Dry Motoring a PT6

The Aunt Betty Directive: PFD Failures

ByCharles McDougal April 8, 2015April 15, 2015

Glass panel displays, ballistic parachute aircraft recovery systems, portable tablet computers enabling paperless cockpits, and widely available three axis autopilot systems have changed the way we fly, the way we train, and the way we are expected to perform on check rides. Our training and testing paradigms have tried to stay in synch, yet always seem to be catching up to the latest levels of technology.

This is very apparent when we instructors are preparing a student for an FAA practical test. When training aircraft had no autopilots, no GPS, and certainly no parachutes, the general philosophy was that during training, the student should have the lowest level of technology available. This was also the expectation on the check ride. This theory has changed over the years and now the Practical Test Standards require that an applicant integrate all available technology while demonstrating mastery of his or her aircraft. This raises numerous questions from instructors and students about what technology will be available for each task.

One example of this dilemma is found when contemplating an instrument airplane practical test in a Cirrus SR20/SR22. The test requires the task “Instrument Approach without Primary Flight Display”, which has taken the place of what was the partial panel approach, accomplished without use of gyroscopic heading and attitude indicators. In the Cirrus, the standby attitude indicator, standby airspeed, and standby altimeter are available, as is the Multi-Function Display. Guidance from the FAA has us shooting a GPS approach using the moving map display on the MFD after disabling the PFD. Those of us who trained and tested in steam gauge aircraft think that this task should be fairly easy. With a fully functional Attitude Indicator and a nice big moving map display showing our course, a reasonably competent instrument pilot should have little trouble adapting to this setup and flying a good approach.

But, in the Cirrus specifically, and perhaps in other aircraft as well, another question comes up. Can the applicant use the autopilot (which still works just fine after a display failure) during the approach without the PFD? A rather famous DPE who writes for a national magazine says “yes”, opining that not to allow its use would be introducing simultaneous multiple systems failures, which is strictly forbidden in the minds of some. If we follow this logic, we would not test simulated engine failure emergencies in these aircraft either, because to do so would imply failure of not only the engine, but the CAPS parachute system as well. In my former role as a pilot examiner, I always said no, that the approach should be hand flown. Here is my logic.

I was amazed that flight instructors and examiners would accept the substitution of autopilot technology for the skill required to fly an approach without the PFD. I would argue that the intent and the well described emphasis of the PTS is that the applicant must demonstrate the ability to control the airplane after a loss of the primary flight display, not observe and monitor the autopilot controlling the airplane! This argument was generally unpersuasive, so I approached from a different point of view, that of a concerned family member.

“Aunt Betty” represents a future passenger flying with the soon to be rated instrument pilot. Here is the question posed to Aunt Betty: “When we train and test pilots for instrument proficiency, we require them to demonstrate the ability to safely and skillfully fly the airplane without their primary instruments. Now, Betty, in this airplane, we can test this task in one of two ways. We would like your input on which way you would prefer, seeing as you will be a frequent passenger with your nephew. We can either have the pilot (might be your son, brother, husband, or nephew) demonstrate that he can fly the airplane by hand without the PFD, which does require a little more skill and a slightly different technique, or, we can require the pilot to perform this task using the autopilot so that the pilot basically monitors the airplane flying itself on the approach.

“Now, Aunt Betty, a pilot allowed to use the autopilot system on this approach may not have the skill or technique to fly the approach by hand in the clouds should the autopilot shut down due to turbulence or mechanical failure. Should this happen to a pilot without the skill and practice normally required, the odds of a fatal accident occurring would be quite high.

“So what do you think, Aunt Betty? Would you feel more comfortable flying with this fellow if he has demonstrated mastery of the aircraft (sans PFD) without the autopilot or only with its assistance?”

This leads us to a larger discussion about the use of other technology, iPad, GPS moving map, and more. If technology is used as a replacement for pilot proficiency during training and testing, we end up with less skillful, less competent and ultimately less safe pilots. But, if we require that our students demonstrate mastery with the lowest available level of automation and technology (which, by the way, implies excellent fundamental aircraft control skills) then, when technology is added into the equation, we have a safer pilot.

Technology can be a value added safety multiplier, or it can be a crutch needed to make up for lack of fundamental and advanced skills. Crutch or Safety Multiplier, which one will you choose? I know which one Aunt Betty prefers.

Charles McDougal is a flight instructor, corporate pilot, and former DPE ‎who offers basic and advanced flight instruction in the San Antonio area.  To find out more information about Charles or to contact him, visit his website, www.flighttrainingcoalition.com.

Oh, Deer (Part 3)

ByAndrew Robinson March 21, 2017April 13, 2017

Read Part 1 & Part 2

Throughout the whole event, I learned quite a few things both about flying and about myself. Here are some of the lessons which I have taken away from the accident:

1. No flight is routine: When I took off that morning I was about as relaxed as I could have been while going to fly. I was flying an airplane that I knew well, in beautiful weather, to familiar airports and even carrying passengers which I had taken on this exact trip more than a dozen times. The accident brought into startling clarity that anything can happen at any time. I had done everything right that morning (preflight, weather briefing, planning, etc) , and none of that did anything to stop the deer from jumping out onto the runway. All we can do is ensure the items we do have control over are covered and try to be prepared to deal with anything else that arises. This ties directly into my next point:
2. Making sure everything is correct: When you do go fly, make sure that you have all your paperwork and personal details taken care of. I can think of a few times over the course of my flying career where something wasn’t quite right with the paperwork, or perhaps I had forgotten my wallet and I was tempted to go fly anyway. “It’s 8pm on Sunday, I’m not going to get ramp checked.” Well, I can assure you that the paperwork and questionnaires which were required to be submitted to the FAA, NTSB, and Insurance companies would have uncovered any discrepancies in my logbooks, currency, or legality. It isn’t worth the risk of flying without having everything in place just in case something happens. It isn’t just a random ramp check which can get a pilot into trouble.
3. Ask for help: The story of my collision with a deer would have had a very different outcome if it weren’t for the help that I received from countless the people on the ground. If you’re ever in a situation where you could use a hand, don’t be afraid to ask for help. If I had simply turned around and landed back at Wings, I wouldn’t even have had any idea that my landing gear was missing! The people in the control tower, the maintenance guys, the approach controllers in Philly, the emergency responders, and many more people all played their part in orchestrating a successful outcome.

   

4. Dealing with the Paperwork: I have had dealings with the FAA before, but never for an accident. I was afraid that the investigation would be a witch hunt and I would have to defend myself while someone poured over all my planning and paperwork looking for potential errors. But, my fears were totally unfounded. Although I did have to answer many phone calls, write many reports, and fill out much paperwork, the FAA, NTSB, and Insurance companies were very patient in waiting for my responses and even complimentary in how the situation played out. I really enjoyed working with all of them and appreciated their encouragement and help.
5. Emotional Response: After the dust had settled and the smoke had cleared, I was left standing on the side of the runway with the passengers and my boss. I offered to fly them back to Philadelphia or continue to Pittsburgh and assured our Chief Pilot that I was feeling fine and ready to fly again. Fortunately, there wasn’t a need. Over the next week or two, I noticed a change in myself. I wasn’t fine. I have never had headaches, but shortly after I landed I developed a headache that didn’t go away for days. I had trouble focusing on anything and I had trouble finding motivation to do much but sit and stare at a wall. I wasn’t sharp and I caught myself making silly mistakes in my normally routine activities. I wasn’t depressed, or sad, it was just an unwanted mental and physiological response to the stress and shock of what happened that morning in the Baron. I didn’t feel like myself for quite some time and I even found myself a little on edge whenever I lined up for takeoff on subsequent charters for while afterward. Eventually I started to feel normal again, but it was a slow process.
6. Feather the Props: I can’t tell you what a difference it makes when those props go from wind milling to feathered. It became clear to me that feathering a prop could make a huge difference in deciding the outcome of an emergency situation.
7. Good training and checklists usage: This one is pretty straight forward, but it’s worth mentioning. Good training and proficiency make all the difference when the odds are against you. Make sure that you use all your resources when your back is against the wall, and that includes the checklists. Under the stress of the flight I had forgotten to close the cowl flaps and would likely have landed with them open without the aid of the Emergency Procedures Checklist. This would have resulted in unnecessary damage to the airframe.
8. No need to rush: There is no denying that I had things stacked in my favor that day. I had nice weather, extra gas, daylight hours, and even the luxury of landing at my home airport. But, regardless of all those variables, there is no need to rush into anything. Ask questions, find answers and come up with a plan. Obviously not all emergencies present the pilot with the luxury of time, but use all time and resources you have to your advantage.
9. Polish up those procedures: The deer accident really made me want to go out and brush up on all the emergency procedures which I hadn’t performed since my last checkride. The realization that I could need any of them at any time was really hit home after I hit that deer. Additionally, make sure you know who to call if something ever does happen.
10. Know the systems: Familiarity with the systems on the airplane makes it easier to troubleshoot and solve issues on the fly and makes it easier to spot a problem in the first place. Knowing how systems work and what their normal indications should be helps make decisions regarding when to divert and where to land easier.

The irony isn’t lost on me that the last article that I wrote for this newsletter dealt with how to avoid making gear up landings and the high cost required to repair one. I never would have imagined when I wrote that article last fall that I would be writing one only a few months later detailing my own gear up landing.

The bottom line is that there is nothing a person can do to prepare for every situation which might arise throughout the course of a flight, and it’s also impossible to know which emergency you may have to deal with if a situation arises. All we can do is stack odds in our favor by making sure that we address the things within our control such as aircraft maintenance, careful flight planning, checking weather, and having personal minimums set in place to keep us from flying outside of our skill sets and comfort zones.

Additionally, ensuring that you are knowledgeable and proficient in your aircraft’s procedures will give you the best chance for success. When things start going wrong, keep calm, and ask for help. Work the problem instead of guessing or rushing into a less than desirable solution. No one wants to be caught in an emergency like a deer in a landing light!

Andrew Robinson is an airline pilot for Piedmont Airlines.  He is a former 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania.  He instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.