The same concepts we use in defensive driving apply to flight operations to help us mitigate risks of violations, incidents, or accidents. A little attention to flying defensively may convert those thoughts into mitigation of potential risks in our flight operations.

If you maintain constant situational awareness and utilize all available resources, that’s conducive to safe general aviation operations. Unlike commercial flights with robust support systems, GA pilots rely on their skills and instruments. Vigilance, monitoring traffic, and staying attuned to changing weather conditions contribute significantly to safety.

Avoiding Distractions During Flight Operations

A distracted pilot turns into one that misses critical checklist items, ATC communications, or loses situational awareness. Any of these lead a pilot down a path that could result in further complications—or worse. Keep interaction with passengers, other tasks you might want to perform during your flight, or even management of the resources used in the flight deck—such as an electronic flight bag (EFB) device—to periods where the workload is minimal and you don’t sacrifice attention necessary to complete more critical tasks.

Keeping distractions to a minimum is especially important during critical phases of flight. Setting up for an approach, taxiing at a busy airfield with complicated diagrams, during the actual takeoff and landing, or receiving an updated weather briefing in flight are a few examples of this.

The sooner you can ascertain a risk is present, the earlier you can make a defensive flying decision and avoid…undesired conditions.

Predicting Risk Ahead and Mitigating It Sooner

More than ever before in aviation, we have the ability to try to predict potential hazards and mitigate them at earlier points in our flight operations. A key example is having onboard weather information continuously feeding us updates. We can use it to look further ahead for weather along our route or see updated climate conditions for our destinations that might hint at our need to initiate an alternate plan if minimums are becoming a concern for us in IFR or VFR conditions. When you do this, you can make a decision hundreds of miles away instead of just getting 20 to 30 miles from your destination and being surprised by an AWOS/ASOS/ATIS broadcast that now shows the weather has degraded significantly. The sooner you can ascertain a risk is present, the earlier you can make a defensive flying decision and avoid proceeding into undesired conditions.

Traffic information systems in our panels—or fed to our EFB—help us predict other traffic that may be nearby through awareness of its position. Taking this into consideration, we can receive clues regarding other traffic sequencing to fly the same approach we plan or help us avoid encountering traffic conflicts that might otherwise result in aircraft coming too close together.

Communication and Coordination

ATC services are generally available to IFR and VFR flight operations throughout most of the country—so use them for most flights. Certainly, most pilots understand they are using ATC services when operating in IFR or VFR conditions while on an IFR flight plan, and they must talk to ATC within certain airspace, typically Class A, B, C, and D. But too few pilots leverage air traffic control when outside of these requirement areas, though its services are broadly available.

• READ MORE: Communicate Like a Pro Pilot

A short cross-country in Class E or G airspace might not require the use of ATC services, but a quick request for flight following along the route can help them communicate with you and potentially other aircraft—and perhaps help you avoid other aircraft sharing the frequency. With ADS-B and transponder service over much of the airspace, it is a good practice to fly with a second layer of protection, helping you enhance awareness of potential risks.

I have a few flight training operations at which I provide tests regularly that will get flight following from local ATC when pilots head out to a practice area to train or test. A training flight introduces the risk of the instructor and pilot becoming distracted from their overall situational awareness while briefing and conducting specific maneuvers. Having ATC communication established can give you the chance to be warned about traffic in the area or if another aircraft is flying into the same practice area. You can then adjust position and altitude or even discontinue a maneuver and reposition if the traffic is going to provide a conflict.

If you are operating near an airport, monitor the local CTAF frequency for an idea of what other traffic is doing, including aircraft flying in or out of that airport. This is especially true if you’ll be flying in the traffic pattern and practicing takeoffs or landings. A good habit is to listen to the local frequency about 10 miles out as you approach so as to have enough time to hear other aircraft sequencing into the pattern. You may fly a few miles to the side of the airport to delay your approach instead of having two aircraft enter the downwind at the same time.

• READ MORE: Pro Tips: Situational Awareness For Private Pilots

Listen while on the ground also. Many times I will be listening to the CTAF, or at a towered field, the ground and tower frequencies as I do a run-up, while waiting in sequence, or as I approach a runway for takeoff. This can help build a mental picture of who might be in the pattern, whether they are likely to be ahead or behind you, or if there are other factors that might cause you to avoid unnecessary communications at a particular time.

For example, I was flying recently and listening to the tower frequency while we were doing our run-up and on the ground-control frequency. While monitoring, I overheard that the tower had an inbound aircraft that was having a gear indicator malfunction and that they were going to “roll services” for the aircraft in case it was needed on the landing. It was a great tip for me to just hang tight for a minute in our run-up area and let the situation play out instead of getting on tower frequency and asking for a takeoff clearance with a potential emergency developing.

The good news was that the aircraft landed without incident, and we were only hanging out for a few extra minutes. By listening in proactively, we avoided adding extra radio communications to the mix and allowed ATC to effectively manage its challenges without extra distraction.

Defensive Flying and Safety Culture

Thinking proactively and defensively—and acting as such—is part of a personal safety culture. It is a mindset for our operations that serves to help us identify, avoid, and mitigate risks before they cause problems. It is also one that we can espouse and allow to serve as an example for other pilots.

This is especially relevant when we are trying to foster a safety-centric environment within flying clubs, flight training operations, corporate flight operations, or even just among peers. The goal is to encourage open discussions, share experiences, and learn from each other’s mistakes to collectively enhance safety standards. We can all share ways we can be more proactive and defensive in our flying activities.

Developing the ability to recognize potential risks and being adaptable in handling unforeseen situations are essential traits of a defensive general aviation pilot.

• READ MORE: Best Pilot Kneeboard Options in 2024

Embracing and implementing principles of defensive flying significantly contribute to mitigating the risks inherent to flight operations. It is part of a commitment to safety and a mindset that helps ensure each flight, regardless of scale, remains a secure and enjoyable experience for pilots, passengers, and those within the airspace. Each pilot who operates in this manner helps elevate the safety standards within the overall aviation community. Defensive flying in GA is a fusion of skills, adaptability, and a proactive approach to safety. 

The post Risk Mitigation Through Defensive Flying appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

The conference highlights included briefings from FAA staff on upcoming regulatory changes that may affect flight training, from TSA staff regarding the health and volume of training for international students, and specifically from FAA reps in the aero medical focal area. The FAA is working to modernize how it manages behavioral health reporting, approvals for return to flight for pilots who report and seek appropriate treatment, and safety concerns related to behavioral trends in the pilot community.

Discussions also included consideration of future technology integration into the entire aviation sector but also specifically the aviation training landscape. With exciting and unique technologies on the near horizon, some of the speakers and discussions hinted at what may be coming soon to implement technologies in aviation training.

“We are excited to continue the growth of this conference, the communication it drives between all participants, and the importance of sharing of information it facilitates to improve flight training services in the entire system,” said FSANA CEO and president Robert Rockmaker.

FSANA is already beginning to plan for the 2025 conference that will take place in Orlando, Florida, next February. If you are a participant in the flight training sector, keep an eye out for more information on the next event.

The post FSANA Conducts Annual Flight School Operators Conference appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Attendees were able to take part in sessions covering topics as wide ranging as pilot medical concerns, national weather service forecasting support, emergency operations, and air traffic control (ATC) coordination to name a few sessions. Presenters from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Detroit’s approach control facility, National Weather Service, and industry writers and professionals brought expertise and experience to share.

Some of Michigan’s best flight instructors, promoters of safety, and mechanics also were recognized at the event. As part of the General Aviation Awards program (GAA), Michigan’s winners will be entered into consideration for regional and national recognition. The long-standing awards program is a cooperative effort between many different sponsors and organizations from the aviation industry and FAA.

For more than 50 years, the GAA program has recognized aviation professionals in flight instruction, aviation maintenance, avionics, and flight safety for their important contributions to the general aviation community.

Stephen Tupper was named the East Michigan FSDO CFI of the year’ Daniel Holtzclaw was recognized as the East Michigan FSDO and overall Michigan FAASTeam representative of the year; Marty King earned the Grand Rapids FSDO and overall Michigan aviation maintenance technician of the year; and James Whittles was honored as the Grand Rapids FSDO and overall Michigan CFI of the year.

​The GAA said these awards highlight these individuals’ important leadership roles in promoting aviation safety, education, and professionalism. 

If you missed this year’s Michigan Aviation Safety Forum, keep an eye out for 2025. The MASF is held each February in Ypsilanti and hosted at Eastern Michigan University.

More information on  the MASF event can be found here and here.

The post Michigan Aviation Safety Forum Gathers Mechanics, Pilots for Currency and Proficiency appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Ugh. You just want to land at your destination. What do you do now?

This can be a really difficult decision for a pilot. Do you go hold somewhere? Do you try the approach again? Are there some factors you could change to improve your odds of landing at the end of the approach? Or do you just go someplace else?

All of these questions come with risk decisions.

Trying the Approach Again

It can be tempting to just try to fly the approach again. The upside is that if you break out, you get to land where you want, as originally planned. The downside is that if you had to go missed once, the odds are pretty darn good that you will have to repeat the process.

There are also temptations that come with attempting the approach again that are more related to the pilot than the weather. There is no doubt a pilot is more likely to descend below minimums, go just a little beyond the missed approach point, or try to force a landing at the end of an approach down to minimums after the second approach. These temptations can minimize or break the safeguards built into the published procedures that keep us from, well, bumping into stuff we don’t want to with our aircraft.

Trying an approach a second time takes a pilot down a rabbit hole of temptation that can lead to disaster. Does that mean you never should try an approach again? Well, no, but you should probably have a pretty good reason to do so, or you might be better off considering other options.

Trying a Different Approach

One option is to try a different approach—even at the same airport.

There have been times in my experience when I have flown an approach to a preferred runway, perhaps hoping to avoid a crosswind on the landing or even just because it was aligned with the direction from which I was approaching the airport. In cases such as this, a pilot might find themself flying a non-precision approach and have the opportunity to make a second approach attempt to a different runway that has a precision approach or even just one with lower approach minimums. In one case, where there was fog rolling in off a lake, the winds were calm, and I was able to fly an approach to a different runway that wasn’t obscured while the first runway was.

Visibility can also be variable, and an area of fog or low clouds over one runway end may not be present at another. Know the conditions. A different approach might make the difference.

Changing the Factors to Improve the Outcome

A key factor in deciding to fly the same approach or a different approach to the same airport is to critically evaluate if you can change any factors likely to improve the outcome. That might entail switching approaches, using a different navigation system, or even waiting for some weather improvement.

When you go missed on an approach, if you can’t honestly say something is changing from your first attempt, you should probably come up with a new plan. Doing the same thing again is not likely to generate a more positive outcome.

While we all like to think we are great pilots, another factor we might change is how we fly the approach. Did you end up flying a little above the glide slope? Was your CDI centered? Or were you rushing the approach to try to help ATC with faster traffic behind you?

I vividly remember going missed at Chicago’s Midway airport (KMDW) in a Cessna 172 when I was trying to help ATC by flying the approach at approximately 120 knots to not get in the way of all the jets coming in behind me. At that speed, and on an approach to absolute minimums, I had to go missed, even though I saw the runway at the last minute, because of my speed. I changed how I was flying the approach for a second attempt by slowing down to 80 knots and managed to have a little more reaction time to see the runway as the airplane approached minimums. Don’t change what you are doing at the expense of safety, but if you can honestly do something different, it might be an option.

Wait it Out

Think the conditions are going to be improving—and soon? Well, another option might be to wait it out by holding.

OK, I know most of us don’t do holds much anymore, but they are available for a reason. Holds are there to allow ATC to keep aircraft separated or for them to kill some time before progressing on to the next part of their flight. A pilot might choose to hold for a period of time if there is a reasonable expectation that conditions will improve.

Instances where a storm cell is moving through, rain showers are dissipating, fog is burning off, or even a snow squall is passing might be conditions where a pilot might reasonably decide to hold for a bit and try an approach again. Be honest with yourself if you are thinking about this. Are the conditions really improving, or are you just hoping they are going to so you don’t have to go somewhere else?

One major caution here is to make sure you don’t hold long enough that you leave yourself short of fuel reserves. Holding for an extended period can leave a pilot with less fuel than optimal, and limit their options to get somewhere else if a second attempt becomes impossible or unsuccessful. Set yourself a limited time for a hold that leaves you with plenty of options and stick to it.

Go Somewhere Else–Where the Weather Is Better

IFR pilots are required to file alternate airports in accordance with some pretty strict guidelines for a reason. The goal is that a pilot not find themself with no options and out of gas. Hopefully, you have planned for this when you set out on a flight. It is a real consideration you should be willing to take advantage of if you have to go missed at your first destination airport.

It is not required that you go to your filed alternate airport. But it is required that if you are going to try to get to another airport, you still leave yourself enough fuel reserves to reach your filed alternate. OK, I know this seems confusing.

The gist of the concept here is that you leave yourself an out. You can however take advantage of other options if available.

A good example of this might be a case where you were traveling to an airport with only non-precision approaches, went missed, and had an alternate airport filed that was 45 minutes flight away. If there happens to be an airport 15 minutes away with a precision approach that is reporting weather conditions well above minimums, a pilot might choose to divert there.

Situations like this are fine opportunities to query ATC for information to help make a good decision. If your aircraft has good onboard weather information available, use it. If you have a second crew member or even a capable passenger, engage their help to gather more information. The best decision can only be improved with more knowledge. Knowing where you are going to go missed, with weather that won’t require you to go missed again, is a critical data point in your decision process.

Going missed on an approach can be a gut punch for a pilot who was expecting to get in. It can also be a hard decision point for a pilot. Thinking about this ahead of time can help you build some personal parameters that make the decision less likely to compromise safety in the moment.

Editor’s note: This story originally appeared in the July 2023 issue of Plane & Pilot.

The post Try That Instrument Approach Again appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

I was flying back from Washington, D.C., from some meetings, connecting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and then continuing on to Grand Rapids, Michigan, on an airline that shall remain nameless but certainly still resides on my personal do not fly at all costs list for this and a few other infractions that left me with less-than-desirable service memories.

Just before pushback at KDCA, I got the notification on my phone indicating that my last flight leg had been canceled. “Weather” was the reason that was given. “Huh?” I thought. The weather isn’t that bad at home. In fact, when I did a little digging while we were taxiing out, I found the conditions to be better than 5,000 feet overcast with better than 10 miles’ visibility at Grand Rapids, and Milwaukee was clear. What the heck are they canceling my flight for? I began fuming.

I wanted to get home.

So I started texting.

A friend “with an airline that also shall remain unnamed” confirmed my suspicion. The next leg I was supposed to be on was a virtually empty flight. The weather had nothing to do with the cancellation. And I wanted to get home.

Annoyed and searching for options, I shot a quick text to another pilot friend.

“Busy?” I asked.

“No, why?” he responded.

“Want to run up to the airport and grab my Cherokee and shoot over to pick me up in Milwaukee so I can get home tonight?” I asked as much as I pleaded.

“Heck yeah,” my VFR-only private pilot friend responded.

A few details worked out, and we were set for him to meet me about the same time I would be landing, and then I would fly my own darn self home VFR for the night. To heck with the airline and its bull**** weather excuse, I thought.

The flight on Airline X to Milwaukee was uneventful. I hopped a taxi (this was before Uber and Lyft days) from the main terminal over to the GA FBO, where I found Bruce, my buddy who had come to my rescue, waiting for me to go home.

But there was a hiccup. We didn’t take the hints.

Bruce had flown over to pick me up by heading straight across Lake Michigan in the single-engine Piper Cherokee, and while doing so, he found that the cloud deck was getting lower as he made the trip. The clouds were thickening, and climbing through them with me (now onboard as an IFR pilot) was really not going to be an option since the temperature was dropping, and those clouds were likely to have a bunch of ice in them.

So, we would just fly below them, I decided, wanting to get home. I wasn’t smart enough that day to step back and break the chain of bad decisions and mitigate a few more risks.

And that’s the point. Stepping back, identifying when risks are starting to pile on top of each other, and mitigating as many of them as possible or even making the decision that too many are piling up is a key factor in risk management for all of us as pilots. It is easy to get stuck in the “I must get home” and “nothing will go wrong” mentality. Had ANYTHING gone wrong on this particular flight as we ventured across Lake Michigan in the dark at 2,500 feet MSL, a mere 1,900 feet or so above the water without reliable communications, there is no doubt it would have been a last flight.

The only good news was that there was a heck of a wind out of the west, approximately 60 knots, and we got across Lake Michigan quickly. It surely didn’t feel quick enough about halfway across the lake when Chicago approach notified us that we were “no longer in radar contact” since we were so low (at that point about 2,500 feet MSL) and below their radar coverage. They had radio contact and told us to feel free to inform them “if we needed any services” or had any challenges along the route. We were effectively on our own a little above the water, in the winter, in a single-engine plane, with a single alternator and single battery, just hoping nothing went wrong.

Fortunately, nothing did, and crossing the land of the Michigan side of Lake Michigan never felt more welcome for me. We had stacked a bunch of risks against a hope that nothing would go wrong on this particular flight, with zero contingencies in the event that anything did. Looking back, that seems like a bad decision.

I know many of you reading this will look at what we did and think, “I would never do that” or “those guys were stupid taking those risks.” I can’t disagree with you. But complacency also played a part here. I was crossing Lake Michigan a few times a week in that particular Piper Cherokee at that point. I knew the plane and the maintenance. I felt comfortable with it. But sometimes, that is the point where too much comfort allows complacency to happen.

We got lucky that night. But I wouldn’t choose to make that flight again.

We had other options. We could have waited until morning. We could have flown around the lake. 

In the end, the risks were probably darn high on this flight. We got lucky the weather didn’t worsen, and the clouds didn’t get lower or have any precipitation below them. Sure, the airline with a much more capable aircraft should have been able to provide the service I had paid for instead of leaving me stranded, but I probably should not have taken the risks that we did on this flight.

In so many near misses and actual accidents, the critical decision point is stepping back and stopping the progression of worsening conditions or decision chains. Sometimes we get lucky. That luck can’t last forever. If you find yourself trying to “force” a flight when “it will be fine as long as nothing goes wrong,” think critically. Leave yourself at least a couple of contingency options. No one can mitigate every risk on every flight, but you don’t have to box yourself into a situation where you no longer have the ability to reduce any risks or problems you might encounter. 

Would you like to read another Risk column? Check out “When Trainers Fill the Sky.”

The post Flying Yourself Into a Corner appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

I get it. In some places, there are quite literally hundreds of aircraft in the air on good-weather days within a 20-30 mile radius of some of the busiest homes of flight training providers—and not all of these hubs are in Florida, I should add. Regardless of location, this many aircraft in a small area pose risks for them with each other and with transient aircraft trying to pass through the areas where training is happening.

The risk of flying in, near or around places busy with flight training aircraft is something that can be minimized and mitigated. Here are a few tips that might help you keep from getting too close to other aircraft in these areas by knowing where they are and how to navigate them.

Look At That Sectional Chart

Some areas of high-density training are depicted on sectional charts. One longstanding example is to the west of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Depicted and labeled on the sectional chart, Alert Area A-291A actually states “Concentrated Flight Training” as a part of its label. An area that’s used frequently by a number of flight training providers on the east coast of Florida, this practice area is identified by easily identifiable points that match up on the sectional chart.

Planning a scenic flight with a friend? This would be a good area to avoid if you don’t want to be on the lookout for multiple aircraft practicing or learning maneuvers for their next practical test for the first time.

“The risk of flying in, near or around places busy with flight training aircraft is something that can be minimized and mitigated.“

Search For Local Procedures And NOTAMs

In some places, local procedures become common, if not officially codified. A pilot wanting to do some flying in the Phoenix, Arizona, area would do well to visit the Arizona Flight Training Workgroup website (www.AFTW.org) and familiarize themselves with the practice area procedures used by the multiple training providers in that area.

An active group of FAASTeam representatives and FAA staff, flight training providers, DPEs and instructors have worked hard to put information out in this area that might keep aircraft from, well, getting too close to each other. This group has even gone as far as to provide downloadable and usable files that can be imported into applications such as ForeFlight and Garmin Pilot to overlay on charts to keep pilots flying aware of the busy practice areas.

These procedures sometimes aren’t limited to just where practice areas are but also how pilots in training might use resources. An example of this is the Stanfield VOR “stack” procedure.

It has become a standard practice with training providers in that area who are teaching the use of VORs for holding procedures or instrument approaches to, in essence, take turns using the facility. A “stack” procedure has been adopted where pilots will enter the “stack” at the top and separate themselves by 500 feet, slowly working down the stack and making radio calls not with ATC but with each other.

What if you were unfamiliar with this process and just passing through and thought a practice VOR approach would be a good proficiency builder? Or what if you were using this VOR as a navigation waypoint along your cross-country flight? The “stack” tops out for use in the training practices at 7,500 feet, so if you’re in the know, you might choose to fly at a higher altitude to avoid the training activities. Without checking for the local procedures, you might find yourself busting through a beehive of traffic over this heavily used VOR.

Use Your Traffic Awareness Systems—ADS-B

The addition of traffic awareness systems to many aircraft offers a fantastic opportunity to be more aware of traffic near you than ever in history. If you’re equipped with ADS-B In and have a display of traffic on your cockpit displays or a tablet device that gets the data, don’t discount it.

Ranging is a key and important part of this skill. I regularly put my ranges on something like a 10-mile ring and use it as a “warning range.” If I start seeing traffic closer than that, I run my range in to get a closer look. If it breaks 2 miles, I start to get nervous if I haven’t seen it and it is at a similar altitude.

Remember as you’re flying cross-country that other aircraft may have an instructor onboard just trying to keep that new student from allowing the aircraft to roll over on a Vmc demonstration during their multi-engine training. It can be challenging, at best, for an instructor in a busy training area to stay on top of all the area traffic and their student. Don’t make them be the only eyes looking out. Use your digital sources to help identify them as possible traffic conflicts for you also.

I would be remiss here if I didn’t note that not all aircraft will have ADS-B or even transponders. Don’t assume if your traffic system isn’t showing any local traffic that there isn’t any, but always take advantage of more information if it is available. Keep those eyes scanning outside even if you don’t see anything noted as traffic on your digital displays.

Communicate With ATC Or On A Practice Area Frequency

If you’re traveling on cross-country flights, do so with flight following or on an IFR flight plan when possible, even in VFR conditions and especially when in busy airspace. This doesn’t mean the ATC controllers will be talking with every flight training aircraft that may get near you, but if they are talking with you and see something on their scopes, they can give you a heads up. This can even be something you do when you are flying locally when ATC traffic volume allows them to provide services. Frequently, local practice area frequencies are also used where training aircraft report their positions and intentions in the blind to each other. The most commonly used frequency for this is 123.3 in many locations around the country. When in doubt, monitoring this frequency on a secondary radio can provide some awareness of other traffic that may be in your vicinity and their intentions.

Fly At Altitudes Unlikely To Be Used During Training

The vast majority of training doesn’t happen at higher altitudes. With a little exception for multi-engine aircraft training, the overwhelming bulk of the training is done below 6,000 feet AGL. A great deal of it is done in airport traffic patterns, at approximately 1,000 feet AGL for ground reference maneuvers and from 3,000-5,000 feet AGL for stalls, slow flight and commercial training maneuvers. Most instructors don’t bother to take the time to climb much higher, and many of the training aircraft don’t have the performance to do so quickly. So, knowing this, when I am flying through high-density training areas, I try to avoid the altitudes at which most of the training will be conducted. Back to that initial comment I said a friend of mine once made. Turns out, there was a pretty good bit of sage advice in that comment. Flying through Florida, across Arizona, Southern California, busy Texas, or nearby any other place where big flight schools push large numbers of aircraft into the air on training missions might be best done at altitudes that avoid where much of this training will be conducted.

Avoidance is a key to staying out of the way of training aircraft and keeping them from getting in your way. With little effort, a pilot flying near areas where large numbers of training aircraft are present many times can avoid the bulk of potential traffic conflicts. Plan ahead, get some local information, and adjust your flying to keep the risk of in-flight close calls, or worse, to a minimum when flying where big numbers of training aircraft lurk.

The post When Trainers Fill the Sky appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Okay, so unless you are getting hijacked, which we certainly hope no one reading this ever experiences, a person stowing away on your personal or corporate aircraft is pretty unlikely. However, as sure as there were way too many snakes on that one plane, there are often smaller living things, creatures, if you will, that might go unnoticed without a good, thorough check.

I have had a couple of these over the years pose a heck of a surprise on takeoff or during flight, and in a couple of cases, they could have posed a risk that could have been worse.

On a recent practical test, much to the surprise not only of the private pilot applicant but to me as the DPE also, a rather large bug landed on the poor applicant’s shoulder shortly after rotation during his climb out in the Piper Archer we were flying. We had the door open to the cabin during preflight to keep the cabin cooler before our departure, and a large dragonfly decided to hitch a ride.

Fortunately for the applicant, he just felt a bug on his shoulder. But he did notice the surprise on my face when I looked after he asked what had hit his shoulder! He kept calm, fortunately not looking at how large it was as I scrambled quickly to grab the POH from the back seat to shuffle it off his shoulder and then give it at least a stunning whack on the floor in the back seat. Good thing it hadn’t landed on his head or flown into his face.

In another case, I found myself fighting a handful of wasps buzzing around the cockpit that must have flown into the aircraft after it had been parked in a grass tie-down spot. Fortunately, the mini-swarm appeared during the taxi, and I was able to stop on the taxiway, open the door, and clear out the cockpit without getting stung. Had that happened during a more critical phase of flight, it might have left me with fewer options and in a position where getting stung was less avoidable.

To me, one of the scariest creatures on this planet is a spider. I know, for most readers, they aren’t a problem. But they are my kryptonite. Thankfully, and in a moment my mother-in-law loves to remember as a fun story, we were flying in a Cessna 172 when a spider at least the size of a quarter (although she will contradict my exaggeration with a more realistic estimation of size being closer to the head of a pencil eraser) decided to descend from the top of the glare shield right in front of me as we flew. Thankfully, my mother-in-law is a pilot also and braver than me when it comes to spiders. She took care of it for me, but I still felt creeped out for the rest of the flight that a spider could appear from nowhere on any given flight with the obvious purpose of killing everyone on board. Okay, that might be an exaggeration also, but in some places, those spiders can be bigger and more poisonous than the ones we usually get in Michigan.

“To me, one of the scariest creatures on this planet is a spider. I know, for most readers, they aren’t a problem. But they are my kryptonite.” 

In the cutest of cases, I found myself stopping for fuel in Grand, Nebraska, while bringing an Aeronca Champ that I had purchased back from Idaho to Michigan. It was the first stop in the morning after leaving Colorado, and I’d parked the aircraft at the fuel pumps and gone into the FBO to use the restroom. I’d left the door open to the aircraft, and I’d gone into the terminal, so I wasn’t keeping a close eye on potential interlopers.  

So, the first time I noticed anything amiss wasn’t until I was airborne, about 10 miles to the east of the airport, in fact, cruising on toward my next destination, when out of the corner of my eye, I noticed something move behind me.

Focusing on flying the plane but now concerned that something was moving behind me, my mind ran through many potential critters. A bird? A squirrel? Fortunately, it was just a cute little kitten from the airport. I dutifully turned around and brought the kitten back to the airport and was informed how happy they were he got returned since he was developing into a good “mouse catcher” in their hangar. It could easily have been a creature that was more problematic and less likely to sit on my lap for the return flight to the airport like the kitten did. There are, in fact, stories of stowaway cats freaking out and nearly causing the plane they’d commandeered to crash. 

Lots of things could get into your cabin when you are not paying attention. If you leave your doors or windows open on an aircraft while it is parked, even in a hangar, things can find their way in. Depending on where you are, the diversity of critters that could try to make your aircraft interior home while you are away only to find them during flight includes a wide variety. It can even happen in short periods of time while you fuel or while the aircraft is parked in a tie-down during breakfast or while you are away at a meeting. Pilots the world around share stories of snakes, spiders, mice and many more kinds of critters sneaking into the cabins of aircraft.

So, with these stories in hand, I think the gist is you should make sure you have checked your cabins for potential passengers that might pose a risk of, at a minimum, distraction or worse potential dangers. Keep those doors and windows closed. And take the time to thoroughly check your cabin before departing to avoid company from those unwanted passengers who may have snuck aboard! 

Get more flying tips from Jason Blair here.

The post Managing The Risk Of Unauthorized Animals On Board appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

In some cases, though, we might be assigned to cross a VOR or a waypoint or, more commonly, get vectors from ATC that take us off of our direct routing. Frequently, this still gives us little reason to pay much attention to the details on those low-altitude enroute charts.

But, as we make changes to our airspace system, these charts have begun to see more things of consequence noted on them to which we may need to pay some attention. A few of these notations may make big differences to us if we need to use those VORs, Victor Airways or waypoints along our flight paths.

In the old days, and I feel like I’m dating myself, you could look at an enroute chart and be pretty confident that a Victor Airway was going to be useable if it were published. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Looking at the excerpted chart segment, there are a few things that I can point out that would be great clues to an IFR pilot that some sections of the VOR navigation options may be limited, unavailable or downright out of service. (Figure 1)

First, let’s look at a quick, obvious key, and one that’s more permanent in nature. (Figure 2)

UNUSABLE ROUTE SEGMENT

When the FAA has determined that a segment of a Victor Airway will no be longer usable for a long period of time, it puts the notation in the charts. So take that into account if you’re filing a flight plan using Victor Airways. It might not take, though now you’ll know the reason why.

SPECIFIC NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT LIMITATIONS

In some cases, a Victor Airway may not be able to be reliably used with a VOR signal anymore, but the Victor Airway could still be used with an alternate form of navigation equipment. This next image shows us an example of this, where the FAA has charted an actual notation that indicates: “PMM R-243 UNUSABLE EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS.” This means that you can fly the Victor but only if you use GPS to do so, not the VOR signal associated with this radial. (Figure 3)

Why would this be the case, you might ask?

Well, I personally know this one is a VOR that has areas of coverage that don’t provide reliable signals in some radials due to signal blockage. As we transition to the Minimum Operational Network (MON) for our VOR system, meaning as we decrease the number of active VORs, many of them are not being fixed or upgraded when problems occur. If they are going to be gone soon anyway, we aren’t sinking money into keeping them going longer.

GPS MEAs

It used to be that an airway might list a MOCA (a number with an * before it) and MEA along a segment. The MOCA guaranteed you wouldn’t hit stuff and signal reception only within 22 nautical miles of a VOR. The MEA gave that same obstruction clearance but also navigation reception was guaranteed along the entire segment of the airway. We have now added a third number between these on some segments, denoted in blue and with a “G” after it. (Figure 4)

The GPS MEA is an altitude that can be used to guarantee the obstacle clearance and is a minimum altitude that can be used as an MEA along the entire airway segment as long as the navigation can be completed using GPS. (Figure 5)

In some cases, like the example above, these GPS MEAs also include an “MAA,” or “Maximum Authorized Altitude.” This particular route was put in place as a part of a GPS routing around the west and north of Chicago’s O’Hare airport to help pilots transition the area without having to go from VOR to VOR and includes a maximum altitude to keep these aircraft from getting higher where they might be in the way of higher-flying airline traffic coming into the area.

DEAD VORs

Speaking of transition to that MON VOR network, many VORs are completely NOTAMed as out of service. This is something that won’t show up on a chart and takes some digging to find out but can be important if you are considering using VORs in your cross-country navigation.

The only way to find out if a VOR will be usable is to check NOTAMs for specific VORs that you plan to use along, or near, your route. This can get tedious, and many pilots skip this, especially when they typically rely on the use of GPS for navigation.

It’s even more challenging if you’re transiting an area that was off the path you had originally intended to fly, potentially as a rerouting for weather or on an ATC re-vector for traffic. When this happens, pilots may find themselves navigating using VORs for which they had not checked the status in a preflight briefing process. This can lead to attempting to use VORs that are not actually in service. So, to state the obvious, they won’t be of any help.

Whether you knew ahead of time or found out enroute, when a VOR is out of service and not usable, one of the main effects a pilot will need to consider is that they can no longer use the published MEA for an airway. They must use the Off-Route Obstruction Clearance Altitude (OROCA) for the area in which they are traveling.

You can see this in the following image, where an MEA is listed along the airway but a second arrow is highlighting the “sector” OROCA that would be applicable. In this case, it would mean needing to fly at a minimum altitude of 3,000 feet MSL instead of being able to potentially fly as low as 2,600 feet MSL if you were on the airway with fully functioning VOR service. (Figure 6)

Why does it matter if I need to fly a little higher, you might ask?

Well, for non-functional VORs and maintaining at least the OROCA altitude, or when using an airway and needing to hold a higher MEA when a lower GPS MEA might be available are both instances where a pilot is held at a higher altitude. Higher may sound better in most cases, but in times where higher altitudes put a pilot into icing conditions or even if a lower altitude might allow a pilot to descend below a cloud deck into VFR conditions, lower can actually be safer sometimes strategically. In either case, more limited options give the pilot less opportunity to make some potentially safety-enhancing decisions.

Do I really care if VORs aren’t usable anymore? Or do I really need to reference the Low-Altitude Enroute Chart when I am just flying GPS direct?

The short answer is, yes. How much depends on the situation you find yourself in and how it will affect your particular route of flight.

But there still may be times when you will find yourself relying upon VORs to navigate, and when that happens, it will matter to you.

In days of GPS outages for signal testing or blocking, you’ll be left with the VORs as a primary source of navigation. Especially if you are in an area where radar service is distant or unavailable based on altitudes.

Knowing how some of the potential limitations are denoted on the modern low-altitude enroute chart will give you the information needed to make potentially critical safety decisions. 

Nine Tips And Tricks For Staying IFR Proficient

The post Inside IFR: VOR Navigation Has Changed, And You Probably Missed It appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

We all know that drinking as a pilot is a definite no-no when we are going to be flying. FAR §91.17 indicates that no person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft within eight hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage or while under the influence of alcohol or while having an alcohol concentration of .04 or greater in the blood stream or breath specimen. This is a rule that has been beaten into us all during training. We know that breaking the rule in any way risks our pilot certificate. But does it risk more?

Most certainly, yes. It may risk your entire career. Or it may risk your freedom.

A drunk pilot makes the news. The honest truth is that it actually doesn’t happen all that often, but when it does, it is going to make it into a couple of media cycles, especially if it is in a commercially operated aircraft. You aren’t going to hide this. And when it makes media, it makes it hard for prosecutors to ignore.

Most states have laws on their books that consider operation or attempt to operate motor vehicles while intoxicated and penalties that come with breaking them. While primarily focused on road-based vehicles, the term motor vehicle does not exclude “aircraft” in most cases, and neither do the penalties. States vary on the severity, sometimes based on the impairment level, anywhere from large fines and jail time on the first offense to minimal penalties in a few states for a first offense. And while these penalties can be applied in the state in which an operation (or, in some cases, attempted operation) takes place, flying is a federally overseen activity. Thus, federal statute also applies.

This is where the penalty becomes stiff, and in the case the attorney called me about, under which the charges were filed.

U.S. Code: Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 342 indicates that, “Whoever operates or directs the operation of a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance shall be imprisoned not more than fifteen years or fined under this title, or both.” Oh, and, yes, this is a felony.

There is some legal wrangling and definitional details that I am not going to go into the detail of here, but the gist is that if a pilot is convicted of “operating” an aircraft (that is used commercially; think airlines or Part 135 Charter operators as examples) under this statute, they face a criminal, felonious, potentially 15-year conviction. In this particular case, all because the pilot reported to work after drinking.

So, back to the attorney’s question, was I willing to assist the attorney in his efforts to defend the pilot? Yup, I was and did. I, and another fellow DPE who also is an instructor for a simulator training company (and familiar with the aircraft type that was to be used for the flight) offered our assistance as aviation industry experts to the best of our abilities in his efforts. We provided reference information on Federal Aviation Regulations, some previous cases we were able to find, information about pilot practices, specific information about the operation of the aircraft that was used, context on commercial operations and crew responsibilities, and as much other information as we were able to find in the research process for the defense of the pilot.

We did this not because we don’t think the pilot did anything wrong, but because we didn’t think he was guilty of the criminal conduct of which he was charged. Specifically, that he “operated” the aircraft. In this particular case, the pilot reported for work after his overnight in the hotel, and the PIC for the aircraft suspected a problem on the drive to the airport. The PIC stopped the SIC (the pilot in question) from being able to be a crew member of the flight by contacting his operation’s management and then, upon their direction, contacting local law enforcement to test the SIC for being under the influence of alcohol. The aircraft was not moved, it wasn’t fueled, the chocks were never removed, the engines were not started, and passengers were not loaded.

While the PIC awaited the arrival of law enforcement, the SIC did have access to the aircraft, and he did some limited preflight activities that a pilot might normally conduct, but in my opinion at no time do I believe the flight was going to be operated in a commercial carrier operation, the test of the federal charges.

That doesn’t mean in a case like this that FAA certificate action isn’t appropriate, nor does it mean they should get off the hook for  their FAA certificate even if they escaped criminal charges.

Risking a career to alcohol (or other substance abuse) dangers is a serious matter. The FAA is well within its authorizations to revoke certificates, ratings and/or privileges. Under FARs, operation is not required; an “attempt” to operate or act as a crewmember is enough. In this case, the FAA did execute an emergency revocation of the pilot’s medical and pilot certificates.

But beyond FAA actions, criminal code may be applicable when the pilot has actually operated an aircraft, bringing with it very real consequences.

Attempting to or acting as a crewmember of an aircraft is a serious charge for a pilot, but it isn’t the only related charges that could affect a pilot’s career. Getting a DUI/DWI or even, and make note of this younger pilots, a minor in possession (MIP) charge can have lasting effects. If convicted, they must be reported to the FAA under FAR §61.15. These can be grounds for revocation of a medical certificate. They can also limit a pilot’s ability to do their job, even if pilot certificate action has not taken place. Did you know that with many alcohol convictions you will be denied entry to Canada? Think that doesn’t matter? Try working for a regional airline that operates between cities in the U.S. and Canada. It can easily be grounds for dismissal from employment or termination of a candidacy for employment. Yup, because you got a DUI/DWI or MIP a few years ago when you were in college.

But back to the case. So, what happened to the pilot I referenced above?

Well, after four days of trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to the charge of operation of a commercial carrier vehicle. Without going into all the detail of the trial, and I have yet to read the transcript (neither I nor the other expert were called to testify), I have a hard time bringing myself to agree with the verdict of the jury. I just can’t seem to get myself to think that showing up to work under the influence but being stopped from doing so meets the test of this criminal charge that was filed, although it certainly breaks FAA regulations for crew member activities. In this case, the jury had to determine where the line between not operating and operating the vehicle exists. The jury considered showing up to do the job of a SIC pilot and conducting some pre-flight activities while the PIC awaited law enforcement arrival to confirm his suspicions of a crew member under the influence of alcohol enough to count as “operate.”

If you are a pilot reading this and have any alcohol dependency challenges, there is help out there for you. It takes courage, but seek it out. It took courage and hard work to achieve your qualifications; don’t throw them away. Use that same courage to get the help you need. If you know of a pilot who needs this help, don’t turn your back on them, help them. Be the best friend they can have and help them keep their career (or their freedom) before it becomes a matter for the FAA (or law enforcement). I have to think there were other pilots who suspected a potential problem with the pilot in this case, but didn’t step up and help. If you suspect a fellow pilot may be challenged by dealing with such a problem, don’t let it go unaddressed because of not wanting to get involved. Every time we do that, we risk those pilots’ careers and the image of our industry.

Substance abuse is a disease that can be treated. If left untreated, it risks the careers and lives of those dependent on individuals’ ability to do their jobs properly. I know it sounds cliché, but drink responsibly out there, fellow pilots, or don’t do it at all. The risk of not doing so is great.

Jason Blair is an active single- and multi-engine instructor and FAA Designated Pilot Examiner with 4,900 hours total time and 2,850 hours instruction given. In his role as Examiner, over 900 pilot certificates have been issued. He actively works within the general aviation industry and actively flies volunteer missions.

Staying proficient is important, so be sure to visit our Risk archives, where the best instructors in aviation help you fly smarter and safer.

The post Risking A Career (Or More) On A Drink appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

So your plane is equipped for flight into “known-icing”— no need to worry, right? Think again!

When we endeavor as pilots to fly aircraft into icing conditions, we may do the best we can to make sure we avoid prolonged time in icing, heavy icing conditions and/or especially ending up in any icing conditions in aircraft that are not properly equipped for flight into known icing (FIKI) conditions. But sometimes that isn’t enough.

We are just now emerging from icing season for much of the country, and especially here in Michigan, where I fly regularly, but since ice can be a threat regardless of season, I thought it might be worth highlighting some concerns that are less commonly considered when flying an aircraft in encounters with icing.

An aircraft that is equipped for icing conditions will typically have things like heated pitot and/or static ports, anti- or deicing systems for wings and tail surfaces, anti- or deicing systems for propellers or engines, and the same for the windshield of the aircraft. A FIKI-equipped aircraft will have all of these and maybe more.

“FIKI” isn’t just a name. The approval is an FAA certification, and it isn’t easy for manufacturers to achieve. Both Cirrus and Mooney have earned FIKI certification for their singles. As far as the FAA is concerned, that means the aircraft can operate safely in conditions of actual icing. Many other aircraft, and nearly all high-performance ones, have some form of ice protection, too, though mostly it’s certificated not through FIKI standards but as part of the plane’s type certificate, and the FAA makes no claim about its effectiveness in icing, just that its inclusion doesn’t make the design unsafe as a whole.

Having these systems is great. It keeps the airspeed indicator working, the wings generating lift, and the tail from stalling. It also keeps the engine making thrust, and it lets the pilot see out the windshield. This assumes, of course, you are using all the systems properly, and they are keeping up with the amount of ice you are experiencing.

Personal experience has highlighted other risks associated with icing, specifically some things that aren’t typically covered by the certification requirements for flying in icing conditions. Let’s look at a few of those and think about whether they might be things you wouldn’t want to be affected on your next flight.

Are you an aviation enthusiast or pilot? Sign up for our newsletter, full of tips, reviews and more!

Tires

Even on a retractable gear aircraft, your gear has to come down to land. Most people do this somewhere before a final approach fix. Doing this on a fixed gear aircraft leaves the pilot with a few miles to go to landing. If you are still building icing, it may accumulate on those tires. They get pretty slick or sometimes bumpy if there is a buildup of icing on the leading edge as they start to roll on touchdown. It typically comes off pretty quickly, but those first few moments can leave a pilot feeling the effect. Aircraft with wheel pants typically have less buildup on the tires but more on a wheel pant. This can lead to overstressing (from weight effects) the wheel pants or connection points on landings and sometimes vibration.

Landing Lights

Whether in the wing, on the nose wheel or in a cowling, landing lights are almost never covered by deicing systems. Older lights that got hot actually seemed to do better at melting ice off than some of the more modern, cooler, LED lights that are gaining popularity. While it may not be required to land, it sure helps in many cases to be able to use those landing lights. Flying those last 5 to 10 miles of an approach with the landing lights extended (when they are on a gear leg of a retractable gear aircraft or, in some cases, even ones that retract from the wings of the aircraft) can offer time for ice to build up. This buildup can reduce or even nullify the positive effects of landing lights. If you have the option, put them down as close to landing as possible to maximize effectiveness if the concern exists.

Antennas

And now my favorite surprise. The antennas.

Yeah, they aren’t deiced either.

I first learned this on a ride-along with a friend on a medical transfer flight years ago in a Piper Chieftain. Flying at 10,000 feet MSL, we were above the icing in nice cold weather. Unfortunately, the EMT on board told us the passenger in the back wasn’t breathing well with the higher elevation, and we needed to descend. This put us solidly in icing at 6000 feet MSL. About a half-hour into that, during which time we were running our hot props and the window deice, and cycling the boots on the aircraft no longer than every five minutes, we started to get “fuzzy radios.”

It wasn’t long before we were effectively lost comms, not only communication but navigation as well. The VOR reception was failing. Now, this was a while ago, and GPS wasn’t really a thing in most aircraft yet, but the charter company was a little ahead of its time and had as a backup in every aircraft a dash-mounted portable GPS receiver. The little antenna on that happened to be shooting through the only clear path on the window, where the hot plate was keeping it clear. For about an hour, this was our navigation as we headed south toward our destination, Oklahoma City. Somewhere along the flight, I do remember feeling some vibration, then hearing something hit the rear of the aircraft. We assumed it was ice off the wings as it shed off. It wasn’t. But the vibration had stopped.

Further south, it got warmer, and the ice went away, and our communications and navigation came back. We found a sector frequency and re-established ATC communication (yup, a real-life use for lost comms procedures). But we had to do it on Com 2. Com 1 didn’t seem to be working anymore.

We later found that the vibration was probably caused by a buildup of ice on the Com 1 antenna, a result of which it likely started vibrating from the weight buildup. The noise we heard when the vibration stopped was likely when it broke off and departed the aircraft. No doubt the reason that Com 1 wasn’t working after that. Good thing there was a maintenance shop at the airport to fix it. We were back on our way the next day.

What antennas will be affected depends on their positioning on the aircraft and how bad the icing is that is being experienced. Even “some” ice may reduce radio reception, leaving you with a super fun squealing in the radios until you reach an altitude or flight conditions where that icing comes off the aircraft. It may limit your ability to communicate with ATC, definitely something that is worse the busier the airspace you are flying through.

Few people talk about the fact that communication and navigation antennas on the top and bottom of the aircraft may build up icing also.

We all know ice is bad. Most of us know to stay out of it or minimize the time in conditions where it is happening. But if you do have to go into it, do so with the knowledge of what the true capabilities of the systems on your aircraft are and what will be affected. It’s better to come up with a game plan ahead of time than being surprised on your next flight

The post Flight Into Known Icing (FIKI) Approval Is Not Enough appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.