Pilot
Safety News
A Safety Journal for General Aviation
January, 2007
by Max Trescott,
Master CFI & FAA Aviation Safety Counselor
www.sjflight.com
(650)-224-7124
Index
to Pilot Safety News
Subscribe or Unsubscribe
Welcome!
I hope you enjoyed the holidays! There's remarkable flying weather around the
country right now. Whether its global warming or not--take the opportunity to go
out and practice some safe flying.
Our first story is about a Cirrus crash at a ski resort in California two years ago in which the aircraft iced up soon after takeoff. Always, we're told not to speculate immediately after a crash as to the cause. In this case, the final report has at least one surprise. The real question is would you have taken off under the same circumstances, or continue the flight after you encountered icing?
Like the weather, Aeronautical Decision Making is something we talk a lot about, but there are relatively few models that give insight as to how to improve it. The Aviator's Model Code of Conduct is once such approach that we spotlight in this issue. Take a look at it and you might find a few new principles you can incorporate into your flying practices and decision making.
In Buddy Can you Spare a Dime, we present many worthwhile charitable groups that would be happy to have you volunteer your flying skills on their behalf. If you're looking to add a new dimension to your flying, why not plan some flights this year that help others who are less fortunate? We were inspired to include this article after getting a great Christmas gift that let us choose a school at www.donorschoose.org to which to donate money for a project. Consider giving this gift to that hard to buy for person.
Last month, we shared an interesting incident I witnessed at a local airport where a pilot told to "hold short" took off instead! We asked how you would have handled the incident, and you gave us your feedback. Would it surprise you that none of you recommended what the FAA ultimately did to this bozo?
If you plan to fly to the Castle airport in Atwater, CA in the future, you'll need to change your procedures for entering their airspace. Starting January 18, they will have a Class D and a control tower.
Have fun and fly safely!
best regards,
Max Trescott, Master CFI
650-224-7124
Final
NTSB Report on Cirrus crash in icing
While not
"known ice" should the pilot have known?
It’s hard to believe
that it’s been almost two years since a Cirrus SR22 spiraled into Sugar Bush
ski area, after being heavily loaded with ice on a flight from
The report highlights how early speculation about the causes of a crash can be misleading. While we all know that, it’s hard for pilots not to speculate. In this case, some of the early speculation was about how foolish the pilot was for taking off into known icing conditions. That’s a comforting assertion to make, since it helps us distance ourselves from the accident, and further reassures us that we would never make such an obvious mistake and hence are less vulnerable ourselves to having an accident. Lest you delude yourself into believing that accidents only happen to “bad pilots” consider this: How often have you heard someone say that an accident victim was a “good pilot?” The reality is that many accidents happen to good pilots who have a lapse in judgment. That may have been the case here.
The final
report summary reads:
Accident occurred Sunday, February 06, 2005 in
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/28/2006
Aircraft: Cirrus Design Corp SR22 G2, registration: N286CD
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The airplane, while operating under
an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, departed from controlled flight
after encountering icing conditions, entered an uncontrolled descent, and
collided with the ground. The airplane was equipped with an Ice Protection
System that when activated supplied deicing fluid to the wings, tail, and
propeller. The aircraft was not certified for flight into known icing and the
Pilot Operating Handbook reads that, "Flight into known icing conditions is
prohibited."
There are very few production single-engine aircraft certified for known icing. The Cirrus uses the TKS system to force glycol over the wings and elevator. A slinger tube deposits some glycol onto the prop, and residual glycol is “slung” from there onto the windshield. The system doesn’t meet the criteria for known icing, since there is no direct de-icing of the windshield. Also, with a full load of glycol, the system operate for only 30 minutes on the high setting, and 60 minutes on the normal setting. The system is most effective when it’s turned on before icing is actually encountered.
The Cirrus wing, is an ultra smooth, high performance airfoil, which contributes to the high performance of the airplane. Some people have suggested that it is less capable of carrying ice than some of the older, all metal wing designs used by other manufacturers. It would surprise me if that were true. Regardless, any accretion of ice in aircraft not certified for known icing should be treated as an emergency. The most prudent course of action is to make a 180° turn when icing is first encountered. It’s almost certain that doing so would have saved this pilot as we’ll show you in a moment.
The weather briefing
The pilot received a preflight weather briefing, which advised that there were
no pilot weather reports (PIREP) for the intended route of flight, and that the
freezing level in the
This was a surprise to me and probably others who were familiar with this crash. I would have thought for sure that the pilot was briefed on icing conditions. I’ve read elsewhere that at least two pilots flew this route and didn’t report icing, however both left earlier during daylight hours, when it would have been much easier to fly around or under clouds to avoid picking up ice. By leaving at 6PM—after dark—our pilot added an additional risk factor, one which may have turned an otherwise ordinary flight into a deadly accident.
It’s virtually impossible to see clouds at night, unless there is a bright
moon, or bright surface lights which illuminate the bases of the clouds. Anyone
who’s flown over the accident area, at the north end of
After takeoff, at 1807:46, the pilot contacted Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and requested to climb to 16,000 feet to try to get above the clouds. At 1813:40, the pilot reported that he was still in the clouds and asked about going lower. At 1815:00, the pilot advised ARTCC that if he could go up another 200 to 300 feet, he could get above the clouds. ARTCC requested clarification if the pilot wanted to go up or down. The pilot responded that he would like to go up first to build up some airspeed. The pilot was cleared for a block altitude between 16,000 to 17,000 feet.
What will you do
when you encounter icing? Develop a plan now.
The other day, a pilot asked me if it’s always best to climb when encountering
ice. In general, a 180° turn is the best response—unless you happen to be in
a narrow mountain pass. If you start a standard rate turn immediately after you
encounter ice, on average, you’ll exit the icing conditions in one minute,
assuming the non-icing conditions you just left still exist behind you.
Climbing, on the other hand, is fraught with problems.
In general, pundits will tell you that icing exists for only about 4,000 feet vertically, since once temperatures reach -20 to -30° C, the precipitation will be solid and won’t accrete onto an airplane. Even if that’s true 100% of the time (which I doubt!), that assumes that you aircraft is capable of climbing an additional 4,000 feet as it continue to accumulate ice during the climb. Let’s look at what’s working against you. All of these factors cause your climb rate to decrease, making it more difficult to climb 4,000 feet.
● As you climb, the engine develops less power, unless the airplane is turbocharged, and you’re below the airplane's “critical altitude” above which it can no longer maintain sea level air pressure to the engine.
● The propeller and wing both become less efficient as they climb into progressively thinner air. This is true for all aircraft.
● As you continue to fly through freezing conditions, additional ice may accumulate on the airframe. While the additional weight is a factor, the real killer—if we can use that phrase—is that the ice distorts the shape of the wing, and its ability to generate lift. As more ice accretes, it becomes more difficult for air to smoothly move over the wing. This disruption of laminar airflow leads to significant decreases in the lift generated, which further reduces an airplane’s ability to fly.
Another option is to descend, but this only works if the freezing level is above the MEA, allowing you to reach warmer temperatures where the ice will melt. This was not an option for our accident pilot, since the freezing level of 6,000 feet was below the 10-11,000 foot terrain over which he was flying.
At one point the accident pilot “advised
ARTCC that if he could go up another 200 to 300 feet, he could get above the
clouds.” This sounds like wishful thinking on his part. Sun and moon
data for
The pilot also said that “he would like to go up first to build up some airspeed.” This suggests that the increasing load of ice was causing the aircraft to slow down and the pilot recognized he needed to speed up. However, “going up” would make him slower—only going down would increase his speed. In response, ATC assigned “a block altitude between 16,000 to 17,000 feet.” But at this point, the Cirrus SR22 was now within 2,000 feet of its maximum certificated altitude of 18,000 foot. Climb performance would be reduced in the best of circumstances, and was probably virtually non-existent with a growing load of ice.
About 2 minutes later, the pilot
transmitted that he was "coming down" and that he was "icing
up." The last transmission from the pilot was at 1817:42, again indicating
that he was icing up and coming down. According to investigators from Ballistic
Recovery Systems (BRS), following the examination of the ballistic parachute
system, they determined the system was deployed outside of the operating
envelope of the system, which is 133 knots indicated airspeed. An examination of
the airplane wreckage did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical
failures or malfunctions.
Analysis of the actual weather
conditions encountered revealed the likelihood that the pilot encountered severe
icing related to super-cooled large water droplets as the aircraft achieved
16,000 feet and above. Review of the weather forecast products available at the
time of the pilot's briefing disclosed that the AFSS briefing fully conformed to
Federal Aviation Administration standards and adequately covered the observed
and forecast weather conditions. Although post accident analysis of the weather
conditions showed the clear likelihood of severe icing conditions, the
algorithms used by the
Chute happens--but a
parachute won't save you all the time
Cirrus pioneered the
use of parachutes in certificated single-engine aircraft, and the market has
rewarded them for that innovation. Undoubtedly, countless purchase decisions
have tipped in favor of Cirrus because of that seemingly fail-safe salvation.
The general public seems to regard the parachute as a universal cure all. When
interviewed by a TV reporter earlier this year regarding the Cory Lidle Cirrus
crash into a building in
The question must be asked whether pilots flying under a parachute are more inclined to take risks that other pilots without a safety net—the parachute—are unwilling to take. If there’s a false belief that a parachute can safely extricate a pilot from every situation—including foolish ones of their own making—then to some extent the parachute may encourage risky behavior. If nothing else, this case highlights that one cannot wait until an accident sequence is fully developed before deploying the chute. Had the pilot deployed the chute earlier, when the plane was still under control, and not waited until it became uncontrollable under a heavy ice load, we’d probably be writing about this as another “save” by the parachute and not as an accident.
It’s certainly noteworthy that the pilot was not provided with an icing
forecast, as noted in the final finding:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows: the pilot's in-flight loss of control following an
inadvertent encounter with unforecast severe icing conditions. A factor in the
accident was the inaccurate icing forecast developed by the
Was this accident
avoidable?
So was our pilot a victim of fate? Were the circumstances beyond his control?
Was this accident bound to happen, and our pilot just a hapless victim of
imperfect weather forecasting? Perhaps, but we feel that there was plenty that
should have raised red flags in this pilot’s mind both before he departed and
after he was enroute.
I love teaching FAA Wings Safety Seminars, because there’s always a good exchange and I learn as much from the attendees as they learn from me. An attendee at one such seminar told us that he has a rule of two. As I recall, he said he’d never allow two or more major risk factors. So for example, he’d fly in IMC, but not a night, or he’d fly in the mountains, but not in IMC and so on. In this case, our accident pilot had plenty of risk factors. He choose to launch on a dark night (no moon), in IMC, in the mountains, and in the winter when he’d be flying above the freezing level. Does this sound like an example of sound decision making?
Instrument
flying can bring additional risks, particularly in mountainous areas, where it
forces IFR pilots to fly higher into clouds than VFR pilots, who can fly lower
altitudes through mountain passes where they can remain below clouds. For
example, this same exact flight would have posed no danger to the pilot if it
were flown 75 miles away in
For those who might say “yes, but” he received a poor
weather briefing, there was nothing he could do, consider this. NEXRAD radar at
the time showed precipitation from the northern edge of
The Aviator’s Model Code of
Conduct
Finally, a framework for “good decision making”
In the last issue, we talked
about a crash of a plane that belonged to a club where I teach in which the
pilot crashed in the mountains, at night, in bad weather, because he failed to,
or was unable to, correctly follow a missed approached procedure. Miraculously,
that pilot and his young son both survived with minor injuries.
While poor decision making was possibly a factor in that
accident, it begs the question of what models do we use for good decision
making? It’s easy to point out poor decision making by other pilots, but
that’s probably not sufficient to guarantee that we consistently make good
decisions ourselves.
Let me commend to you for your consideration a relatively
new model for good decision making—the Aviator’s Model Code of Conduct,
which you’ll find at www.Secureav.com.
The code was started about five years ago by a neighbor of mine after, as I
understand, he made a bad flying decision. The result, which he thought would
take him a few weeks to complete, has been a five-year odyssey that’s involved
pilots from around the world in developing multiple codes of conduct, for
different types of flight, in at least seven languages.
“The
Aviators’ Model Code of Conduct
(Code of Conduct) presents broad guidance and recommendations for General
Aviation (GA) pilots to improve airmanship, flight safety, and to sustain and
improve the GA community. The Code of Conduct presents a vision of excellence in
GA aviation. Its principles both complement and supplement what is merely legal.
The Code of Conduct is not a “standard” and is not intended to be
implemented as such.”
“The
Code of Conduct consists of the following seven sections (each containing
principles and sample recommended practices).
The Principles:
II.
Passengers
and People on the Surface
III.
Training
and Proficiency
IV. Security
V.
Environmental
Issues
VI.
Use
of Technology
VII.
Advancement
and Promotion of General Aviation”
You can click on any of the links above to read
each section and sample recommended practices. For example, under General
Responsibilities of Aviators, we find:
a.
make
safety their number one priority,
b.
seek
excellence in airmanship,
c.
develop
and exercise good judgment,
d.
recognize
and manage risks effectively,
e.
adhere
to prudent operating practices and personal operating parameters (e.g.,
minimums),
g.
act
with responsibility and courtesy, and
h.
adhere
to applicable laws and regulations. “
Recognize
the increased risks associated with flying in inclement weather, at night, over
water, and over rugged, mountainous or forested terrain. Take steps to manage
those risks effectively and prudently without exceeding personal parameters.
Develop,
use, periodically review and refine personal checklists and personal minimums
for all phases of flight operations. Seek input and review of these materials by
a certificated flight instructor.
Minimize
turns and maneuvers below 500 feet AGL (except as required for landings and
obstacle departure procedures).
The first practice speaks directly to the Cirrus accident we discussed earlier in this newsletter. The pilot failed to identify or utilize alternates to mitigate the risk inherent in a night, IMC flight in mountainous conditions with precipitation and below freezing temperatures. Personal minimums relate to decisions you make in the comfort of your home about what conditions in which you will and will not fly. To download a personal minimums checklist go to my personal website at http://www.sjflight.com/Safety.htm and search for P-8740-56 among the safety brochures. Flying below 500 AGL, except to land is risky. If you don’t believe so, start reading more accident reports at www.ntsb.gov!
II.
Passengers and People on the
Surface
Pilots should:
a.
maintain
passenger safety first and then reasonable passenger comfort,
d.
seek
to prevent unsafe conduct by passengers, and
e.
avoid
operations that may alarm or annoy passengers or people on the surface.
Some sample recommended practices from this
section include:
·
Tactfully
disclose risks to each passenger and accept a prospective passenger’s decision
to refrain from participating.
·
Require
that passengers wear seat belts and shoulder harnesses, and consider the use of
headsets (or ear plugs) during flight operations.
·
Provide
an instructive passenger briefing in advance of the anticipated flight.
III.
Training
and Proficiency
Pilots
should:
a.
participate
in training to maintain and improve proficiency beyond minimum legal
requirements,
b.
participate
in flight safety education programs,
c.
act
with vigilance and avoid complacency,
d.
train
to recognize and deal effectively with emergencies, and
e.
accurately
log hours flown and maneuvres practiced to satisfy training and currency
requirements.
Some sample recommended practices from this
section include:
·
Pursue
a rigorous, life-long course of aviation study.
·
Follow
and periodically review programs of study or series of training exercises to
improve proficiency. Adhere to a training plan that will yield new ratings,
certificates and endorsements — or at the very least, greater flight
proficiency.
·
Participate
in the FAA Pilot Proficiency Award Program ("Wings").
·
Study
and develop a practical knowledge of aviation weather.
·
Each
month, review reports of recent or nearby accidents or incidents, focusing on
contributing factors.
·
Register
with www.faasafety.gov
for
safety meeting announcements and safety literature.
All of these practices recognize that getting a Private
Pilot’s license means—literally—that you have met the MINIMUM standards
for flight proficiency, as outlined by the FAA’s Practical Test Standard. When
pursuing something as complicated as flying, do you aspire to just meeting
minimum standards? Hopefully, you recognize that a Private Pilot’s license is
truly a small stepping stone, and that you continue to study aviation and safe
practices for the rest of your life. Getting new ratings or participating in the
FAA Wings program are great ways to do this. Learn more about the
weather—it’s a factor in a large percentage of accidents (2/3rds of fatal
accidents in the
Buddy
Can you Spare a Dime?
Use
your flying skills to help others!
One nice gift I received this Christmas was not a new GPS, a
new airplane, or anything else that you might find in Sporty’s catalog.
Instead, it was a gift certificate that let me give money to an educational
charity of my choice. I can’t
think of anything more important to the future of our country than educating the
next generation. Here in
What’s this got to do
with flying? It reminded me of the many ways that pilots can help charitable
organization by using their flying skills. So if you’re looking for a way to
make your flying a little more meaningful, look into some of these organization,
and start volunteering to fly on their behalf. Not only will it make you feel
good for helping others, in many cases you’ll be able to deduct your flying
expenses related to these flights.
I spent many years flying with Los Medicos Voladores or
“Flying Doctors”, and at various times was the organization’s President,
Vice President and website creator. LMV, which is based largely in Northern
California, flies doctors, dentists and other medical personnel in small planes
to provide free medical services in underserved areas of
Like LMV, flies medical volunteers in small planes to provide medical
services in
You can also write to: Flying Samaritans,
Based in
Based in
Provides free medical, dental, opthamological, chiropractic, and other
services to the residents and visitors to the Vizcaino area 50 miles south of
Guerrero Negro on the first weekend of every EVEN calendar month. The group is
based out of
Pilot Volunteer Organizations
Angel Flight West and Airlifeline are groups of several hundred pilots across
the country who volunteer their time, airplanes, fuel and expertise to give free
rides to medical patients who need transportation to hospitals and doctors
offices. The Air Care Alliance lists similar groups that provide free
transportation to patients throughout the
Environmental conservation organization. Pilots fly members of various organizations to photograph areas not easily visible from the ground. Call coordinator at 415-561-6250.
Wings of Hope provides the knowledge, free manpower, and facilities to
restore aircraft for use for humanitarian purposes around the world.
A
nonprofit organization that serves our wounded warriors and their families by
arranging and providing free transport through a national network of donors,
volunteer aircraft and pilots to:
-
Bring family members to the sides of wounded warriors.
-
Provide veterans transport from their homes to medical centers for treatment.
-
Take veterans back home after treatment, or during breaks in treatment—breaks
they might otherwise spend alone.
-
Provide related compassionate travel assistance.
"Hold
Short" Confused with "Cleared for Takeoff"
Now
you’ll know the rest of the story
We asked for you comments on how you thought this story should end and offered the following choices:
A. If the pilot was contrite about the incident and safety wasn't comprised,
that should be the end of it.
B. The FAA should require remedial training with a CFI for this pilot.
C. The FAA should take enforcement action. Suspending his license for a month or
two makes sense.
You didn’t disappoint
us. We had many responses, virtually all of which picked some flavor of B or C.
We’ve reprinted many of your comments at the end of
this newsletter. My favorite, from another Master CFI was: “I think the
guy should fry.” I thought that was a little harsh. I don’t think he should
fry—but perhaps at least be lightly grilled or sautéed.
Here are more details on what happened. The pilot was instructed to hold short, and instead pulled onto the runway and took off. Being number one on final I asked the tower “Was that a hold short?” and the controller replied, almost sadly “Yes, it was.” A moment later the controller called the aircraft and asked “Is there an instructor on board.” There was no response. The plane flew out of the area and returned a few hours later.
So which FAR’s were violated? Here are a few I can think of without doing any research:
● Failure to read back a hold short clearance
● Failure to comply with an ATC instruction (to hold short)
● Taking off without a clearance
● Failure to maintain radio communications while in Class D
Honestly, if I were a FAA inspector, I wouldn’t hesitate to add the following:
● Violation of 91.13 Careless or Reckless operation.
I had two long conversations with the tower manager at the airport where this
occurred, because I felt the violations were serious. The tower manager told me
that he’s spoken to the pilot, who he said was very apologetic. The pilot
explained that he was having “a headset problem” and that he thought that
he’d been cleared to takeoff. The tower manager also mentioned that there was
a potential language issue with the pilot. He didn’t explain that comment
further, but I take it to mean that English is not his native language and that
perhaps he has some difficulty in understanding English.
The tower manager told me that “safety wasn’t compromised” which made the entire incident less severe in his mind. He based that conclusion on the fact that my plane didn’t have to go around, and because the pilot said that he looked at the final before taking the runway, saw our plane, and concluded that he had enough time to get onto the runway and takeoff before we landed.
Ultimately, the tower manager decided not to file a pilot deviation report, which essentially means that the matter is over and won’t be pursued any further. The tower manager acknowledged that this was a particularly bad deviation and that he did come close to filing a report. When I asked why he didn’t file one, the local tower manager told me that he’d be “filing 4 to 5 reports a week” if he filed a report for every pilot error.
One FSDO inspector told me that it was contrary to FAA
policy to not file an incident report in this situation. However, I respect that
anyone in authority should have latitude in how they implement policy, and I’m
sure the tower manager decided this within the context of the many other issues
with which he or she has to deal with on a daily basis. Still, let’s look at
some of the issues and conclusions.
How do you decide what
course of action to take?
Everyone has probably had a headset or intercom or radio problem at one time, so
I can understand why at first blush, someone might be sympathetic and accept
that as an explanation. It’s certainly possible to confuse similar sounding
words. But, any “reasonable”
pilot would take the most conservative interpretation, and if in doubt seek
clarification. Surely our 200 hour pilot knew that he was told one of three
things: Hold short, position and hold or cleared for takeoff. The most
conservative interpretation would be to do nothing and seek clarification, but
it would also be reasonable to pull up and hold short if you knew that one of
those three instructions had been issued.
Instead,
this pilot took the least conservative interpretation. Although he admitted he
was having trouble hearing, he took off, even though it’s reasonable that the
instruction could have been to hold short (which it was) or position and hold.
Now we’re looking at something much different than a “headset problem.”
Instead, there’s clearly a severe judgment problem. If you think about the
cardinal rules of flying, the most important is to always maintain sufficient
airspeed, lest yee stall and smite the earth. After that, what rules are more
important than staying off a runway unless instructed otherwise? Some rules
should be more important than others and this one must be near the top of the
list.
Student pilots often confuse “hold short” with “position and hold.” No doubt the FAA should change one of these to eliminate the confusion over these two similar sounding instructions. A student pilot I was flying with yesterday suggested the FAA use “position and stop” rather than position and hold, and I agree that would reduce confusion.
Now, I can tell you’re getting ahead of me on this. What possible confusion is there between the words “hold short” and “cleared for takeoff?” I don’t notice a single syllable or phoneme in common between these phrases. So there’s virtually no possibility for confusion. And even if they were similar, a “reasonable” pilot would always seek clarification before taking the runway. Case closed. In my mind, at a minimum, this pilot needed remedial training in aeronautical decision making.
Safety wasn't
compromised--Should that matter when the violation is flagrant?
One reason the case wasn’t referred for any further action was because
“safety wasn’t compromised.” I agree that it wasn’t. But what if the
airplane on final had been a Cirrus SR20 with an 80 knot approach speed, which
was forced to go around. In that case, by the FAA definition, safety would have
been compromised. Instead, the plane on final was a Cessna 172 with an ATP rated
pilot on board. The moment we saw the plane take the runway, we immediately
slowed to minimum approach speed (about 60 knots), possibly preventing the need
for any go-around.One should ask why our preventative actions lessen the
severity of the violations committed. Furthermore, why does the occurrence of a
go-around mean that “safety was compromised?”
I’ve never done a go-around in which I felt my safety was in any way
compromised. By executing a go-around early and correctly, a pilot only
increases their safety.
So where should the line be drawn? Anytime the police step up patrols based on complaints of speeding in a neighborhood, most of the new speed ticket are issued to—guess who—residents of that neighborhood. So no, I’m not calling for a rash of enforcement action, because I know that I too make mistakes and might be called onto the carpet to answer for a mistake. And in the same situation, I would be grateful for not having my case referred for enforcement action or remedial training. Though how bad could the latter be? Would it really be such bad punishment to be forced to fly with a CFI after such an incident?
But I’m preaching to the choir. After all, you’ve already shared your
comments on what you feel should have happened, and NONE of you felt this pilot
should have gotten a free pass from the FAA on this one. You can find these
comments at the end of the newsletter. And hey, let’s be careful out there!
Back
to the future at Castle Airport
New
Class D and control tower opening
If you haven’t read the Federal Register
recently (just kidding—does anyone read that?), you may have missed that
Castle Airport in Atwater, CA, the home of the fourth longest runway on the West
coast, is getting a control tower again. Of course, it used to have a control
tower years ago when it was home to a SAC base and dozens of our nation’s B-52
bombers. The bombers are gone and Castle was relatively quiet for many years.
However a large flight school moved there last year, increasing the number of
operations, and there’s also a need to protect IFR operations into the
airport. You can read the Federal
Register announcement here.
So effective 9AM on January 18, 2007,
you’ll want to plan to use the following frequencies:
Tower/CTAF......................................
118.175
Ground................................................
133.575
AWOS...............................................
124.475
Pilot Controlled Lighting.......................
123.000
Unicom/
You
can also attend a Wings seminar at Castle the following day, January 19, when
they’ll explain all of the changes. There’s one odd note in the Federal
Register, which reads “This action
would establish Class D airspace extending upward from the surface to 2,500 feet
Mean Sea Level (MSL) within a 4.5 nautical mile radius of the airport.” Of
course a standard class D has a four mile radius. For some reason--perhaps the
two mile long runways--this new Class D is larger than standard.
There are all kinds of reasons to go
to Castle. The best of course is to view the many historic military aircraft at
You may also want to hold your next
business conference or fly-in at Castle. If you choose to stay over and be
billeted, according to their website, “You will be staying in what was
formerly known as the TLQ’s (Transient Living Quarters), where all rooms
remain intact with Air Force furniture, the very same that was used when this
was an active base.”
If you happen to live near the Castle
airport, you should know that AOPA is still looking for someone to volunteer to
be the liaison to that airport for their Airport Support Network, whose mission
is to Promote, Protect, and Defend
Regardless of where you live in the U.S, if you’re interested in finding out if your local airport needs a volunteer, check the list of airports at AOPA Airport Support Network and consider volunteering for a needy airport in your area.
Feb 15-17 Women in Aviation Conference Orlando, FL
Feb 28 G1000 Presentation by Max to Watsonville Airman's Association Watsonville, CA
| Another great issue - thanks! As to your question.... Jon G. |
| Thanks for
the outstanding info in your safety news. Great mix of articles
condensed for easy digestion yet satisfies like a full meal! I
would vote for “B.” With limited details, it seems even
with headset trouble the positive exchange of “cleared to take off”,
and the read back was not 100%. Therefore I was taught “do not
cross the line” , heck, even with a clearance from ATC,
or God (viewed as one and the same to many of us low time pilots) Always
look at final approach before entering the active. Treat it as if it
were a non-towerd field and expect an old Steerman W/O radios to
come floating by. One time at RHV I was cleared for 31R with a guy
on short final (over the mall parking lot) I responded with “unable ,
landing traffic, 19W will hold short. We’re all human, so let’s look
out for one another. Gary V. |
|
It
also displays blatant disregard for others in the decision making
process. Regardless of
Tower presence, it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure safety - and
that includes checking the airspace before taking the runway
(pattern/situation awareness), and a plane on final always gets my
attention. If the tower
gave departure clearance, there would have been additional instructions
related to the plane cleared to land, eg, "immediate
departure" - again, something I'd want to hear clearly before
taxiing in front of something. My
feeling is that he was lucky the count didn't keep incrementing to
something more severe. The scale-tipping element (for me) for action (c)
is that these mistakes are all attitude related, not technical. And I
don't want to see a proliferation of freeway (me-first) attitudes in the
skyways. |
| Regarding your
request for an answer for the pilot who took off, when he had the tower
request HOLD SHORT, I say the correct answer is C. The FAA should
suspend his license for a few months and also require 10 hours with a
CFI. BTW, thanks for your ongoing work, newsletter, training, etc… you are great!!! And very useful to us pilots. Phil C. |
| Depending on where you were on
final, he could have created a safety problem. I have had planes given
permission to take off 'without delay' and they drug their feet to the
point that I had to make a go-around. I left it to the tower to point
out their lack of co-operation. They were humble, apologized, and I let
it go at that. Jack C. |
|
Thanks
for the wonderful newsletter Max. In
response to the article about "Hold short"...ok, here we go!
Unless this pilot is cavalier and shows a pattern of willful
disregard of instructions, I think it was an honest mistake and
punishing him will not make him a better pilot.
Perhaps some remedial training, but I think a good BFR would be
sufficient. Accidents
happen, and this was an "accident" that resulted in no risk or
damage to anyone. But
the real reason I am writing is about the TFR in |
| thanks Max.
I really appreciated your newsletter, as usual. Boy, that last question really makes you think. To me, the pilot's response is more indicative of the issue that needs to be addressed.... He explained he had headset trouble and thought he had been cleared for takeoff. If someone thinks something... like I think I have enough fuel left... they might already be wrong. So, it's better to take the safe choice... land early, or ask the controller to "Say again." So, this is why I think the pilot should have confirmed it, *especially* if he was having headset trouble. So... I think the FAA should require more training (b). Suspension might not address the root cause and the pilot might still end up being unsafe. Thanks again for your newsletter. Jordan R. |
| Hold short vs
cleared for takeoff? Not surprising at all! I'm doing a paper on runway
incursions etc for the upcoming Aviation Psychology conference,
reviewing 2,000 ASRS reports -- done half of 'em now -- and I've seen
bunches of circumstances in which folks get one clearance and do instead
what they expected / wanted / whatever. The most common confusion is
receiving "hold short" and then doing "position and
hold." It might be the pilots are asleep at the switch, but when
you see so many of the same kind of errors, you wonder if it's a
systemic problem. I've got some theories on why this might occur, but
I'll hold off on those until the paper is all done. Ed W. |
| it depends. if he should have
visually been able to see you, and still pulled out, without looking,
709 ride! minimum Paul S. |
| With regard to
the pilot who disregarded the "hold short", my vote would be
to have this person be required to take some remedial instruction with a
CFI. If he was having trouble with his headset, he should not have
entered an active runway for ANY reason. If airplanes are lined up
behind and a turn around is not feasible, I would shut down the engine
and push my airplane out of the way if necessary. As you have always
recommended, before crossing the hold bars, we should read back any
instruction of "cleared for takeoff" - including the runway
number - to ensure no confusion by either a controller or the
pilot. Also, any communication from a tower to "hold short"
requires that this be repeated to the controller. This kind of error is
inexcuseable due to the consequences of causing a serious accident with
an aircraft on final (or still on the runway). Thus, the very
least penalty should be retraining in my humble opinion! Thanks for helping keep us pilots thinking! Ron C. |
|
After
a few practice approaches in my 172, my safety pilot buddy and I are
cleared to land, and on 2 mile final for 28R Monterey when another
aircraft (a Cirrus!) calls ready at 28R and is cleared for takeoff by
the tower! While we gulp, arrest descent and get spring loaded for the
sidestep go around and radio call, the Cirrus driver is doing his job
right and calls the tower to report the aircraft on short final. Of
course, a flurry of cancelled and reconfirmed clearances and profuse
apologies followed. ( |
| B. The FAA should
require remedial training with a CFI for this pilot. Include training on
reading back clearances. Aaron L. |
| Regarding the unauthorized
take-off, I'd go with option "B".
Why? If he was
having headset trouble he should've known what to do.
That is, either tell the tower you didn't copy them and ask for a
read back or taxi back to the ramp and resolve the issue.
A suspension (if this is his first offense) seems harsh but
remedial training, particularly in communication problems and their
solutions, seems warranted. Jay B. |
Pilot Safety News
© 2007 by Max
Trescott
Master CFI & FAA Aviation Safety Counselor
Please contact me with your feedback or if I can be of service to you.
www.sjflight.com
(650)-224-7124 Subscribe or email Feedback on
Newsletter