Scratch Two More

[voorheesh]

GA is definitely on the short end of the stick concerning ADS-B Out. If we all start equipping our aircraft, there is not sufficient time for the entire fleet to be ready by January 2020. The technology is still in development and there have been some problems with the initial installations. These will be overcome but you are right in calling this out. I am not a paid spokesman for AOPA, but if you follow their publications, they are in serious discussions with the FAA to get some relief or help from the rule. We should stay tuned.

[blueldr]

If I have an old C-170 with a stock engine, a new set of spark plugs will cost me about $360. If I was ALLOWED to use automotive spark plugs, as I could do if my plane was a homebuilt with the same engine, my spark plugs wiuld cost about 10% of that. Why do you suppose that is? Is somebody watching out for me?

[c170b53]

Harlow I do appreciate your points of view, your efforts and the efforts of your colleagues to raise awareness of the dangers of flying into IMC.
I brought up the equipment issue; ie. Garmin will sell an IFR piece of equipment over the counter to home builders, but will not sell the same equipment over the counter to a certified owner. Then there's a bit of discussion on, numerous units that are capable to control home builts, many of greater performance than our 60 year old planes. Somehow there's a wide devide between these aircraft and the equipment that can be installed in each type. We can easily improve situational awareness and make our planes safer, the downside? Anybody?
I'm just a cynic when it comes to this subject so I apologize in advance;
I'll suggest it must be difficult and frustrating for one part of the FAA to try to solve a GA safety problem with few resources whereas possibly another segment of the industry pretty much has their way in a timely manner.
I'll suggest that there's little pressure for real regulatory change for the better for GA. That's not saying those in the FAA or the MOT here in Canada that are tasked with GA do not want change but rather their voice is no greater than GA's voice in the bigger scheme of big business, big government, the world where money talks and GA walks.
Man that's definitely negative and probably totally inaccurate but just my perception

[bagarre]

If the FAA was pressed to a wall and had to select one item that had the greatest impact on commercial aviation safety, what would it be?

Technology that reduces pilot work load? (Autopilots, glass panels..)
Situational awareness? (Moving Maps, Synthetic visions, AOA gauges...)
Proficiency training?
Something else?

Is it possible to apply that one thing to GA as well?
Would more proficiency training than flying your favorite CFI to lunch twice a year improve safety numbers?

In what phase of flight are the majority of accidents happening. I always hear about base to final so, maybe more actual slow flight training.
It it's flying into IMC, more decision making training?

As a new pilot (4 years) I still remember my PPL training and it had very little to do with flying little airplanes as much as it did making the numbers on the dials to pass the check ride. Training for slow flight meant 3,000 feet and the exact recipe of throttle reduction and trim to balance the plane at 65 on the dial and then do itty bitty shallow turns. <- taught me nothing about slow flight.

[jrenwick]

David,

The Nall Report from AOPA has the accident statistics you're looking for. It's here:

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Saf ... all-Report

The FAA's major thrust recently has been to improve pilot decision-making through scenario-based training, which I believe is happening at some of the major flight schools in the country. Most recently I've seen that examiners and designees have been asked to include scenarios in all practical tests. So if you take a checkride, you might have to plan a cross-country trip and then go through a bunch of what-ifs as you talk about, or simulate, flying the trip.

Others here know more about this, I'm sure. Anyone?

[voorheesh]

The FAA adopted Scenario Based Training during the development of FAA Industry Training Standards (FITS) about 10 years ago. This related to the introduction of technically advanced aircraft based on a decision not to impose regulatory training requirements such as we use for tailwheel and complex aircraft. FAA Flight Training Handbooks were revised in 2006-2008 to include descriptions of SBT and the emphasis was on having instructors teach pilots how to recognize aviation hazards and apply effective mitigations. This was never intended to be at the expense of basic stick and rudder skills. In 2010-2012, the Private, Commercial, Instrument, and CFI Practical Test Standards were revised to include Scenarios during the test. All Examiners and FAA Inspectors are now required to evaluate pilot decision making and single pilot resource management during practical tests, using scenarios.

The problem has been that much of the guidance is still conceptual and there has not been enough information provided to the average ASIs, CFIs and DPEs on "HOW TO DO IT". Some schools such as Embry Riddle and UND have done an excellent job but they have the resources and educational expertise. Average CFIs and DPEs have resisted this training and it will take some time before it is widely understood and accepted. There is not enough time to fully address this subject in a brief post but I would be more than happy to try and answer any additional questions if any of you are interested.

Regarding observations on recent private pilot training and slow flight, it is not unusual for CFIs to use a "Gouge" to help students remember the basics. 1700RPM, full flaps, 5 degrees nose up pitch will help get you to minimum controllable airspeed in a typical Cessna single. Maintaining altitude, heading and airspeed in slow flight is evidence of an important skill and is required to pass the test. If you read the Noll report, you will find the majority of aviation accidents occur during takeoff and landing where slow flight and stall recognition skills are the most important. Frequently, we find that pilots involved in these accidents did not maintain proficiency in these maneuvers with the following results: They are unable to recognize impending loss of control. They lack the skill necessary to maintain/recover control in critical situations such as takeoff or landing. The basic skills you demonstrate on a private pilot test will deteriorate with time even if you fly regularly. We all develop bad habits to the detriment of safety. Do not wait 24 months for a cursory flight review. Practice Practice Practice! Happy new year.

[bagarre]

Regarding observations on recent private pilot training and slow flight, it is not unusual for CFIs to use a "Gouge" to help students remember the basics. 1700RPM, full flaps, 5 degrees nose up pitch will help get you to minimum controllable airspeed in a typical Cessna single. Maintaining altitude, heading and airspeed in slow flight is evidence of an important skill and is required to pass the test. If you read the Noll report, you will find the majority of aviation accidents occur during takeoff and landing where slow flight and stall recognition skills are the most important. Frequently, we find that pilots involved in these accidents did not maintain proficiency in these maneuvers with the following results: They are unable to recognize impending loss of control. They lack the skill necessary to maintain/recover control in critical situations such as takeoff or landing. The basic skills you demonstrate on a private pilot test will deteriorate with time even if you fly regularly. We all develop bad habits to the detriment of safety. Do not wait 24 months for a cursory flight review. Practice Practice Practice! Happy new year.

Those numbers sound familiar I passed the check ride obviously but had no confidence in my ability to slow fly or stall an airplane in any other configuration than what was drilled into me. It wasn't until I started flying with my tailwheel instructor in the 170 that I really understood what was happening with the plane. He'd cover the all the instruments and we'd practice real stick and rudder slow flight. Slow flight, stalls in all kinds of configurations....without gauges, you learned what the plane was telling you and I lost my fear (replaced with healthy respect).
10 hours with him and I felt like I learned more than in the previous 100 hours.

Perhaps, in my case the difference was my first instructor was building time to become a jet pilot (and CFI was a way to do that) and my second instructor was someone passionate about little airplanes? I wonder how many other pilots out there never practice slow flight and stall recovery because they were never comfortable with them in the first place.

[voorheesh]

Regarding observations on recent private pilot training and slow flight, it is not unusual for CFIs to use a "Gouge" to help students remember the basics. 1700RPM, full flaps, 5 degrees nose up pitch will help get you to minimum controllable airspeed in a typical Cessna single. Maintaining altitude, heading and airspeed in slow flight is evidence of an important skill and is required to pass the test. If you read the Noll report, you will find the majority of aviation accidents occur during takeoff and landing where slow flight and stall recognition skills are the most important. Frequently, we find that pilots involved in these accidents did not maintain proficiency in these maneuvers with the following results: They are unable to recognize impending loss of control. They lack the skill necessary to maintain/recover control in critical situations such as takeoff or landing. The basic skills you demonstrate on a private pilot test will deteriorate with time even if you fly regularly. We all develop bad habits to the detriment of safety. Do not wait 24 months for a cursory flight review. Practice Practice Practice! Happy new year.

Those numbers sound familiar I passed the check ride obviously but had no confidence in my ability to slow fly or stall an airplane in any other configuration than what was drilled into me. It wasn't until I started flying with my tailwheel instructor in the 170 that I really understood what was happening with the plane. He'd cover the all the instruments and we'd practice real stick and rudder slow flight. Slow flight, stalls in all kinds of configurations....without gauges, you learned what the plane was telling you and I lost my fear (replaced with healthy respect).
10 hours with him and I felt like I learned more than in the previous 100 hours.

Perhaps, in my case the difference was my first instructor was building time to become a jet pilot (and CFI was a way to do that) and my second instructor was someone passionate about little airplanes? I wonder how many other pilots out there never practice slow flight and stall recovery because they were never comfortable with them in the first place.

That sounds like a success story to me. Examiners frequently recite the old line: "License to learn, Son". Also, a good idea to fly with the gauges covered, probably best with an experienced CFI.

[GAHorn]

Reliance upon gadgets to correct deficient piloting-skills is abhorrent to me.
I personally condemn rocket-powered parachutes as an escape tool for stupidity and lack of judgment.... but see it's value in the case of catastrophic mechanical failure.
For the same reason, I am disgusted by the thought that anyone might want an autopilot which can recover from an unusual attitude simply because they refuse to learn piloting skills or lack the common sense to avoid situations beyond their skill level, and might view such gadgets as a "nanny".
That mentality is like driving in traffic at high speeds while not wearing your car seat belts because you have air-bags.

[bagarre]

That has to be the most constructive post on this topic to date.

Of course, the only people who crash airplanes are the ones that REFUSE to learn piloting skills and lack common sense to avoid situations beyond their skill level.
How did we miss that???

Maybe the FAA should just add those questions to the medical exam and everyone will forever be safe.

[blueldr]

I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a friend that I feel knows what he is talking about. We were discussing the recent loss of the father and son in the crash at Sutter Creek. He tells me that the pilot was recently turned down for a bi annual flight review by a very well regarded, long time, flight instructerthat we both know quite well.. Seems that he wanted to argue strongly with the instructer over some uf the questions that were asked. The instructor just advised him that, under these circumstances, perhaps it would be better if he found someone else to provide the flight review. He did. I do not know the instructor that he found, but, to my knowledge, he is not at all an active instructor at our airport. although he does hangar his airplane here.
KInd of gives one food for thought. In talking to the guys around the airport, it seems that everyone says they very seldom ever saw him fly his airplane.

[jrenwick]

I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a friend that I feel knows what he is talking about. We were discussing the recent loss of the father and son in the crash at Sutter Creek. He tells me that the pilot was recently turned down for a bi annual flight review by a very well regarded, long time, flight instructerthat we both know quite well...

And there's one instructor who's very glad his signature doesn't appear last in that pilots logbook, I'll bet.

[interstellardust]

If I might drag this conversation back to the question of what avionics can be installed in a certified aircraft again for just a moment...

Let me start by saying I'm a VFR only pilot and have no interest in flying in bad or marginal weather. I enjoy pleasure flying and aerial photography. IMC is not conducive to either activity. My 170 is not IFR equipped. I have a King KX170B NAVCOM with VOR head, and mode S transponder, there is no glideslope or certified GPS. All steam gauges.

A couple of years ago, I was planning to have an old Narco Mark 12 (no longer legal to use) NAV/COM removed from my 170 and replaced with a Garmin GMA 240 Audio Panel and SL-40 COM radio. The SL-40 would be my new number one radio and my older KX170B would become my backup and drive a seldom used VOR. The audio panel would give me an intercom making it possible to converse with the occasion passenger.

I approached Sterling Aviation at Buchanon Field in Concord, Ca. about installing the selected setup. They refused to install a GMA 240 in any certified aircraft stating that it was not TSO'd and they had been advised in writing by the local FDSO not to do so in the past. In other words, I needed to install the GMA 340 which has a ton of extra capabilities that I have no use for (3 NAVCOM inputs, 6 place intercom, DME and various other alerts), has a much more complicated user interface and costs about $600 more.

I fail to see how TSO'd equipment in certified aircraft makes our airspace safer given the increasing number of homebuilts and LSAs that operate in that same airspace with the non-TSO'd equipment in question.

As a result, I did not upgrade any of that equipment and find myself temporarily grounded as the KX170B has stopped transmitting. I'd like to install a GTR 200 as I actually like the way if works better than the new GRT 225, but no TSO.

One site I visited today claims the KX 170B is not TSO'd. So what's it doing in my airplane?

Is Sterling just out to lunch or does the FAA really not permit installation of non TSO'd equipment in certified, VFR aircraft?

[bagarre]

There is no TSO requirement for radio in a VFR airplane.
I don't think there is a TSO requirement for a radio in an IFR airplane either if it's not for hire.

Find another install shop.

Better yet, install it yourself and pay your mechanic to supervise. There is NOTHING complicated about installing a radio in an airplane.

[DaveF]

Check out the PS Engineering PMA4000 audio panel:http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/PMA4000_DS.pdf It will handle two com, two nav, and it has an excellent intercom function. They're about $800 new but I found one new on eBay for $400. Oh, yeah, and it's TSO'd.