by John Krug on August 27, 2010
Last time, we talked about an emergency involving an Air Carrier that was handled in a near textbook manner. Several people asked about what actually happens during and after an Emergency is declared.
The Controller’s Handbook – the 7110.65 – devotes a whole chapter to guidance on Emergencies. It gives the following guidance to ATC personnel in Chapter 10.
“Because of the infinite variety of possible emergency situations, specific procedures cannot be prescribed. However, when you believe an emergency exists or is imminent, select and pursue a course of action which appears to be most appropriate under the circumstances and which most nearly conforms to the instructions in this manual.”
Wow, that says a lot. Basically, it tells the Controller to “Do what you need to do”. The next section of the Handbook, advises the Controller to solicit information from the pilot.
“Obtain enough information to handle the emergency intelligently. Base your decision as to what type of assistance is needed on information and requests received from the pilot because he/she is authorized by 14 CFR Part 91 to determine a course of action.”
So what does that mean? It means that the pilot and controller must exchange enough information for the controller to be able to help. It does not mean that the pilot does his or her best “Right Stuff” impersonation. Remember the opening lines in Tom Wolfe’s classic book? The pilot with the “Right Stuff” would get on the PA and announce to the passengers “We got this little bitty ole warning light” – when in fact, the whole wing was on fire.
The controller cannot help in any positive way if the pilot does not provide all the information needed.
I saw a great example of this while I was doing ATC evaluations. I was in a VFR Tower observing operations. I noticed the Tower controller put a Lear Jet in position with a C310 on final. I thought this was going to be close but it should work. Well, the Lear was slow to start his take off roll. Therefore, the Tower controller issued the C310 a go around. I was surprised to see the C310 was very slow to accelerate and climb on the go around. As the C310 passed the tower, I was shocked to see the right engine feathered and the prop slowly windmilling. I asked the Tower controller if the C310 had declared an emergency. He said, “No, the pilot just mumbled something about ‘single engine”. Well, if the C310 had provided all the information and declared an emergency he would have had the runway to himself and not be put in the position of having to do a single engine go around.
Why would a pilot not declare an emergency and not request all possible assistance? Is it because of the perception that there will be “all that paperwork” or is it fear of the “Feds” finding some infraction of the rules and violating him or her. Or is it just human reluctance to admit there is something wrong or maybe we messed up? As pilots, we tend to be a self-reliant bunch. We are taught, even before our first solo, that we are the Pilot In Command; the ultimate authority of the safe conduct of the flight.
There is a tremendous amount of assistance that ATC can render during an emergency; as soon as a Controller realizes that an emergency exists or may exist, the entire ATC system mobilizes. The first thing a controller will do is notify the Supervisor (or the Front Line Manager, as they are now known). The next steps are specific to the situation but may involve coordination with other facilities or rescue services. The controller may start gathering weather information or soliciting PIREPs to find better weather. Usually, the Supervisor will dedicate one or more controllers to handling the emergency including moving other traffic to the other controller’s frequency.
A great example of the assistance available was the situation in Florida last year. A Private Pilot suddenly found himself flying a King Air after the commercial pilot became incapacitated. The pilot described the situation to ATC and asked for help. The controller working the flight knew a friend who had extensive experience in the aircraft involved. He called his friend’s cell phone and was able to relay enough information to operate the autopilot and flight controls and to achieve a successful outcome. In the meantime, ATC was clearing a path for the King Air to return to the airport, gathering weather, alerting rescue services, etc.
Of course, exactly as the ATP says; there are an infinite number of situations and not all are handled the same. In some situations, there is no amount of help that a person on the ground can provide to a person in the air. In that case, it is up to us, as PIC, to say, “Stand by”.
And what about all that paperwork? Next time we will talk about what happens after the emergency is over.
Emergencies and ATC Part 1
Emergencies and ATC Part 2
by Wally Moran on August 19, 2010
Yes I know, never say never, but here goes anyway. Never push the yoke forward when near the ground. Sorry, but I just heard of yet another aircraft damaged on landing. Most likely caused by the pilot pushing the yoke forward after a bounce. The pilot reports that he bounced and he thinks he pushed the yoke forward. The next touchdown was hard enough to do damage. So now we have a damaged airplane and a damaged ego, both of which could have been prevented by not pushing the yoke forward.
During my aviation career, I have seen scores of events just like the one described above. The result being bent metal and needless expense. This problem often occurs when a pilot is too fast on a short field and tries to push the airplane on to the ground. This results in a series of bounces with each touchdown getting harder until he either runs out of energy or breaks something.
We as pilots need to remember that pushing the yoke forward when near the ground never results in anything good. That is, unless you are in a tail wheel aircraft and you are making a wheel landing. The airplane simply won’t land properly until it is out of energy and trying to force it on the runway can easily result in nose wheel damage. This has to be learned early and remembered often. If it is not taught in the beginning, it will bite a pilot over time.
In most cases the reason the airplane bounces in the first place is that the pilot let the airplane touchdown too fast. So don’t use more speed than necessary and then hold the airplane off. If you do get a bounce, the solution is to level the airplane off by relaxing enough back pressure to stop any climb, allow some airspeed to bleed off and wait for the airplane to settle on its own. This technique takes patience and runway. Of course the ultimate bounce recovery is to go around.
So why do we keep doing this stupid thing that costs all of us money in repairs or insurance premiums? It seems to me that man has an affinity with the ground since we spend so much time there. So I guess it is natural that when something goes wrong with the plane in the air, our reaction is to get it on the ground as fast as possible. We somehow feel that everything will be all right if we can just get on the ground. An old pilot I knew once told me “When man is frightened, he goes to the ground, when a bird is frightened, it goes to the air”. We should be more like the birds. Think about it, have you ever seen a bird with a broken nose wheel?
So if you think you might be a pusher, please get some dual instruction in bounce recovery and short field landing practice. It is an easy and common mistake to make.
by Wally Moran on August 9, 2010
We all know that proper aircraft attitude is important for getting our aircraft to do what we want it to. But it is our mental attitude that plays a major role in the type of pilot that we become. A proper mental attitude can do more for your flying ability than almost any kind of training available. This is true for pilots at all levels of experience. Now I am not talking about the five hazardous attitudes that we have all heard about, they are important for keeping us out of trouble, but I am talking about a mental attitude that will make us a better pilot.
How can you tell if you have a proper mental attitude? Is there an indicator you can look at in the aircraft? Do the instructors have a list of those who have a proper or not so proper attitude? Is proper attitude something like the right stuff, you either have it or you don’t? Sorry, none of the above.
My view of the proper mental attitude is described as the ability to be “self critical”. We as pilots must continuously be in the business of mentally reviewing each of our flights. We need to be self critical of everything we do in or around the aircraft. This applies not only to how we fly the airplane but how we are thinking and planning as well. We should be constantly reviewing our conduct to see if we can recognize areas that may lead us into trouble.
By now you are saying that sounds great, just like motherhood and apple pie, but how does one accomplish it? Well actually it is not very hard; I believe you simply must spend a little time thinking about what went good and what went bad on every flight. The goal of course is perfection. While that may be a high standard to meet, the person who walks away from the airport saying “my flight was not great but it was good enough” is a person who is in trouble. Do not be satisfied with that kind of attitude. One needs to be thinking about “what could have been better”. If you know how to improve an area make sure you give it some thought and attempt to make it better on your next flight. If you cannot fix a problem yourself, talk to an instructor.
Another sign of the proper attitude is the ability to take responsibility for your own flying errors. The most dangerous pilots are those who blame outside factors for their flying problems. You must look deeper than a “gusty crosswind” to find the cause of a bad landing. Maybe the decision to fly today was a bad one, maybe I need more crosswind training, maybe I do not know the limits of my airplane, or maybe I should have landed on a different runway. You can bet the crosswind will be back again someday so an honest analysis today will make a better tomorrow.
When I hear a pilot blame the wind or the tower controller or the mechanic for their flying problems, I become concerned about that pilots attitude. A pilot who will not accept responsibility for his/her errors cannot correct them.
When someone invents a personal attitude checker we can all get a reading and see how we’re doing, in the mean time it is up to each of us to be sure we are checking our personal attitude as carefully as we check the aircraft’s attitude.
by Brian Riis on July 29, 2010
Recently I have had a few run-ins with a cranky GPS receiver in our aircraft and have learned (re-learned) some lessons along the way.
Part of a good pre-flight, especially if IFR operations are part of the plan, is to verify that all of our navigation equipment is operational. Regular VOR checks either using ground points or a dual VOR check is required.
Other navigation systems may be a little more obscure as far as pre-flight checks or may require a few more steps of system investigation to determine if everything is ready for flight.
The Garmin® 1000 system on many installations requires a check of databases, onboard equipment (LRU’s) and individual GPS receivers prior to takeoff. Typically the number one GPS receiver is displayed and the number two receiver is ‘hidden’ so you need to make the effort to find out if it is fully functional.
The GPS receiver system that is on the aircraft I fly most regularly is tied into an FMS display / control head. The FMS system on this aircraft is capable of using any or all of the sensors available to it. GPS, DME, and VOR information is blended together to provide position and navigation information. When one or more of the sensors is not available or fails, a message is generated, but usually position information is not degraded greatly.
So on to the rest of the story…during the pre-flight setup and check of the FMS (second leg of the day), a message warning about the FMS position is generated and I assume that because of our location near the hangar the GPS is not getting enough satellites to generated good position information. The weather is good, the aircraft is ready to go and nothing else seems amiss.
Just after takeoff another message from the FMS indicates that we need to tune a local VOR/DME station. This is the clue that the system is now ‘degraded’ to using VOR and DME in place of the missing GPS sensor information. Because we failed to tune the specific DME frequency or tuned it too late, the FMS decides to drop to Dead Reckoning (DR) mode, which basically provides no useful information on the Multi-Function display (MFD) for the remainder of the flight.
After a bit of scrambling and cross-checking of charts (those paper things that we keep folded up in the flight bag), we return to VOR to VOR navigation (tune-identify-turn) and let ATC know we have lost some of our navigation capability.
One more event tied to this problem happens just prior to landing. The database for the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) is using the location information from the GPS to determine local terrain elevations. On final to our home airport the GPWS starts warning of terrain and continues to complain all the way to landing. Seems the GPWS (via the FMS) thinks we are somewhere else where the terrain is a factor.
Lessons learned…when a blended sensor system complains about position errors find out why (check all the sensors-GPS/VOR/DME/IRS, whatever). During a pre-flight check know how to quickly determine the accuracy and efficacy of the equipment on board. Have your paper chart out and marked with the planned route…sounds simple but in the ‘modern electronic cockpit’ the old-fashioned paper charts are usually buried in the bottom of the flight bag. As an alternative, a good flight log with intersections, VOR frequencies and airway courses will provide much of the needed information.
Our maintenance found a bad antenna connection, that lead to the intermittent failure. I will prepare better the next time by being more suspicious of any sensor error.
by Wally Moran on July 26, 2010
Recently a Cirrus crashed while attempting to execute a go around. In another accident, a Grumman Tiger overshot a four thousand foot runway and crashed into a lumber mill beyond the end of the runway. In both of these situations, the airplane was clearly capable of doing what the pilot wanted it to do but because of poor airmanship an accident resulted.
Such behavior is not restricted to general aviation pilots only; it is also happening at the airlines. For example, the National Transportation safety Board (NTSB) just released the results of an accident at Denver Colorado wherein a Boeing 737 ran off the side of the runway and was destroyed while attempting a crosswind take off. The NTSB concluded the pilot possessed adequate rudder control and could have avoided the accident. Then there is the Buffalo NY accident where the airline captain was criticized, again by the NTSB, for improper stall recovery procedures.
In each of these and many other accident reports that are available on the NTSB web site, it appears to me that we have pilots who have forgotten or perhaps never acquired some basic airmanship skills.
Based upon what I see while doing flight tests and flight reviews, I fear we are putting more emphasis on the gadgets than we are on the basic flying skills. I know pilots who can use every feature of the Garmin 496 but can’t land on the center line. I also know a pilot who’s alleged check out in his new and very complex aircraft never included stalls or short and soft field take offs and landings. But you should see how he can use the autopilot.
Are our instructors becoming so fascinated with technology that they no longer look at basic airmanship skills during flight reviews and aircraft check outs? Are we as pilots taking the easy way out by not practicing the basic skill maneuvers such as slow flight, stalls and precision landings? While it is great and in fact necessary to learn how to operate all the new gadgets we have in our airplanes, they are not a substitute for basic skills like how to recover from a stall, make a short field landing or a perform a go around.
In a recent blog post, Bob Martens challenged us to look to the Practical Test Standards as a way to measure and improve our proficiency. I support that suggestion. But based upon my observation, I don’t think we as pilots or our instructors are achieving the standards spelled out there.
I would like to challenge pilots to try a few maneuvers to test or refresh your basic skills. I suggest you work on these with your friendly CFI until you are comfortable.
To begin with, do you know what your aircraft operating handbook says about the numbers and procedures for short and soft field take offs and landings. When I ask that question on flight reviews, I often get answers that are very vague. Most handbooks have very specific procedures. After reviewing your handbook, go out and practice using those numbers and procedures.
While taxiing, put the nose wheel exactly on the center line. Now keep it there on the take off. Next, make a landing with left main wheel on the center line. Most pilots land on the left of the center line and I bet you have to try a few times to get this right. Is it important to be able to land on the center line? Only when you have a crosswind and a narrow runway.
Another great exercise is to perform slow flight in the full flap configuration. This gets the power up and creates all those left turning tendencies. That will get your right foot in the game as it needs to be on a go around or soft field takeoff. Stay with the maneuver long enough to be sure you have the speed, altitude and heading stabilized.
As a flight review finisher, I often put a towel over the instrument panel and ask the pilot to take me home. You will be surprised how well you do without any instruments to distract you. After doing this successfully, you no longer need to worry about the loss of just one of your instruments.
Then of course try some accuracy landings. While on downwind, pick a safe touchdown spot on the runway and then land on it. The pilot who over ran the four thousand foot runway obviously was not able to do this maneuver.
Sure, learn about and play with your new stack of toys, but remember, it is our basic airmanship skills that get the airplane up and down, so let’s be sure we are practicing the “right stuff”.
