots have been trained to monitor and fly precise airspeeds in order to prevent stalls. This is helpful, but only when the aircraft is in straight and level, coordinated, unaccelerated flight, when the aircraft’s stall speeds are quite low and where they are known and familiar for that particular flight configuration. But an aircraft can – and will - stall at any airspeed, any weight, any configuration, and any attitude when the critical angle of attack has been exceeded. While airspeed is a good guideline to use, it shouldn’t be the only one. Pilots should understand that the angle of attack, which is invisible, matters much more than the airspeed.

Enter the much talked about angle of attack indicator. It’s designed to help pilots determine the aircraft’s true angle of attack in real time, allowing the pilot to "see" the angle of attack in a way that’s not possible otherwise. This will be especially valuable to new pilots, who, through its use, will better understand the concept of angle of attack as it relates to different aircraft configurations and phases of flight.

So what will it take to install an AOA indicator? According to this article on AvWeb, not much. After the FAA approved the more streamlined process, most general aviation aircraft will not require an STC and the modification can be done by any A&P mechanic with just a logbook entry. AOA indicators for small general aviation aircraft like the Cessna 172 cost between $400 - $2000, depending on whether it’s electrical or mechanical, heated or not, pressurized or not, and other variables.

The Importance of Checklists: 4 Accidents That Checklist Use Could Have Prevented


Photo 1981 by J-E Nystrom, Helsinki, Finland/CC 3.0

It’s human nature to be complacent. We’re all lazy, right? But aviation isn’t an industry that welcomes complacency, and even the slightest oversight on behalf of a pilot in command can mean the difference between a successful flight and an unsuccessful one.

My flight students get tired of me reminding them about checklists. Before we even get into the airplane, I can often be heard saying: "That preflight checklist is there for a reason." And on downwind, every single time: "Before Landing Checklist." Some people understand the tedious nature of checklists and accept it; others defy it.

Why don’t pilots use checklists? Probably because they don’t expect anything bad to happen when they don’t. After all, they’ve skipped a checklist- er, many checklists - before and nothing bad happened. Maybe they remember all of the items, after all. Or maybe it’s true that 999 out of 1,000 times, a forgotten checklist item still results in a successful flight, which reinforces the pilot’s belief that it isn’t complacency, but skill, that gets him back on the ground safely. Unfortunately, this couldn’t be more wrong.

We’d all like to think that we’d never end up crashing because of a forgotten checklist item. But here are a few examples of average pilots who failed to accomplish checklist items or otherwise got into trouble for a checklist-related item. We’re not any different. We’re not immune. At the very least, it’s embarrassing to end up like one of these pilots; at the worst, fatal. If using a checklist can potentially prevent you from embarrassment or death, shouldn’t we just use it?

Here are four accidents where proper checklist use would probably have prevented the accident entirely:
Gear Down and Locked
As seen on YouTube, the pilot of this Piper Aerostar twin-engine airplane landed without gear at Aero Acres Air Park in Port St. Lucie, Florida. And then, to everyone’s surprise, he took off again. You can see from this video that the airplane is coming in too fast and unstable, and the pilot decides to go around only after touching down. Unfortunately, the pilot not only forgot the gear, but he forgot his go-around procedures. The pilot claims that he intended to go around, retracted the gear and all of the flaps prematurely and sank to the runway. Once airborne, the pilot is said to have flown the aircraft all the way back to his home in Ft. Lauderdale- about 100 miles.

This is only one report of many, many gear-up landing situations. Pilots: Don’t forget your GUMPS checklist!

Flight Controls Free & Correct

Earlier this month, the NTSB released an animation highlighting the crash of a Gulfstream IV in Bedford, Massachusetts last year. The aircraft skidded off the runway after a failed rejected takeoff, killing seven people on board - two pilots, a flight attendant and four passengers. The reason for the crash? Failure to check that the flight controls were free and correct before takeoff, and subsequently failing to expedite a rejected takeoff once they determined the problem.

The NTSB report states: "A review of the flight crew’s previous 175 flights revealed that the pilots had performed complete preflight control checks on only two of them. The flight crew’s habitual noncompliance with checklists was a contributing factor to the accident." Sadly, seven lives were lost because basic checklist procedures were not followed.

Water Contamination
There are several ASRS reports from pilots who have lived through off-airport landings due to engine failure. Many of these emergency situations are due to engine failure from fuel starvation. In many of those cases, water contamination was the culprit. In this ASRS report, a man describes his lackadaisical preflight habits after his Grumman Tiger engine quits due to water in the fuel tanks:

"Although I did not discover the water prior to takeoff, I have learned a valuable lesson. I feel that I had gotten complacent in my approach to the pre-flight in that I never found condensed water in my tanks before due to keeping them full at all times." He admits to failing to sump the fuel carefully to check for water.

Got ATIS?
In the early days of flight training, it might not be apparently obvious why a student’s flight instructor emphasizes the importance of getting a current altimeter setting. If the flight is conducted in VFR, the altimeter can be off by 100 feet and it might not matter much. It’s not until a pilot flies an approach to minimums that he realizes the value of setting the altimeter correctly. Being 100 feet lower than you intend when you’re descending on an approach can mean crashing into the runway or just short of it.

Knowing how an altimeter works and accounting for altimeter error will only keep you out of trouble if you set it correctly. We’ve all heard stories of pilots being to low or too high during an approach into IMC. This compilation of NASA ASRS reports tells how altimeter errors can lead to altitude deviations, traffic separation violations and landing accidents.

The NASA report states, for example, that, "A helicopter accident resulting in four fatalities was attributed at least in part to an incorrectly set altimeter during a period of known low barometric pressure. The report from the Canadian Aviation Safety Board states: ‘The helicopter was being used to transport personnel to work sites across a large frozen lake. An approaching low pressure area with snow and high winds...reduced visibility to near zero in some areas. The pilot most certainly encountered adverse conditions and altered course to circumvent the worst areas. The aircraft was later found...wreckage was widely scattered. The altimeter showed a setting on impact of 30.05; the correct setting would be about 29.22, causing the altimeter to read about 800-850 feet high. The altimeter had obviously been set two days previously [apparently during a time of high barometric pressure-Ed.].’"

Incorrect altimeter settings can be fatal. Checklist procedures should always include getting the current altimeter setting occasionally during flight and always before landing.

Mastering the Go-Around


Every pilot knows that a good landing always begins with a good approach. But how does a pilot know when an approach is unstable? And what happens when the approach is unstable, but the pilot thinks he can salvage it? We all preach that a go-around is the simplest way to prevent a landing accident, but when was the last time you performed a go-around? Are you confident that you’ll respond the right way after a long flight, when you just want to go home, when you’re low on fuel, or when you just botch the landing?

A stable approach is one in which the aircraft is on glide path, on the desired approach airspeed, and configured appropriately for landing at a descent rate that will allow for a normal transition to land. Sounds easy enough, right? So why do so many pilots continue an approach to a landing, even after all of the warning signs of an unstable approach? And why are there still so many loss-of-control accidents during the approach and go-around procedures?

The stable approach is so important that most commercial operators require a go-around in the event of an unstable approach. For most airlines and commercial operations, if the approach is not stabilized by a certain height above the ground (sometimes 1,000 feet and sometimes 500 feet, and sometimes there are requirements for each), the pilot must execute a go-around. Stable approaches are a big deal, and one that the professional aviation world does not want to tangle with. In general aviation, however, we often don’t have these standard operating procedures written out for us by a company. Most of the time, we’re on our own. If we’re IFR, we can and should use the FAA’s guidelines, which state we should "…depart the FAF configured for landing and on the proper approach speed, power setting, and flightpath before descending below the minimum, stabilized approach height; e.g., 1,000 feet above the airport elevation and at a rate of descent no greater than 1,000 feet per minute (fpm), unless specifically briefed." For light aircraft pilots, the FAA basically tells us to maintain a proper glidepath visually. But we should still note that an unstable approach means one that is too high, too fast, or not in a normal position to land (i.e., excessive maneuvering is needed to land) and if any of those conditions exist, we should execute an immediate go-around.

We all want to make the first landing work. We don’t want to go around, maybe because it wastes time, wasted fuel, or just because we have too much pride and want to be able to land in any condition. But perhaps part of the problem is that we just don’t practice go-arounds very often, and not often enough. We don’t get familiar with them. We’d rather sacrifice the aircraft, sometimes even our own life, to get the airplane on the ground rather than waste a few more minutes to try again, or risk a go-around, which seems like a hazardous maneuver to those who have not mastered it.

Going around isn’t always the best option, but most of the time it won’t hurt. And when it’s the better option, you should absolutely be ready to accomplish one.

Commonly a student or a certificated pilot doing a flight review will blow off the go-around as if it’s an easy maneuver not worth practicing. Be careful about this; I’ve found that many pilots will bust a check ride or flight review for bad go-around procedures. To simplify this maneuver, I teach the 5 Cs, which work well for many types of general aviation aircraft (but check your aircraft POH for proper procedures!)

  • C- CRAM:Full/climb power, props forward, carb heat off
  • C- CLIMBSet the Vx or Vy climb pitch attitude and CLIMB! So many of us get distracted during a go-around procedure and we fail to climb! And keep in mind that if you have the aircraft trimmed for a slow-airspeed descent, adding full power will cause the nose to pitch up. Be ready to add forward pressure on the controls to counteract this pitch-up moment and prevent an elevator trim tab stall.
  • C- CLEAN Retract gear and flaps as necessary. In some aircraft, you’ll want to retract the first 30-40 degrees of flaps right away. For many common training aircraft, you’ll wait until you get to a safe altitude and airspeed, after the climb has been established, and retract flaps in increments, stabilizing the aircraft in the climb each time. Many people get excited and want to retract the flaps either all at once or just too early in the game. Cram, climb, and thenclean it up.
  • C- COOLOpen the cowl flaps and lean the mixture, if necessary.
  • C- CALL You’ll probably need to make a radio call, whether it’s to notify other traffic in the pattern at a nontowered field, or to announce your missed approach with the towet or with approach, but radio communication should only come after flying the airplane to a safe altitude at a safe airspeed and navigating to where you need to go.

Often, I witness students or certificated pilots botch not just a landing, but the resulting go-around procedure, as well. Practice this maneuver to proficiency – a bad landing isn’t something worth salvaging, but you’ll need to keep flying the airplane and properly execute the go-around if you want to be successful the second time around.

Paying It Forward: The Importance of Giving Back to Aviation's Next Generation

Remember back in the good ole' days, when you were eating ramen noodles and living out of a crash pad so that you didn't have to move in with your parents after college? Remember when you had nothing but your dreams ahead of you, only to be knocked down once or twice because you couldn't afford to follow through with them? Were you, by chance, one of those starving pilots who handed over your paycheck for a single flight in a 152, or a budding manager who lived out of your car during your first low-paying airport job? Or maybe you just came to your aviation career later in life, after struggling, maybe even giving up once or twice along the way, only to find some other way to make it happen years later?

Maybe your parents helped you along the way, or maybe a stranger, or maybe a supervisor who saw potential in you and gave you that well-deserved promotion. Perhaps you got a scholarship, or maybe you had a good mentor, or friends who made important connections for you along the way.

However you got to where you are, chances are good that you had some help. Whether it came to you financially, through a scholarship or a leg up from your parents, or whether you just worked hard every single day, you probably witnessed the importance of a helping hand as you worked your way to where you are.

Had I not had help along the way, my life would have taken a very different course. Perhaps I wouldn't even be in aviation today. Perhaps I'd have been pushed into a different, higher-paying job just to make ends meet. I'm certain I'd have found my way back into aviation, but it would have been a much longer road. But that didn't happen, thanks to a variety of generous people who helped me along the way. It seems like each time I ran out of money or resources or good fortune, I was offered a helping hand. Whether it was in the form of a place to stay, extra cash, a scholarship, or just words of encouragement, those acts of kindness and pure generosity meant that I could continue on my path to become a pilot.

During the early years of anyone's developing career path, this kind of help is so important. And aviation's next generation can use all the help they can get. Aviation is expensive, right? Flying, for those of us not blessed with unlimited financial resources, can seem so far out of our reach that some people just can't or won't even consider it. And even for those who have the resources, or those of us who have dug down deep and saved enough money, it seems like it's just never enough to get where you want to go.

I remember the feeling I had when, years ago, I got a scholarship letter in the mail. I was so grateful. It was more than just money, although that was important, too. It meant that somebody, somewhere, believed that I had what it takes to become a pilot, and that my hard work spent keeping up my grades and volunteering had paid off. It meant that I, and my family, would struggle less to come up with money for me to fly. And it meant, for at least the following year, I could continue on with my dreams. Months later, I met the generous man who had given me this scholarship, along with a couple of other scholarship recipients, and what he said has stuck with me. He didn't want anything in return, he said. He wasn't going to track our whereabouts or even our grades. He was just going to trust that we'd do the right thing, and that someday, after we've "made it," maybe we could pass on our good fortune to a younger generation. Pay it forward.

If you've "made it" in the aviation world, have you considered giving someone else a leg up? If you're financially sound, have you considered offering a scholarship to a young person who wants to follow their dream to work in aviation? If you succeeded, even in part, due to someone else's mentorship or coaching in the early years, have you made an effort to mentor someone else who may benefit from a friend in the industry? If your success in the aviation world today is due in part to the generosity of someone else, whether in the form of a scholarship, a mentor, a friend who offered you a place to stay or a supervisor who put in a good word for you, have you thought to pay it forward?

Pay it forward. You might just make someone's dream a reality. And the aviation industry will thank you.



Did you know that GlobalAir.com offers a scholarship? Track last year's scholarship recipients here, and stay tuned for more news on the 2015 scholarship winners!

End of content

No more pages to load