There is truth in the old adage that 99% of flying is routine while the remaining 1% holds the potential for events that cause those who fly to hold themselves above mere ground-bound mortals. My 37 years of military flying might have distorted that ratio a fair bit given the complexity of high-energy fighter aircraft and the uncertainties of combat, but rest assured we all earn our right to be proud of our wings every time we fly.
The requirement that a single-seat fighter pilot be able to handle rapidly evolving emergency situations and complex systems diagnosis sets a high bar for any who join that group. However, the lessons we learned and techniques we developed for making fighter aviation significantly safer than in yesteryear have direct applicability to general aviation.
Prioritization and compartmentalization are two important skills that every pilot should have. These skills amount to the ability to look at a complex problem, quickly determine the most critical elements, and mentally set aside those things that can wait so as to deal with highest priorities first. While this does not sound like rocket science, the art is in the doing!
The technique for dealing with the immediate onslaught of information, such as when that caution tone or caution light presents and different gauges or displays go haywire, provided the title for this piece.
All flight training will, at some point, involve what is called situational emergency procedures training, know to military aviators as SEPT. We do this type of training in a simulated cockpit that has all the dials and switches for our particular aircraft. None of the switches and dials do anything, some are just decals on a wooden dashboard, but the presentation allows the SEPT victim to reach for the appropriate switch or lever, while telling the instructor what and why they are doing so.
One of the most common mistakes new trainees make is that of trying to act too fast, before they have fully and correctly analyzed the situation at hand. Herein lies the titled technique. After blurting out a quick and incorrect answer, the instructor would admonish with: “rather than try to react instantly, maintain aircraft control, analyze the situation, then take appropriate action. The best thing you can do is to reach up and wind the clock. This will give your nervous energy some place to channel itself, while your brain takes in the full situation.”
Winding the clock might seem like an archaic notion, but, amazingly enough, even our most modern aircraft have the same clock we flew with as far back as the 1960s. The Waltham A-13A aircraft clock and timer is a wind-up device that only uses power to light up at night. Unless your emergency involved some type of catastrophic impact to the instrument panel, you could count on at least your clock to be functioning normally. Thus, reaching out and winding it was unlikely to cause any worsening of your evolving emergency and would distract your brain from the need to take some poorly-thought-out action, too quickly.
Now, in most aircraft there are a few emergencies that will require immediate, reactive actions. In fighters, we call these Boldface Emergencies. For each type of fighter, we memorize, to the letter, the few key actions that have to be instinctive, to prevent disaster. For all other emergencies, there is time to reach out and wind the clock while assessing all instruments and lights to fully understand your situation.
For your aircraft, know those Boldface or Critical Action Procedures, but for all other emergencies, take the time to maintain aircraft control, “wind the clock” while you analyze the situation, then take appropriate action.
Mike Hostage is a retired USAF pilot with 37 years of experience, flying a wide variety of aircraft. An instructor pilot for more than half of his 4800 flight hours, Mike is currently qualified in a Cirrus SR-22T and regularly flys his two homebuilt sailplanes.
The FAA defines personal minimums “as an individual pilot’s set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines for deciding whether and under what conditions to operate (or continue operating) in the National Airspace System.” Have you actually given thought as to why we choose the personal minimums we do? From the beginning of initial pilot training, weather minimums were established for day-to-day training and during solo flight. I didn’t realize it at first, but I later learned these limits were not just an insurance mandate, but these minimums were set at the time to safely operate an aircraft based on my “then” current experience.
So here’s the question: what are your personal minimums and WHY do YOU have them? Do you ever lower or raise your minimums? Are your minimums based solely on your overall experience level or do they take into account other variables such as advanced avionics? For pilots that fly multiple aircraft like I do, can and do your minimums change in regard to category or type of aircraft you are flying? It’s a judgment decision on how you chose your minimums. However, it’s important that time is taken before you strap into the cockpit for each flight to critically think about the different risk factors and variables which may affect your decision for the minimums you choose.
To guide us, let’s try briefly apply the FAA’s Personal Minimums Checklist to see how risk factors might shape what personal minimums or decisions we make for the day. Remember, just because you have been flying with a certain set of minimums one day, doesn’t mean you can’t adjust your minimums to a higher value given an ever-changing situation.
The acronym most pilots have heard is PAVE:
Pilot– We all should be familiar with the acronym IMSAFE associated with this. It addresses variables such as Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, and Emotion. But how do you adjust your personal minimums using this guideline? Have you ever thought about raising your minimums for a training flight if you only got 4-6 hours of sleep, instead of 8? Or if you anticipate a hard IFR flight with a long day, maybe taking a safety pilot to mitigate the chance of a mistake if you’re forecasting having to shoot an approach to your weather planning minimums.
Aircraft– Personally, this is a really important factor for me when deciding what minimums to apply. I often spend a large majority of my time asking myself; is this aircraft properly equipped for the flight? This question goes beyond just looking at the logbook for a properly equipped and legal aircraft. A professional pilot should think further. Am I flying a traditional 6-pack “steam gauge” layout, non-slaved compass card, with a separate OBS gauge for course guidance? What if the aircraft doesn’t have an auto-pilot? What if I’m flying an aircraft equipped with a dual auto-pilot, dual GPS with an integrated glass cockpit? I can comfortably say my personal minimums change depending on the equipment I have available.
A pilot should also look at his/her recency with the aircraft. For example, if you are qualified to fly both airplanes and helicopters, maybe you should choose to have higher personal minimums in one particular airframe or if you haven’t flown that airframe within 30, 60 or 90 days. This is a very important factor for the owner/pilot.
EnVironment– Most of the time, when we think of environment, we ask ourselves, is the weather legal for me to take off and, more importantly, can I conduct this flight safely? Basic flight planning should have taught us to take into consideration crosswind limits, day versus night, and the type of airspace the flight is conducted in. Thought should also be given to how you set your personal minimums in regards to the particular type of environment you might rarely encounter. Flying an approach to your minimums in the flat plains of Texas during the day is one thing, but how would you adjust your weather minimums flying to a new airport, at night, with no moon illumination, in the mountains of Colorado? Could you reduce the risk and adjust your minimums in this scenario with two pilots?
External Pressures – What external pressures are affecting your flight? Passengers, the owner, “get-there-it is”, the desire to impress someone? Although external pressures should never be a factor when conducting a flight, they almost always play a role in your decision whether to conduct the flight or not. For example, a professional pilot gets hired to do a flight and the weather is below their personal minimums. The pilot could be tempted to lower their minimums by 100 feet to take the flight for a paying customer. This scenario plays out every day across the country whether it’s a professional pilot or owner/pilot. It would be foolish not to consider this type of pressure. Always make sure you have a plan if and when you encounter this situation. Planning your flight and having a plan to deal with these potential scenarios ahead of time ensures you stick to your minimums. It can be as simple as telling your passengers, or the owner, well ahead of your flight what your personal minimums are to accept the flight, and to ensure they, or you, have a back-up plan!
Most pilots will never break a hard limitation such as an airframe cross wind limitation, or engine limit, but the chances of breaking a personal minimum are realistic. Think about the last time you went on a diet and broke your plan because you were tempted by your friends or family during an outing. Self-imposed personal minimums can be hard to enforce and we need to acknowledge this as humans. Here are a few techniques that you can use to assist in making a decision using personal minimums and help reduce the influence of external pressures.
Step 1: Sit down with your CFI/CFII and fill out a personal minimums worksheet. Filling one out by yourself is a good start but having an outside objective view will help in making sure your personal minimums are realistic. Remember, it is easy to convince ourselves that we can do something even though we have set personal minimums. Talk with other pilots to see if you have set realistic expectations.
Step 2: Preflight planning must start a few days in advanced. It can be as easy as checking what the forecast might be and looking at the projected route, near-by alternate airports, and various approaches. This can be done quickly and will give you a heads up on whether the flight can be safely conducted or not. By alerting the passengers or owner early enough, alternate plans can be developed. An extra pilot can be added, the passengers can fly commercial, bring along a CFI, or cancel the trip altogether and seek alternate transportation. The main point is the decision was made well ahead of the flight when conditions didn’t look favorable. This helps in removing external pressures and ensures you don’t go below your personal minimums.
Step 3: Never be afraid to ask for a second opinion. Part 135 operators have set procedures for conducting flights which assist the pilots in making decisions. These set procedures help remove external pressures by allowing the pilot to say, “The rules don’t allow for this, or this is how we will conduct the flight!” However, under Part 91, the pilot has to take ownership for all phases of the flight. This is where talking it out with another pilot helps with mitigating external factors and the environment. Ideally, this person should have more experience and be able to talk through the situation. For instance, if I’m flying to a new destination, I often seek the advice from another pilot who’s familiar with the area. They may have key insights into weather patterns, preferred approaches, or hazards to avoid. In certain situations, asking for another pilot’s opinion might be what influences your go/no-go decision! You’ll be amazed how much you can learn just from talking to other pilots.
Step 4: Continue to build your experience and knowledge base. Building experience requires us to push our abilities, and sometimes this may be to the limit. However, this can be done in a controlled training environment or just going out and experiencing it. Get a new license, fly regularly with a CFI/CFII, and always try and take advantage of training opportunities. For example on your next flight from point A to point B, practice hand flying an approach, do a short field landing, a quick steep turn, etc. Quality flight time is always better than quantity. Continue to challenge yourself and try not to become complacent.
Personal minimums are a tool to assist in every pilot’s aeronautical decision making process. Use your personal minimums to guide your final go/no-go decision and remember to stick to the plan. I encourage you to review the FAA’s Risk Management Handbook (FAA-H-8083-2). Appendix B has Sample Risk Management Scenarios and reviewing them will give a better understanding how to apply the techniques discussed to your everyday flying.
Pedro Vargas-Lebron is a King Air 200 and uH-60 Blackhawk Instructor pilot with the Texas Army National Guard. Pedro is a CFI/CFII/MEI both in airplanes and helicopters with over 4000 hours of flight time, half as an instructor pilot.
Satellite communications company Iridium now has a really nifty little product called the Iridium Zoleo Satellite Communicator. Most pilots who fly newer Cirrus Aircraft will be familiar with the company name Iridium. Iridium manufactures the built in satellite phone that is an option in all Cirrus after 2012. The Iridium Zoleo brings messaging capability to any airplane in a cost effective and simple manner.
The Iridium Zoleo is a device roughly the size of a walkie-talkie. It links up with the Iridium satellite network to send and receive messages and emails anywhere in the world (or air!). To make things easier, the Iridium Zoleo links with a phone via Bluetooth to a free app that allows the user to write a message directly from the phone and send through the device.
The Iridium Zoleo is affordable at only $200. A plan has to be purchased in order to send messages, with 3 different levels of subscription offered: 25 messages a month for $20, 250 messages a month for $35, or unlimited messages per month for $50. Each plan offers a $6 upgrade to allow unlimited worldwide breadcrumbs and tracking.
The Iridium Zoleo has a 200 hour battery life and is designed to be shock, dust, and water resistant. Plus, the device has a built in SOS that can be used anywhere in the world. So, you can take it rafting down the Grand Canyon, hiking in the Andes, flying over the Atlantic, or SOS if you are stranded in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
I got a call today from a friend asking me about oxygen requirements. That got my brain pondering about the different items the FAA would like all pilots to know. I did a little refreshing and found several other tidbits directly from the FAA that I thought worth sharing. No matter what you’re flying, I think these apply to all of us.
First off, what are our general oxygen requirements? If you jump on over to the FAR’s and take a look at 91.211 you’ll see:
1. At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500ft MSL to 14,000ft MSL, pilots
required to use oxygen unless the segment is less than 30 minutes of flight.
2. At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000ft MSL, the crew is required to use
oxygen.
3. At cabin pressure altitudes above 15,000ft MSL, each occupant must be provided the use of oxygen. This doesn’t necessarily mean they have to use it.
Things get a little more in depth when you get to pressurized aircraft.
These requirements are also listed in 91.211:
1. If you’re flying above Flight Level 250, a 10 minute supply of oxygen is
required for each person onboard.
2. If you’re flying above Flight Level 350-410, and one pilot leaves their seat, the other pilot will be required to wear an oxygen mask, unless both seats are equipped with quick-donning oxygen masks.
There are three basic components to any oxygen system in an aircraft: the storage system, the delivery system, and the mask or cannula. First, there are several types of storage systems.
Gaseous aviators breathing oxygen is the first. This is the standard green tank that everyone is familiar with. There are two types of tanks. Either the high- pressure with 1800-2200 psi or the low pressure tank with 400-450 psi. The major issue with these and General Aviation aircraft is weight. Some of these tanks can get bulky and heavy and therefore don’t work for everyone.
Liquid aviators breathing oxygen or LOX is another form of storage. The major advantage of LOX is that it has a 900 to 1 expansion ratio, meaning that 1 liter of liquid oxygen can be expanded into 900 gaseous liters of Aviators Breathing Oxygen. The disadvantages of LOX are they are extremely volatile and have to be stored at -197F. If it comes in contact with exposed skin, severe frost bite can occur.
Sodium chlorate candles or oxygen generators have a weight advantage like LOX. They’re essentially a canister that when activated mix sodium chloride and iron powder and produce oxygen. They general have a 600 to 1 expansion ratio, which goes back to the weight savings. However, once these are started they are very hard to stop. Another disadvantage is these devices produce a fair amount of heat, so proper precautions need to be taken.
Next are the delivery systems. The main systems are Continuous Flow, Diluter Demand, and Pressure Demand. Continuous Flow, is exactly as it sounds. The oxygen is allowed to flow continuously from the tank to the user. The benefits of continuous flow are you don’t need a complicated mask or regulator. The downside to this system is since it continuously pumps oxygen, you’re wasting oxygen when you exhale. Most of continuous flow systems are used on aircraft that generally fly below 28,000 feet.
Diluter Demand was designed to fix the negative of the Continuous Flow systems. Diluter Demand only sends oxygen to the user when the user inhales. The system also allows cabin air to be introduced in, sending the perfect mixture of oxygen to the user when needed. These systems are very efficient and generally tend to be used up to 40,000 feet.
Pressure Demand is designed to essentially “over inflate” the users lungs. This will basically pressurize the the users lugs and allow the user to fly above 40,000 feet. This is needed at flights above FL400 because 100% oxygen without positive pressure will not suffice.
The final portion of the oxygen system is the mask or cannula. Nasal cannulas generally are more comfortable and are regulated to 18,000 feet service altitude. Masks come in a couple different variants. From re-breathers to quick-donning, most masks accomplish the same task with a few small differences. Quick-donning must be able to be put on within five seconds and are rated up to FL400.
Since that was a lot of information, what does all of it mean to you? Most fair weather flyers will never run into any of this. However, the high performance owner/operator will run into oxygen use situations a fair amount. Taking the family up to Colorado on a ski trip, jumping up to 12,500 feet to get above some weather, or flying above 5,000 feet at night on a long xc are all situations where you may want to have oxygen on board.
If you are planning on doing any of this type of flying or are currently doing these types of flights, training is a must. If you’ve never been in an altitude chamber, I would highly recommend it. In college, I went with a group to Oklahoma City to the FAA’s headquarters where they hold a class on Hypoxia and High Altitude flying. It’s very informative to be in the chamber as it simulates being oxygen deprived. You get to see how you’ll react and what kind of symptoms you’ll have when in a loss of oxygen situation. Each person has different symptoms, so it’s important to see how you will react.
It’s also good to fly with an experienced instructor. Finding an instructor who will allow you to learn in a safe environment is worth its weight in gold.
Ryne Bergren is currently a First Officer with Mesa Airlines in the CRJ 900. Ryne has experience in many different areas of aviation, from corporate to airlines to teaching to ferrying across the Atlantic Ocean. His passion is for all things that travel across the big blue sky.
An 8 seat, cabin class, single engine turboprop is set to come to market in 2018 from the new aviation conglomerate Textron Aviation (Textron owns Cessna, Hawker, and Beechcraft). Details were announced last week at the European Business Aviation Conference and Exhibition. The as yet unnamed aircraft will be equipped with Garmin’s G3000 avionics and will be outfitted with a GE 1,240 Shaft Horsepower engine.
The GE engine will be equipped with a FADEC (Fully Automated Digital Engine Control) computer that will allow the pilot to make all necessary power adjustments using just one lever.
Range will be about 1,600 miles at 285 knots, giving the airplane the same legs as a PC12 at slightly faster speeds, but a smaller cabin. The cabin will be equipped with a belted lav if desired.
This is a re-post from Assured Partners Aerospace’s 2nd quarter Newsletter. The full newsletter can be found on Assured Partners website.
Until the war in Ukraine, the aviation insurance market could be described as “stabilizing” after a couple years of volatility with higher premiums and tighter underwriting. However, and hopefully perhaps only for the short-term, the Ukrainian war immediately brought uncertainty back into the worldwide aviation insurance market.
According to Business Insurance, “the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents the biggest potential loss to the aviation war market since 9/11.” One leasing firm alone has reportedly already filed a claim of approximately $3.5B for aircraft and engines they say have effectively been seized by Russia. And, because the aviation insurance arena is so small, what happens around the world at this magnitude can have cascading, detrimental effects on the US aviation insurance market.
In addition, the well-publicized spike in fuel prices could have another cooling effect on aviation operations. Generally, less air activity combined with higher operating costs equates to more frequent requests for reduced coverage, taking premium dollars away from an already-small market.
Aviation insurance buyers should therefore remain on the alert throughout 2022 for potentially quick changes to the aviation insurance marketplace that might affect either their current insurance program or their next renewal.
Cirrus CAPS pull #55 took place at the beginning of November over Fayatteville, AR. From initial reports, it appears a clamp broke on the oil cooler, causing a loss of oil pressure. It does not appear that the engine immediately quit, but an annunciator alerted the pilot that the engine was losing oil pressure. At this point, it appears the pilot elected to do an emergency descent to an airport below him, but ended up not timing it right, missing the airport and pulling the parachute.
As an experienced Cirrus flight instructor, there appears to be some suspect decision making in handling this operation. I teach in a Cirrus that if an oil light comes on, given that a pilot has some altitude to work with, it is a better option to physically shut the engine down, leaving control of the situation in the pilot’s hands. This way, the pilot knows when the engine is stopping and is prepared for it, instead of the engine acting erratically and causing problems on the descent.
After checking the engine gauges and shutting the engine down, a pilot should establish best glide first, not nose down and descend at a high rate trying to make an airport. Best glide gives the pilot many more options and a lot more altitude to work with, further allowing him/her to plan how to make an airport directly underneath the airplane.
To pontificate, it seems that if the pilot had adjusted the plane to best glide, instead of performing an emergency descent, there is the possibility that Drake Field would have been reachable, the chute would not have been needed, and the driver of the truck would not have had to visit the hospital. Hindsight is 20-20, but this may be an overall training and decision making issue that may need further emphasis.
The initial NTSB report as well as a link to the CBS story is below.
NTSB Identification: CEN16LA026
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, November 03, 2015 in Fayetteville, AR
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22T, registration: N857SW
Injuries: 3 Minor, 1 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On November 3, 2015, at 0950 central standard time, a Cirrus SR22T airplane, N857SW, descended under the canopy of the cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and landed on a road in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The pilot, pilot rated passenger and one person on the ground received minor injuries. One passenger in the back right seat was uninjured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to WG Aviation LLC, Rogers, Arkansas, and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed. The flight departed from the Bentonville Municipal Airport (VBT), Bentonville, Arkansas, at 0934 and was en route to the Waco Regional Airport (ACT), Waco, Texas.
According to the pilot, after departure from ACT he leveled off around 10,000 ft mean sea level (MSL) and was in “VFR on top” conditions. The pilot noticed that the crew alerting system (CAS) flashed a yellow caution light for oil pressure; the engine was still producing power. The pilot notified air traffic control (ATC) of the issue and received vectors to the nearest airport, Drake Field Airport (FYV), Fayetteville, Arkansas. The pilot descended and maneuvered toward FYV as the CAS indicated a red warning light for oil pressure, which had dropped below 10 psi. The engine was producing inconsistent power as the airplane descended to 3,300 ft and FYV was still not in sight due to cloud coverage. The pilot was unable to maintain altitude and the airplane’s stall warning horned sounded. The pilot deployed the Cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and descended to the ground. During the landing the airplane collided with a truck and then came to rest on a four lane road.
At 0953, the weather observation at FYV reported wind from 190 at 9 knots, gusting to 17 knots, 10 miles visibility, clear sky, temperature 61° F, dew point 57° F, and altimeter setting 30.11 inches of mercury.
An initial postaccident examination was conducted on November 4, 2015, in Fayetteville. Engine oil was observed on the underside of the fuselage. The oil cooler cross fitting was broken and oil was observed in the engine compartment.
The airplane’s recoverable data module and three data cards were removed and sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory for download.
The airplane has been retained for further examination.
