Jet A Fueling Mismanagement

Unusual Attitude Recoveries

ByHank Gibson April 10, 2018April 24, 2018

For a VFR or an IFR pilot, an unusual attitude can be one of the most dangerous situations to get into.  That is one reason so many new autopilots are being developed with a level button.  The concept behind the level button is if the pilot gets into a disorienting situation, press the level button and the autopilot comes on, holding the airplane in a straight and level pitch attitude.

What about all those planes without autopilots that have a level button?  That’s who this article is for.

First off, what is an unusual attitude?  The Airplane Flying Handbook on page 4-17 gives the following definition:  “An unusual attitude is commonly referenced as an unintended or unexpected attitude in instrument flight.”  The AFH also goes on to say that an unusual attitude in training has no defined bank and pitch parameters, but “for training purposes an instructor could place the airplane in a 30 degree bank with a nose up pitch attitude of 15 degrees and ask the student to recover and that would be considered an unusual attitude….”

We now have a basis from the FAA.  VFR Pilots are now saying, “Oh, instrument flight, that doesn’t apply to us.”  Not so fast.  The Private Pilot ACS (and before it, the PTS) has a requirement for Basic Attitude Instrument Flying, including unusual attitude recoveries.  Why?  Because VFR pilots still inadvertently fly into IMC conditions and can get into an unusual attitude.  Plus, a private, non-instrument rated pilot has a higher chance of not recovering from an unusual attitude since he isn’t used to relying on his instruments.

At each training event I do, whether it be private pilot training, a flight review, IFR training, transition training, or pretty much any kind of recurrent training, I like to do unusual attitude recoveries with my customers.  It’s one of those things that the recovery procedure wanes over time since it isn’t routinely practiced solo (for good reason!).

I see people have the most trouble with the nose high unusual attitude recoveries.  Let’s start with the recovery procedure, then I’ll discuss the common errors (notice that the nose high unusual attitude recovery procedure mirrors a stall recovery).  Remember, this is in IFR conditions:

• Breathe
• Pitch Down to a level pitch attitude on the Attitude Indicator (or lower if the stall warning horn continues to go off)
• Simultaneously add full power
• Roll wings level
• Flaps up and recover to a level pitch attitude if not there already

The order is important, especially the breathing part.  What happens if a pilot goes straight into a recovery and doesn’t pause for a second or two to absorb what’s going on is the recovery isn’t executed properly.

Our brains see the wings banked and set off all kinds of alarms to roll the wings level first before doing anything else.  Adding any kind of aileron input with the nose close to the critical angle of attack is a bad idea.  You are adding adverse yaw (since you probably won’t be coordinated) and load factor which increases the stall speed.  Then we all know that Stall + Yaw = Spin.  That’s something that is best avoided in IMC.

We have to teach our brains to ignore the bank angle until the pitch and power come in.  Once the airplane is far away from the critical angle of attack, then the bank can be rolled to neutral.

Let’s look at the nose low unusual attitude recovery.  The order is still important on this one too:

• Breathe
• Power Reduce (to idle if necessary)
• Roll Wings Level
• Pitch up to a level pitch attitude
• Add Power back to cruise

The theory with the nose low unusual attitude is your speed is accelerating.  By reducing the power first, that helps reduce the load factor experienced when the pitch is increased.  Same with rolling the wings level.  Neutral bank is a lower load factor than some kind of a bank angle.  We are trying to prevent overspeeding the airplane.  The lower the load factor, the less of a chance we have to rip the wings off.

The most important step in either recovery procedure is to breathe first, allowing the brain to process exactly what is happening.  That way, the proper recovery can be executed.

New Houston Airspace Procedures

ByHank Gibson May 29, 2014

If you are based in Houston, or heading into or out of the Houston airspace under IFR, have you updated your charts?  If not, you may hear a clearance stating: “N67889, cleared to Amarillo via the BORRN 1 Departure, CRGER Transition, Direct.  Climb via the departure, expect 8000 in 10 minutes.  Departure frequency 123.8, Squawk 3365.”  You manage to get the clearance written down, but have completely messed up the spelling of both BORRN and CRGER, so you have no idea where the intersections are.  After stumbling through a readback, you ask ground to spell the fixes for you.

Then, more bad news.  You haven’t updated your GPS cards yet, so the departure isn’t in your 430.  It’s an RNAV only departure, so you can’t fly it based on the NAV Radio.  You were planning on updating your iPad when you got to Amarillo, so you don’t have the departure on there, either.

This has probably already happened to a few people today already.

Houston airspace got a major overhaul today.  There are 20 new DPs and 29 new STARs guiding IFR traffic into and out of Houston airspace (including one named the DOOBI 1 Arrival, named after the Dooby Brothers band).

The FAA’s goal in all these changes, according to AOPA, is to “bring fuel efficiencies, time efficiencies, and reduce carbon emissions” (from Benet J. Wilson’s May 15th article on AOPA.com).  The FAA issued a NOTAM today valid until June 6th describing what routes for pilots to file.  The NOTAM also contains contingency plans for pilots flying without updated charts (like our example above).

Pilots should expect these wide scale procedure additions and changes to start showing up in other Class B airspace across the country.  As always, make sure those charts are updated, GPS databases are current, and you do some studying of your route before you file your flight plan.

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.

Scud Running

ByHank Gibson June 2, 2015

I was speaking with a pilot a few months back who was not instrument rated.  He was telling me of his flying experience while continually speaking fondly of scud running.  He told me several stories, most of the time with a smile on his face, about scud running to his destination while staying clear of clouds.  While he was talking, my mind was cycling through the numerous accident reports I’ve seen where a scud running VFR pilot has crashed into terrain or an obstacle.  Needless to say, scud running is not a very good idea.

This pilot’s stories got me to thinking, how common is the practice of scud running amongst VFR only pilots?  As an instructor, I always teach my private students about personal minimums and making that no-go decision when clouds are below those personal minimums.  The act of scud running falls under several of those dangerous pilot mindsets, get-there-itis, invincibility, and macho-ism, to name a few.

To bring everyone on the same page, let’s define scud running.  Wikipedia has a very good definition:

Scud running is a practice in which pilots lower their altitude to avoid clouds or instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The goal of scud running is to stay clear of weather to continue flying with visual, rather than instrument, references. This practice is widely accepted to be dangerous, and has led to death in many cases from pilots flying into radio towers and high tension wires; however, even instrument-rated pilots sometimes elect to take the risk to avoid icing or embedded thunderstorms in cloud, or in situations where the minimum instrument altitudes are too high for their aircraft.

To put some numbers with that definition, a scud running VFR pilot would takeoff with a 1200-1500 foot ceiling and stay 700-1000 feet above the ground, right in the area where towers, hills, and rapidly rising terrain reside.

How do we change this mindset?  Well, if someone has been scud running for years without incident, the practice becomes normal, like the pilot I mentioned above.  The mindset of invincibility sets in and the practice continues.  This particular pilot can also lead other pilots to adopt the same practice, encouraging them that nothing will happen to them, since we all know that our pilot peers know better than our flight instructors (insert heavy sarcasm here).

In order to change this mindset, instructors need to emphasize personal minimums from day one.  This includes ceilings, visibility, and winds.  For a seasoned pilot, a review of accident statistics might help the process.

Scud running is not a safe practice.  If you’re a scud runner, you need to rethink your attitude.  Is getting there really worth it?

Still not convinced?  Read this pilot’s experience from AOPA.