Page 6.28
FAA Problem and Advisory
Return to Whitts Flying
Contents
FAA; …Ground
Changed Runways; …Induced Drag?
…Use of Sectionals; …
Impressions of FITS (FAA/Industry
Training Standards); …Item:
...Pilot Competence; ...Practical
and Technology Difficulties; ...Pilot
Referred to Me after Failing IFR Checkride four months previously;
...WhereTthings Went Wrong; ...FITS vs Traditional; ...The
Problem Is Landing Flare; .You
and the Transportation Safety Agency (TSA); .....29/12/05
Concerns; ...
The Problem
FAA
I was hoping you could answer a question, because I'm afraid
I may have recently (last week) broken an FAR, but I'm not sure
and I don't want to raise any unnecessary concerns (though I'm
very concerned and have learned from my experience!). A narrative
explaining the situation follows, below. Bottom line question
in my mind is: if, at a Class C airport, I was given a clearance
by ground to proceed to a certain runway, end up at the wrong
intersection (thinking I'm following taxi instructions), and
if I say I'm ready to take off on the new runway I'm at and the
tower says I'm cleared to takeoff on that runway, am I in trouble
or not? Is that a runway incursion? Do I have a clearance, or
have I failed to follow ATC instructions? (I think it's a little
of both!) Of course, I intend to never let this happen again,
but I'm wondering if I have an investigation coming my way. It's
such a classic mistake, I'm ashamed I fell into the trap.
Thank you very much for your time...I'm very worried! Is there a way I can find out if ATC started an action for an investigation?
The Problem
Started
taxi, Then Ground Changed My Runway.
I wasn't sure where to go, so I started pulling out my airport
diagram. The controller came back on and gave me further taxi
instructions (perhaps noting the uncertainty in my voice). Since
I was taxiing and the new instruction was unexpected, I was unprepared
to write down the runway number and did not copy all the information
down--only the instruction to turn left to heading 120. I was
told to take taxiway F to C and the runway crosses there. So
I stopped at the first intersection of a runway with C, thinking
I was at the correct location. Ground even instructed me to wait
for a 737 which was, indeed, passing in front of me. ATC seemed
to know where I was and everything seemed to add up. After I
did my runup, however, I was unsure about which direction ATC
wanted me to take off in (since I had been unable to write down
the instruction). Since the winds were out of the north, I thought
they must have meant for me to takeoff on runway 3. I thought
if I was wrong they would tell me, the same as if I had asked.
Using my call sign and appropriate procedures, I called I was
ready for takeoff on runway 3. The tower called back that I was
cleared for takeoff on runway 3. I answered "Skyhawk X cleared
for takeoff" and proceeded to takeoff on runway 3, turning
left to heading 120 as instructed. During my turn ATC redirected
me. Shortly after this a controller called to say I had taken
off on the wrong runway. I was deeply concerned by this. I didn't
want to get into a full-blown discussion on the radio, and "argue"
that I had received clearance to takeoff on runway 3. So I just
responded with "Skyhawk X, I said runway 3."
Advice
I am answering without reading anything except that you may
have violated an FAR. Without delay get the ASRS form from the NTSB/FAA web site, fill it out and get it in the mail as a registered
letter.
I do this several times a year even though it is only valid
once every several years. It is your 'get out of jail free card'.
I write about it in my web site in the section "You and
the FAA".
You only have 10 days...
Gene:
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I'm very
much on edge about this...I'll bet I never make that mistake
again!
I will send the ASRP form in. I'm also concerned about how the
FAA would handle a student (which I am, this was only my 2nd
solo flight out the airport) or my instructor who signed me off
as ready to go (which I
was). Your web site makes it sound like I have only a one-in-ten
chance of escaping unscathed, if an action is taken against me.
Do I have that correctly?
After I wrote to you, I called the local FSS to see what they
thought about the situation. The briefer I talked
to said that my thinking is correct, that when the tower said
I was cleared to take off I was OK. So I'm hoping I'm "covered."
Of course I never want to do it that way again, and I'm still
worried.
Thanks very much again. Also, your web site has been very very
helpful in all aspects of my training.
Advice
It may take anywhere from three weeks to several months
before you know if the FAA is going to file a violation against
you. If you do not get your ASRS form sent in within ten days
don't bother sending it in. It is too late to protect you.
You will just have to wait it out. Let me know. However, you
should take out AOPA legal insurance if you have not already.
It can save you considerable money. Worth every penny. FAA can
fine you and suspend or remove your license. Whatever they want
to do. It took me 14 months to get my one case thrown
out. Meanwhile you just suffer.
Gene
The Problem
Induced
Drag.
Can someone please explain to me induced drag. I have read the
books but can't seem to grasp it. thanks
Advice
Induced drag is the price you pay for lift. I guess parasitic
drag is easier to visualize, because you can see how landing
gear, flaps, etc stick out into the air stream. Induced drag is
more subtle because you can't see it, you can only experience
its effects. When you are tootling along in cruise, the total
drag presented by your airplane is largely parasitic...cooling
drag, gear, antennas, etc...and only a small portion is induced.
The wing has a small angle of attack...but it does have an angle
of attack.
Let's say you roll into a bank. If you do not apply back pressure,
the nose will drop and you will lose altitude. If you apply
back pressure to maintain altitude, you are increasing the angle
of attack to supply the required lift...and the airspeed decreases
because of the increased induced drag. Add power to overcome
the induced drag or accept the airspeed loss. If you want a more
scientific analysis, I'm the wrong person to ask.
Bob Gardner
Advice
The problem here is that there's (oh no, he's going to say
it) two kinds of lift. There's physical lift and conventional
lift (not that you'll find those terms in any aerodynamics book).
The wing and the air obey the laws of physics and produce a force
that points in whatever direction it must to make the universe
happy. People, on the other hand, like to bend the will of nature
to their own devices and say (somewhat arbitrarily, but still
rather conveniently) that lift is UP, perpendicular to the horizontal
plane. Thus, the physical lift gets decomposed into two components
that we conventionally call lift and drag. The important thing
to remember is that the wing doesn't work any differently just
because we chose to draw our free body diagrams in a certain
way that's convenient to us.
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Advice
…One of the areas of aerodynamics that is usually explained
badly, and often incorrectly, to pilots. The confusion stems
from a misinterpretation of a diagram that is not quite what
it seems. The explanation is not as simple as most would like
it to be.
The key issue is that any wing with wingtips -- and in real life that's all of them! -- creates vortices at the tips. We see this as wake turbulence, but the vortices have more subtle effects. They actually influence the direction of the airflow immediately ahead of the wing, tilting it slightly downwards. The longer the wing, the further away the vortices are, and the smaller the angle of tilt.
We can work out the effect of this perturbation on the airflow immediately ahead of the wing by thinking about what happens if we change the overall direction of the airflow. Imagine a wing with no drag in level flight. The airflow is horizontal. The lift vector, and thus the total force, points perpendicular to the airflow -- vertically upwards. Now tilt the airflow, so that it points slightly downwards as it approaches the wing. This has two effects: it decreases the angle of attack by the angle of tilt, slightly reducing the lift; more importantly, the lift vector tilts to become perpendicular to the new direction of airflow. It now has a small horizontal component.
But the *overall* direction of the wing through the air and the airflow *at a distance* has not changed. And that overall direction is still our "reference direction", and is still horizontal. So this small horizontal component appears to be acting parallel to the airflow at a distance, even though the lift vector is actually perpendicular to the local airflow. So it appears to be like drag, induced by the change in direction of local airflow caused by the wingtip vortices.
The angle by which the airflow is tilted is called the 'induced angle of attack'. If you want to understand the phenomenon of induced drag, it is vital to recognize that the 'induced angle of attack' is *not* the same as the angle of attack of the wing. We're *not* saying that the lift acts parallel to the chord line and that changing the angle of attack changes the direction of the lift vector by a corresponding amount. We're trying to work out the effect that those wingtip vortices have by considering a hypothetical change in direction of the airflow. But the diagram usually drawn in aerodynamics textbooks to illustrate that is prone to huge misunderstanding if you don't read the text that goes with it!
There's an approximate formula for the 'induced angle of attack'
for a symmetric aerofoil shape. It's the real angle of attack
* 2/aspect-ratio. So if the aspect ratio is 10, and the real
angle of attack is 5 degrees, the 'induced angle of attack' (the
tilt of the lift vector caused by those vortices) is only 1 degree.
Since it depends on the angle of attack, the tilt of the lift
vector does increase as the angle of attack increases, but by
a much smaller amount. It certainly doesn't tilt to be perpendicular
to the chord line. Hope that helps
Julian Scarfe
Opinion
I'll try to come at this as someone with a physics background
relearning it for the purposes of aviation. In other words I
could be completely wrong. Induced drag is still lift, but is
the component of lift that acts anti-parallel to the direction
of flight. In other words lift acts perpendicular to the lifting
surface, but a vector perpendicular to the lifting surface may
be decomposed into a vertical (lifting) component and a horizontal
(drag) component. Fundamentally, I think the above is the cleanest
possible answer that doesn't involve bad physics.
Mr Cole100
Opinion
In some respects, I think "induced drag" is somewhat
of a misnomer. The name makes it sounds like the drag which is
caused by the lift. In some senses, that's true, but it's a little
misleading. It's not that the lift causes the drag, but that
the drag is an essential part of the lift. It's really that part
of the lift which doesn't point up.
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Opinion
In the instant case, it is important for a student to know
that there are two kinds of drag contributing to total drag,
and under what conditions each type is greatest (slow speed =
induced, high speed = parasitic). They need to know how their
use of the controls affects drag production, and when to use
them to best effect. They do not *need* to have a mathematical
analysis, and in many cases an attempt to explain in trig terms
might turn a student off. I do think it is important for instructors
to impart the "why" as well as the "how,"
but I do not think that an in-depth discussion of why induced
drag exists will make a student a better or safer pilot.
The first time I get into an airplane with a new wannabee CFI, I ask him or her to tell me, as their student, "What makes the airplane fly?" If the answer involves the lift equation, angle of attack, or anything similar, I disabuse them of that notion right away...the airplane flies when it goes fast enough for the wing to develop enough lift to overcome the aircraft's weight; for a newbie, anything more is overkill. I hope you will not be one of those overkill instructors.
BTW, if you read any of my books you will see that my teaching
methods are based on practicality.
Bob Gardner
The Problem
Use
of Sectionals
OK. I'm getting pretty fed up here. I've been trying to teach
myself to navigate solely by pilotage using a sectional. I'm
at just about 200 hours and I am finding that the scale on a
sectional is realistically useless for navigation from my typical
altitudes of 3 to 5 thousand feet. Large lakes are mere specs
on the sectional and most aren't even depicted. There are a plethora
of major roads visible from the air, but only a few are depicted
on the sectional and there is practically no way to positively
identify which ones they are. Rivers are barely discernible,
faint blue lines.
There are a few major landmarks, like Quabbin Reservoir and Mt. Manadnock that are pretty unmistakable and distinctly shaped so that they are unmistakable, but there are vast areas where there are virtually no positively identifiable landmarks. Towers aren't too bad if there are enough around that I can confirm their pattern, but one tower by itself is useless. Train tracks and power lines are visible from the air, but they are cluttered out on the sectional and they only give one aspect of your location unless there is an intersection.
Please don't say "Go grab a CFI", because none of the CFI's I've known have the least bit of interest or ability in learning to navigate by pilotage. Maybe there are some old timers out there who can, but I've had at least 5 CFI's and not one of them impressed me as being able to navigate by pilotage using a sectional I can combine pilotage and dead reckoning and get where I want to go, but the sectional becomes just a back up. Neither one alone seems at all reliable. I'd like to be able to use a map as primary means. It seems the method least prone to failure or miscalculation.
I guess what I'd like to see is a scale of sectional that is actually useful for the low and slow pilot. I had an atlas along that had a really usable scale, but it was a book of the whole country and the binder was too stiff to make it useful in the plane.
Just curious. How many people out there can really navigate by sectional alone? How many people would find a larger scale much more useful. The TAC charts are great, but you'd need a bunch of them for any real trips. Something in between would be real nice, IMO.
Opinion
Sectional's work just fine, you just need to learn how to use
them. The sectional shows you the mountains, valley's major roads,
rivers etc. What you, the pilot have to learn is how to use the
information presented to you. Selecting airports for check points
is always good, now you know where a airport is in case you have
a problem. I write down my time at each check point and compare
it to the time I calculated for that check point. This way if
I miss a check point I know what course I have to turn to to
get back to my last check point and I know how long it will take
me to get back.
Noting where the airport is in relation to the town or city, for example SAC is located on the south side of the town, and just south of a park and just east of the Sacto river. Use the VOR's for cross checks, for example going over a mountain range, you should cross a ridge, but use a VOR to help identify the point on the ridge of your route. In flat lands, towns and again airports at these towns are a good source for check points, I carry an old binocular to help locate towns or airports.
Keep an eye on your drift, if you get to your first check point and you are off some distance, then work out the drift & gs so you can correct. Your next check point do it again if you are not hitting the check points right on. I try to keep the check points within 20 to 25 miles of each other. I also use the VOR for cross checks along the course, but remember electronic's can & do fail, always id the VOR you are using. Also rivers and canals help, at night they can glow. In the desert's look for surrounding mountains and flood zones, mines and canals.
Again use VOR to help locate a point, like a course change. Use the VOR, two different stations to cross check positions. Lots of hwy's and they can really get you confused, I try to stay away from using them. My first trip to LA Area, WHP airport, had lots of smog, but the railroad tracks go right by the airport. The tracks are right next to the freeway also. I just followed the tracks right to the airport. To the east of the airport is a small hill, this is shown on the chart, to come through the pass (Newhall) and follow the tracks, looking for the airport on the east side of the tracks and a small hill to the east of the airport and a lake and damn also to the east of the airport just south of the hill. Timing the flight from the pass to the airport. I had already plotted out the distance from the pass to the airport. So I suggest you study the charts, learn what the terrain is doing on and around your plotted course,
Look for dams and note where the dam is located on the lake in relationship to your course you have plotted. The location of airports in relation to the town, work with all the tools you have, use your VOR to help locate a check point on your course. In many ways this is the fun part of flying, doing the work up for a flight. If you do get turned around, call an FSS or even if you have to use the emergency freq, In most cases they can pop you up on radar. (Flight service stations do not have radar, GW) A friend of mine got lost on his cross country and also got airsick. He was really turned around, and he got on the radio for help. They vectored him into Palm Springs and bought him a cup of coffee to settle him down.
That was his last flight, he gave up after that flight, which
was sad. My wife did not get lost on her first cross country,
but she was not real sure of a couple of check points. She dialed
in the VOR at Blyth and flew the VOR to the airport. As she went
along she was able to locate the rest of her check points, She
was off a little because of the winds she encountered, but the
VOR kept her on the correct course. On her flight work up she
had high lighted the VORs along her route, so it was no big deal
to find on the chart. A few years ago my Dad would fly down and
use the binoculars (same ones) to read the road signs. Hope this
helps & happy flying.
Clyde
Opinion
Maybe I misunderstand ... but your use of deduced reckoning
gives you an idea of where you should be on the map, and then
the sectional confirms it. The train track crossing just over
the northern part of a town becomes a solid reference once you
know its the only such feature within miles of where you are.
This is how my CFI has taught me to navigate at least (he is
very keen on my being able to prove in three different ways that
I know my position based on features in the sectional) - and
we are in southern Kansas which is about as featureless as you
can get.
Jeremy Huffman
Opinion
You also need to realize that not every depicted landmark
is visible from every altitude, position, and time of day or
year. On the NY sectional, for example, there's one lake with
an F shared road structure depicted immediately to the north.
My first time there, I wasn't sure I was looking at the right lake as the roads weren't there. But as I passed the lake, suddenly I could see the roads. They'd been hidden by little tree-covered hills.
I've come to think of sectionals in terms of probabilities. If I see, for example, 3 out of 5 depicted landmarks which should be around me, I'm pretty comfortable with my position. I also tend to fly differently when I'm using pure pilotage as opposed to ded recking. For the latter, I fly straight lines, make fixed course corrections, and stay on a predicted path. When flying purely by sight, I hop from one landmark to another. When I'm passing landmark A, I pick a B out in the distance, and aim for it (adjusting for wind). It makes for a less efficient course, but it's also a fun way to fly.
But even on ded reckoning, I try to always keep recognized
landmarks in sight. It's much easier to "find yourself"
if you maintain an awareness of your position. This isn't always
possible, though. Flying direct and low from Scranton, PA to
Caldwell, NJ, for example, west of the Delaware distinct landmarks
are scarce. Fortunately, the river makes for a terrific landmark,
providing not just east-west guidance but also - because the
shape of the river varies - north-south.
Andrew
Opinion
You gotta be kidding. Where else on the planet did they put
down the equivalent of lat/lon lines on the ground? Large chunks
of the Midwest were laid out in the Range/Township/
Section system.
East of the Mississippi River most real estate was laid out metes
and bounds (don't ask, it makes the FARs look comprehensible.)
Steve Corlew
Opinion
Actually most of the US west of the original states is laid
out on the Range/Township/
Section system; the system was established
by the Land Survey Ordinance of 1785 and all lands sold by the
US government were surveyed in it.
Paul Baechler
Opinion
Good call, and I'd bet you weren't the first!! I recall a
friend and I getting grilled one day by our Comm instructor (r.i.p.).....
what do you do if you get lost??..... what if that doesn't work,
then what? .....then what?.... on and on, nothing satisfied him.
Finally he said "Land and ask someone!! People on the ground
almost always know where they are!".
John Gaquin
Impressions
of FITS (FAA/Industry Training Standards)
--A pro-active way to fit policies and procedures with newer
aircraft, avionics and flight technologies.
--Past generic aircraft systems and requisite training must be
changed to fit new technological requirements.
--FITS seeks an evolutionary approach to change that 's responsive
to the speed of change.
-- FITS seeks to identify future training needs and create what
is needed to give that training.
--The FAA's 10-year plans OEP and NAS expects 'Safer Skies' training
facilities to produce better pilots.
--Selected facilities exist as repositories of advanced knowledge,
CGAR, (www.cgar.org) to train GA
pilots.
--The Center for Excellence for General Aviation intends to set
generic standards for the latest GA aircraft.
--Specific FITS programs and standards will be designed for specific
aircraft requirements.
--Specific FITS programs will be developed for retrofitted aircraft
with high-tech technology.
--14 CFR 61.31(h) is the FAR to require specific training for
aircraft and/or equipment via the POH.
--Recurrent flight review type training is likely to be required
in 6-month intervals tailored to the area.
--Insurance incentives are expected from such training.
--FITS is aware that GA pilot needs a broader flight program
beyond the mission specifics of ATPs.
--The proposed evolutionary FITS program could leave pilots with
blanks in their flight education.
--The lack of uniformity in new technology is an underlying problem
for pilots and instructors.
--Thomas Glista (author) admits that all possibilities have not
been researched.
Item
--I initially faced the technology difficulty in the waning
months of WWII when I was a LORAN instructor.
--Those WWII navigators trained in celestial navigation were
rightfully suspicious as to electronic reliability.
Pilot
Competence
--Much of aeronautical instruction is one on one and no different
from that since the beginning of flight.
--Pilot had to spend far too much time with his head down in
the cockpit while trying to make things work.
--This pilot first learned to fly in his SR-22 only after instructor(s)
were taught in same aircraft.
--The FADEC throttle did not lean the engine on shutdown making
restarts difficult or impossible.
--I had to teach pilot how to manually lean on shut down so that
starting difficulty no longer existed.
--The FADEC throttle indent made it difficult for the pilot to
select appropriate speeds for approaches.
--Instrument approach speeds were not flown at low speeds due
to FADEC indent.
--Relatively abrupt ground maneuvers may cause unexpected fuel
overflows from fuel tanks.
--Flew with full fist 'death grip' on stick at all times. Excessive
altitude and course deviations.
--Never taught or shown that aircraft could be trimmed and flown
with two fingers or hands-off.
--Had never been taught the Dutch roll as a basic X-wing landing
skill.
--Had never been taught to turn aircraft to clear bases and final
prior to taking a runway.
--Had never been taught procedure for clearing a runway on an
intersecting runway.
--Had never been taught that a runway different than ATC assigned
could be requested.
--Had never been taught about 270s, 360s, short approaches, or
the options available to ATC or request.
--We flew thrice a week, it took two months before the moving
map and Sandel would perform properly.
--Local avionics shop technicians unable to get the cockpit components
to communicate with each other.
--He was completely unable to prepare a flight using a single
VOR for navigation VFR or IFR.
--Pilot had never been taught how to use VOR to determine location
with reference to a sectional.
--Appeared to be unaware of the distinction between an intercept
heading and a tracking heading.
--Had never experienced reverse sensing on VOR or localizer
--Pilot unprepared to fly in an environment of low-tech aircraft/ATC
in an aircraft difficult to see.
--Use of AFD had to be explained and taught.
--What I found was a pilot who was not equipped to handle his
aircraft if a system failed to function properly
Practical
and Technology Difficulties
--Inoperative GPSs and moving maps necessitated the use of
pilotage and sectional interpretation. Problems!
--The possibility of a GPS/Moving Map shutdown exists. Pilots
need to be prepared for failures.
--With the moving map frozen on 'acquiring', pilot was effectively
'lost' because of poor chart reading skills.
--Pilot had never made a NORDO arrival, actual or simulated.
--Unfamiliar uncontrolled airport radio and arrival procedures
were weak to non-existent.
--Pilot did not know procedures that would allow sequencing commensurate
with his aircraft's performance.
--Airport departure and arrival procedures were not adequate
for high performance aircraft requirements.
--All VFR arrivals and departures had to be the same and
passively accepted as assigned by ATC.
--Situational awareness was totally missing with no local knowledge
of call-up or reporting points.
--Chart reading and interpretation were neglected with reliance
focused on GPS and moving maps.
--Could give rote responses regarding airspace requirements but
had little experience or practical usage.
--Flew around Alert areas for miles because of inability to knowledgeably
and effectively communicate.
--Had never been exposed to SVFR procedures with simulated or
actual arrivals and departures.
--Had never realized that all of his ground and flight instruction
could be recorded for later review.
--Could not use heading bug to help taxiing in winds or to plan
runway entries.
--Had never been taught how to fly a course reversal as VFR or
IFR procedure.
--The CDI of the Sandel and VOR head would give contradictory
indications on approaches.
--If Moore's Law about the 18 month technology jump holds FITS
will be much different than it is now.
--What plans are there for the "unknown unknowns some of
which have occurred above?
Pilot
Referred After Failing IFR Checkride Four Months Previously
--Failing his IFR checkride probably saved his life.
--Initial instruction related to make his aircraft control not
a part of the problem.
--All IFR flight planning had been by pre-filing. No tower-en route
or pop-ups procedures taught.
--Pilot had never been walked, talked through courses, altitudes,
frequencies, and talking prior to flight.
--ATC planning and communications completely passive with en route
negotiations never attempted
--No IFR approaches flown visually and then hooded or actual
to emphasize situational awareness.
--No multiple IFR approaches flown IFR repeatedly to a full stops
and re-filed departures.
--For IFR training he had never been taught to prepare a flight
with frequencies, courses, altitudes, etc.
--Unaware many ATC procedures are unpublished, not in database
and will vary from initial clearances.
Where Things Went Wrong
--Ground operations at unfamiliar airports were taught haphazardly
at best. He could not word requests.
--Learning to fly in Oregon did not prepare him for VFR or IFR
in the Greater Bay Area.
--Pilot was totally passive in dealing with ATC and unable to
properly word any request.
--Use of suggestive level of assertiveness in radio communications
had not be taught or used.
--The 'talking airplane' skills were neglected with reliance
focused on interaction of technologies.
FITS
or Traditional
--Voluntary consensus standards designed around the latest
technology are likely to leave pilots unprepared.
--The basics of pilotage, pattern procedures, weather options
and communication skills are left wanting.
--This pilot had learned flying in an SR-22, was poorly prepared
and well on his way to an accident.
--The landing stall attitude of the SR-22 is unusually flat,
holding the nose wheel off is not used?
--The 80-percent pilot related accident rate will increase, as
SR-22 records already seem to indicate.
--Jump starting instructors into the new technology to the neglect
of the basics is what I see as the problem.
--Present-day pilots have reason to be suspicious of programming
and interaction of system components.
--The FAA's FITS program is facing the same situation as the
military finding how to blend skills.
--General Aviation instruction has not been able to keep up with
the developments of technology.
-- G.A. hi-tech aircraft are not appropriately equipped for FITS
instruction of failure modes.
--Feasibility of having trainer high-tech aircraft initially
equipped for primitive ATC system operations?
--Alternative, initiate instruction without hi-tech equipment
activated. Teach basics first!
--ATPs do not start with glass cockpits. Many instances where
basics saved aircraft where hi-tech did not.
--Instructional emphasis on primacy, under stress you react as
first taught, is still a good way to go.
I have been innovative in my instruction through the use of a tape recorder for over 8500 hours of flight instruction and perhaps more than that in pre-flight and post-flight analysis. My efforts to get other instructors to do likewise have been a failure. They tend to see a recording as a weapon to be used against them. I feel the tapes my students have of my instruction as an insurance policy. We tend to teach as we have been taught.
The Problem Is Landing Flare
----- Original Message -----
From: "Madhavan Thirumalai" <mthirumalai@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 5:31 PM
Subject: Landing questions
Hello Gene,
I am a 30 hour student flying Cessna 172s. I found your website using Google
and it has really has been a
huge help. The simple suggestion "Cover the end of the runway with your
nose" fixed my landing problems I was flaring too late until I read
that tip. Thank you very much.
Today, I flew with 3 people in the plane and landed at Tracy airport where the
density altitude was 3000 feet
because of the heat. I had the hardest time landing.
First, the ground came up faster than I was used to. There seemed to be no
ground effect at all.
Second, I could never cover the end of the runway with my nose as I am used
to. I am not sure why. The
aircraft was tail heavy because of the extra passenger but I don't think that
that had anything to do with
it. Pulling the nose that high just felt wrong. Does that make sense? Or was
my timing off because of point
one above?
Third, I am used to my stall warning horn go off on landings but today it
never did.
On my first two landings, the aircraft bounced and I found myself 10 feet in
the air and had to go around.
Any thoughts?
How does your approach speed, roundout and flare change because of a loaded
plane?
How does your approach speed, roundout and flare change because of density
altitude?
Another question about landings in cross wind I have no trouble holding
the centerline on the approach. But once I am over the threshold and have
begun my round out, I tend to fly coordinated turns close to the ground and in
ground effect. I land left of center line but have decent alignment and no
apparent side load on the landing gear. Is this habit of flying coordinated
turns low to the ground ok or is this is a bad habit that I ought to break as
soon as possible?
Thanks for your time.
Regards, Madhavan
The Cause and Solution
Madhavan,
I, too, was at Tracy 9-10-04 at about 5 p.m. with density altitude of 3300.
I presume that you ran a weight and balance for your load. The POH figures
makes me believe you were right at gross.
Your reaction to the density altitude is quite typical. First of all you
get the sensation that the ground is going past much faster than usual and
coming up much faster than usual. IT IS.
Probable cause for the relatively hard landing is that at some point you
began to fly the aircraft into the round out and flare without due regard to
the airspeed indicator. The sense of excess speed in your peripheral vision
caused you to sense that you were too fast. You were faster than usual because
of the density altitude. You always fly the indicated airspeeds regardless of
the density altitude.
The C-172 becomes very light on the elevator control with someone in the
back seat. This means that the usual pressure on the yoke needed to cover the
end of the runway is much less. If your rear seat passenger was heavier than
you right seat passenger you made the sensitivity of the elevators much worse.
Perhaps legal but very sensitive. Your normal pressure would have caused the
extreme nose high situation. My bet is that you used a full grip on the yoke
instead of only two fingers.
You also have become familiar with the ground effect as it exists at cooler
temperatures. Getting slow in the round out and flare means that you will not
have the ground effect you need to make a soft landing. You will be moving
faster than usual, expect it. In density altitude landings you will have a
higher ground speed. Accept it.
Your go-around at density altitudes should have been more difficult. Your
entire procedure would have gone better the closer you may have stayed to the
ground. You need the ground effect to get the acceleration needed to climb as
well as carefully milking off the flaps to get the speed to climb. This takes
some getting used to.
The load was only partially a part of the problem. One of my favorite
pastimes every spring is to watch the twins make their first hot-day landings
after the cool days of winter. The little known fact about density altitude
landings is that every aspect about the landing is different except for ONE
thing. Properly performed the TIME of the flare will be exactly the same as
for any other landing. The speed will be faster, taking the aircraft over a
greater distance. In the future try to get a bit closer to the ground during
your round- out and be more patient in your yoke movement to let the aircraft
float further as it will. Just keep the nose covering the end of the runway,
no more and no less, and you will get the stall warner and the landing you're
looking for.
Gene
You and the
Transportation Safety Agency (TSA)
Logbook Entry
"I certify that [insert student's name] has presented me a [insert
type of document presented, such as a U.S. birth certificate or U.S. passport,
and the relevant control or sequential number on the document, if any]
establishing that [he or she] is a U.S. citizen or national in accordance with
49 CFR 1552.3(h). [Insert date and instructor's signature and CFI
number.]"
Visa Holders
Visa holders who begin training for a recreational, sport pilot, private
pilot (single or multiengine) certificate, multiengine rating (at any level),
or instrument rating after December 20, 2004, must notify TSA of their intent
to begin training. The notification process is as follows:
Training of aliens (both green-card and visa holders)
Record-keeping requirements
The flight training provider must keep a record of the following for five years for each foreign applicant:
Steps in TSA registration process
Flight students enrolled prior to October 20, 2004, are not subject to the requirements of this rule:
TSA has clarified that flight students who are enrolled in such flight training prior to October 20, 2004, are not subject to the regulation. However, once the student completes training for that particular certificate, he or she must comply with the applicable requirements if they begin training for an additional certificate or rating.29/12/05 Concerns
It' not just the FAA. It's the FBO, insurance companies, insurance agents and
most of all the lawyers. At 81 I am having to deal with all of these even
though I have never had a negative mark on my flying record in over 11,000
hours and over 10,000 instructional hours.
I have always carried my own liability and non-owned aircraft insurance at a
cost of about $3,000 per year with never a claim. Only one time have I used
AOPA legal services and after 14 months the FAA dropped the case. The wanted
$500 and AOPA fought them to a standstill.
However, a clean record is not enough for an insurance company that lives in
fear of legal firms that prey on aviation. The tale recently given to me was
that if any one of the other instructors of my FBO were to cause an insurance
claim, one of the attacks by a lawyer might be against my FBO that they were
negligent in letting an 81-year old instructor teach using their aircraft. I'm
presently on a
short leash even though I'm the only instructor carrying my own insurance as
well.
I have in the past week passed my renewal of my CFI and flight review. Need an
IFR proficiency ride since my plane has been down a long time. Also need a
club 6-month check in complex-high performance aircraft (182RG).
More things happen more often as you get older.
Gene Whitt
Return tolWhittsflying
Next 6.31: The People