Debunking the 'scary landings' video

(Cross-posted from the day job)

Among the "viraliest" of the viral videos being picked up by "news" sites in the last few weeks is this video showing "scary" and "dangerous" landings in jetliners. Commenter Jim Shapiro forwards the latest victim of the supposition, the Huffington Post.



Said the Huffington Post:

The planes, from Emirates to Thomas Cook, approach the runway at odd angles to compensate for the high winds, which were gusting up to 55 knots on the day, Bogdan says.

Landing (and takeoff) is statistically riskier than other parts of the flight, 'Miracle on the Hudson' pilot Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger' told us over the summer, due to cloud height, wind and visibility, among other things. Now we see why.

"Look at these impossible landings," a TV anchor on WCCO declared the other morning while showing the video.

Let's analyze what's really happening here. While it's flying, a plane doesn't move against the wind, it's in the wind. If the winds are blowing 55 mph across a runway (it's not here although the suggestion is that it is, but that's another discussion), the plane is also moving at 55 mph across a runway . That's not a good thing.

What the pilots of these planes are actually doing is making very professional and safe approaches. They're turning the nose into the wind -- against the wind, really -- in order to align with the the centerline of the runway...drifting neither left nor right. Where you do see the plane drifting, is the pilot calculating how much of an angle is necessary to align the jetliner's track with the centerline of the runway.

But, of course, you can't actually land that way, so shortly before touchdown, the pilot uses the plane's rudder to align the nose with the runway, so as not to put any "side load" on the landing gear. Every plane has a maximum "crosswind component" to help pilots calculate whether a landing can be made safety given a certain amount of wind and the angle at which it intersects the runway. So what you see above, while an example of pilot skill, is not luck at work.

If a pilot needs more time to get the angle right, he/she simply "goes around" and tries the approach again. Look up on any day with a light breeze the next time a small plane flies over your house, and the chances are the nose of the plane is not aligned with the path (heading) of the plane. Same thing.

Think of it this way: You're crossing a river with a canoe. If you point the canoe to the spot on the opposite shore where you intend to disembark, the current will carry you downstream. So, you point the canoe upstream of where you want to land and between your heading and the current, the result is usually a straight line to your intended "touchdown." With any luck when you get to the other side, there's nobody there with a camera to tell you how dangerous, scary, or impossible it was.

Oshkosh in winter

Yes, it's a lovely video of landing at Pioneer Airport on skis. But what I find most interesting is the flight over a snowed-in Camp Scholler. Find your "spot."

NTSB's probe into experimental aircraft accidents

The NTSB today said it has finished collecting data on accidents involving experimental aircraft.

Here's the NTSB news release:

WASHINGTON - Throughout the 2011 calendar year, the National
Transportation Safety Board has been conducting a study of
Experimental Amateur-Built (E-AB) aircraft to evaluate the
safety of this growing and innovative segment of general
aviation. In addition to using the information gathered
during its accident investigations, the NTSB has been
working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and individual
owners and builders to evaluate a range of issues unique to
this popular segment of general aviation.

"The cooperation we have received from EAA and the E-AB
community has been tremendous," said NTSB Chairman Deborah
A.P Hersman. "Through this study, we hope that we'll be able
to give the innovators and aviators in the community
information about accidents that will result in a real and
immediate safety payoff for them when they are flying these
aircraft."

As part of the study, NTSB investigators have conducted in-
depth investigations of 222 E-AB aircraft accidents that
occurred during 2011. Fifty-four of these accidents resulted
in 67 fatalities. Most of these accidents (93%) involved
amateur-built airplanes, the remaining accidents involved
gyroplanes (4%), helicopters (2%), and gliders (1%). These
accidents occurred in 44 states, with California (18
accidents), Texas (16 accidents), and Florida (14 accidents)
accounting for the most. More than half (53%) of the E-AB
accidents investigated in 2011 involved E-AB aircraft that
were bought used, as opposed to having been built by the
current owner.

The EAA has supported the study by conducting a web-based
survey of E-AB owners and builders. More than 5,000 E-AB
owners and builders responded to EAA's survey, and 4,923 of
these responses were sufficiently complete to use in
analyses. Most respondents (97%) described E-AB airplanes,
while gliders, gyrocopters, and helicopters were each
described by slightly less than 1% of the respondents.

Sixty-three percent of respondents had already built their
E-AB aircraft, 13% were currently building their E-AB
aircraft, and nearly 24% had bought used E-AB aircraft. More
than 340 distinct makes of amateur-built aircraft were
reported, although kit manufacturers accounted for more than
55% of the reported aircraft.

"The NTSB is extremely pleased with the number of
respondents who participated in the survey," said Dr. Joseph
Kolly, Director of the Office of Research and Engineering.
"The survey data provides us with quantifiable, factual
information that enriches our understanding of how E-AB
aircraft are built and operated."

The safety study is scheduled to be completed in the spring
of 2012.

Risk and the perfect picture

(This is a cross-posting from my day job)

There's no question that Pioneer Press photographer Ben Garvin's aerial photographs of the Crashed Ice event are some of the most spectacular photographs ever taken of the Capital City. True to the nature of geeky pilots, I wondered how it was possible the pilot could legally -- not to mention, skillfully -- get them.

It was difficult airspace for the pilot of the Cessna aircraft to navigate, given the smokestacks along the river (note: they're not so much aviation hazards as they are markers of the point at which the big airport's airspace begins at ground level), the height of the Cathedral, and the heavily-controlled airspace overhead that's meant to protect the jets at the big airport. Any safe pilot is always mindful of the possibility of an engine failure, but Garvin's pilot left himself with few options if something had gone wrong.

Having witnessed the plane circling the Cathedral at a low altitude on Saturday, I tweeted on Sunday that the pilot may have been breaking the regulations to help Garvin get his shot. He was that low.

In MinnPost writer David Brauer's excellent interview with Garvin, the suspicion was confirmed with this passage:

"We had to fly low because of the smokestack of the District Energy power plant. The pilot mentioned a couple of times, 'We're too low, we might get in trouble.' I was kind of saying 'Do what you have to do, but keep doing it,'" the photographer says with a chuckle. "He said he hardly ever got to do cool things like this. He was banking sharp, and flying in high-traffic airspace, so it was technically challenging."

It was also likely illegal at some point. Here's the relevant FAA regulation:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

If the engine had failed, there was nowhere for Garvin and his pilot to go but into a neighborhood, building, or the crowd below (one might have been able to limp over to the Sears parking lot to minimize the toll). And on ( b), the pilot also likely failed. The highest obstacle in the area, of course, was the Cathedral at 306 feet, requiring a minimum altitude of 1,306 above it. That would have put him in the so-called Class B airspace above the city, which protects the jets landing at Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport. It appears that he was circling just outside the reach of the controllers at the downtown St. Paul airport.

This photo, which raced around the Twitterverse -- and deservedly so -- reveals the pilot was no more than 200-500 feet above the top of the spire (estimate adjusted for the use of an 80-200 mm lens).

Another pretty photo of #crashedice looking from the north over cathedral, complete with Cessna wing. twitter.com/bengarvin/stat...

— bengarvin (@bengarvin) January 15, 2012

Who couldn't look at that beauty all day?

And fortunately, airplanes don't usually develop mechanical problems, and Garvin wasn't responsible for following aviation rules -- his job was to get the shot. But the regulations exist because of the high risk involved in low- altitude flights with steep turns, which increase the danger of a stall/spin crash that, in this case, could have far eclipsed the toll in the recent Reno airshow crash.

A study by the Aviation Safety Foundation found that 80 percent of all crashes involving a stall/spin, began within 1,000 feet of the ground.

The challenge of photographing an event like Crashed Ice is also why TV news organizations use helicopters for their photo platforms. The FAA regulations exempt helicopter pilots from the minimum safe altitude requirements above, as long as the helicopters are flown "without hazard to persons or property on the surface."

It's hard to know whether the "trouble" the pilot of the plane was concerned about was the potential problem of an engine failure, or the possibility the FAA would find out .

The FAA has not yet responded to inquiries on the matter, and it's fairly unlikely it will.

The pre-inspection inspection

In a week in which the value and future of EAA with regard to homebuilders has been rightly questioned, I was reminded today -- as if I needed to be -- that RV builder groups are much more valuable for people building airplanes than an other source of advice.

Fortunately for me, two of the most knowledgeable RV builders on the planet live in the Twin Cities and, even more fortunately for me, think nothing of giving up three hours on a Sunday afternoon to go over my RV-7A project before the FAA D.A.R. (likely, Tim Mahoney, another RV builder who knows these guys well) takes a crack at it.

Doug Weiler has headed the Twin Cities RV Builders Group since at least the time when I thought an RV came on four wheels. He and Tom Berge showed up at the hangar today, Doug announcing that the "guys who destroy dreams" had arrived.

By nature, I assume I've done stuff wrong, so I'm always a little skittish about having people look at my work too closely. But when I was building, I constantly heard Tom's voice in my ear. Years ago, I did an interview with him for the RV Builder's Hotline. So I knew -- generally -- what he'd be looking for.

He's done so many inspections, he now has a form to check every little thing. He crawls into places that make me hurt just thinking about it. Nothing escapes his notice. When he called out a problem, I wrote it down on the paper covering my workbench. See? (click here for the large image)

The biggest problem he found were the jam nuts not tight on the forward elevator pushrod, some loose bolts on the fuel tank attach, and the lack of a backout bracket on the TruTrak wing leveler (they were introduced well after I'd bought and installed mine). He had great ideas.

He also told me to change the breather tube route that some people on Van's Air Force had told me to make, after seeing my original route (down around the oil filter was the original). It was a good reminder that sometimes the information you get in a builder's forum, isn't as good as the information you get from a rootin' tootin' expert.

Tom even found a missing cotter pin on the left nut on the right pedal of the rudder/brake pedal on the pilot's side.

One more tip: For an RV-7A bottom cowl rear hinges, a piece of .063 angle should be riveted across the three most inboard rivets of the hinge. Otherwise, Tom said, the "eyes" of these hinges tend to break.

I knew Tom would point out that the oil pressure transducer line and the fuel pressure transducer line should have firesleeve on it, even though Van's' instructions don't call for it, and many others say it's not needed. But he makes a very compelling argument for it to take simple precautions to prevent a fire under the cowling.

One very interesting piece of advice: Tom suggested disconnecting the aileron trim before the first flight. Otherwise, he said, it'll be hard to detect a heavy wing.
Then, once fixed ("it's easy to fix a heavy wing," he says), it can be reconnected.

It'll take me a few weeks to work my way through all of these things, but I'm not in a hurry.

And when Tim Mahoney takes a look at this bird for the actual inspection, I'm betting when he finds out Doug and Tom have already given it the once-over, and the appropriate items have been fixed, that'll make his job, and my day, a lot easier.

Here are most of the specific items:


1) Move oil breather hose back to the way I had it before VAF told me I should change it.
2) Separate engine probe wire bundle from starter cable
3) Safety wire the dipstick assembly better
4)Set engine idle to just above stall (haven't done any tinkering on actual engine operation)
5)Firesleeve the oil and fuel lines to the transducers
6) Use a cork, rather than a typical paper, gasket between the fuel servo and the FAB plate.
7) Attach .063 angle across the innermost three rivets on the bottom of the cowling aft hinges. The eyes tend to break in that spot.
8) Seal inside of lower cowling with a white epoxy.
9) Torx screws on the wing tips but do not use any stainless on fuel tank attach points.
10) Retorque all fuel tank attach bracket bolts (one or two were loose)
11) Tighten jam nuts on the forward elevator pushrod
12) Disconnect aileron trim before first flight to aid in establishing whether there's a heavy wing.
13) Add backout bracket prevention to TruTrak wing leveler (mine was purchased before TT made these available)
14) Use foam to seal the forward gap between the main wing spar and the fuse. Aileron boots not needed.
15) Silicon seal area around the bottom edge of the rear window.
16) Use a longer flap weldment bolt
17) Change -8 screws in flap housing covers to 3/8" length.
18) The left aileron push tube is binding, rod ends bearings aren't clocked properly. Loosen jam nuts, adjust, tighten.
19) Right flap pushrod also binding for same reason.
20) Crotch strap bracket...use a spacer and bolts to to tie front and back together rather than nutplate through the floor.
21) Top rib cutout under floor (for installing yoke) is cracked.
22) Bolt missing on passenger stick spreader bar
23) Add washers to the ball joint installation for canopy struts
24) Add led to elevator counterbalance
25) Cotter pin missing on left side of right pedal bolt on pilot side
26) All tires to 40 pounds
27) Double check to be sure the forward tank attach bolt wasn't torqued down.

Cuts at EAA

It appears to be Black Thursday at the EAA. From what I am told, Twenty to 30 people were let go today, including the people who put together the electronic newsletters (and including Fareed Guyout, who has been a very good friend to the homebuilder community and EAA Radio's efforts during Oshkosh).

The people who were let go were told to leave immediately and there is a staff meeting getting underway today at 4pm (CT) for those who remain.

I don't yet know if there was a funding reduction somewhere or if this is a strategic shift but have messages in to EAA.

Update 4:43 p.m. More information from inside:

* The cuts appear to be more than 35 people.

* Two staff laisons to EAA Radio were cut.

* The entire E-pubs division was cut (except Ric Reynolds).

* All video and photography was cut. (Goodbye, Tips for Homebuilders?)

A recently appointed VP (& new head of AirVenture) is rumored to have resigned in protest.

Update 5:24 p.m. Just got an email response from Dick Knapinski.
Here's the release he just put out:

EAA AVIATION CENTER, OSHKOSH, Wis. — (Jan. 12, 2012) — EAA President/CEO Rod Hightower today announced changes that will allow the 170,000-member organization to better fulfill its mission to grow participation in aviation. EAA is strengthening and reshaping the organization to capture the opportunities within its long-term strategic plan. As a result, the organization will be adding important capabilities, and aligning its resources with strategic priorities

“This will strengthen our organization in several key areas to more effectively meet the needs of our members, donors and aviators,” Hightower said. “We’ve made these moves after spending the past year reviewing EAA’s operations to best align them with the organization’s goals, and listening to many EAA members and supporters regarding the most valued areas of EAA.”

The changes include the addition of new positions, transfers of responsibilities, and the elimination of some positions. There are also senior leadership changes as well, including:

Jeff Skiles – Vice President, Chapters and Youth Education. Skiles is already well known as one of the famed “Miracle on the Hudson” pilots and for the past two years as Young Eagles co-chairman. He brings a wealth of aviation experience and passion to this new role as EAA strengthens and expands its global Chapter network and industry-leading Youth Education initiatives and programs.

Chad Jensen – Manager of EAA’s Homebuilders Community. Jensen brings extensive homebuilding experience and aviation skills to this important role as EAA increases its knowledge and information capabilities for Homebuilders and the amateur-built segment of aviation. He will have extensive involvement with Flight Advisors, Tech Counselors and the passionate community of builders.

Heidi Strand of Blue Door Consulting in Oshkosh will lead EAA Marketing on an interim basis while EAA completes a search for a Vice President of Marketing. Strand will lead EAA’s brand and marketing capabilities and also be responsible for EAA digital media properties and strategy.

Vice President, AirVenture. This newly created role will lead the world’s premier aviation event to continued growth and importance as the preeminent general aviation marketplace.

“Much thought and collaboration has been invested in the reshaping process to make EAA a stronger organization, better equipped to lead aviation and welcome the next generation of aviators,” Hightower said.

Update 5:29 p.m. RVer Chad Jensen, homebuilt community manager, moves to senior leadership position.

Update 5:47 p.m. More names of the departed leaking out: Steve Buss (Young Eagles and Chapter relations), Ron Wagner, Sue Lurvey, Adam Smith.

Update 5:51 p.m. Adam Smith, AirVenture manager and VP resigned.

Update 7:13 p.m. Also out: Jim Koepnick of EAA photo, Rob McAllister of EAA video. There is still video/photo capability Jim Soyk, still on staff.

Starved and Exhausted: Why can't pilots manage fuel?

There's really no excuse that I can think of for running out of fuel other than either willful stupidity or the passive kind. My flying buddy was surprised the other day when he pulled his flying club's Arrow out of the hangar and discovered a right fuel tank run almost completely dry. How do you miss that? Wouldn't you at some point wonder why you were rolling in so much control out put to keep the heavy wing from dropping.

True, whoever ran it dry had another tank to count on once the big fan in the front stopped turning, but the event is an example of fuel mismanagement or, more accurately, no management at all.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau today issued "Starved and Exhausted," a report on the number of fuel starvation incidents in that country, which obviously has plenty of application here. Stupidity knows no boundaries. (Here's the pdf of the report)

The report documents several common problems by citing several individual cases. Coincidentally, this one rings a bell:

These occurrences are sometimes referred to as ‘finger-troubles’, on the basis that a pilot did not ‘use his/her fingers’ to select the tank with more fuel remaining. It is probably more helpful to look at why the pilot did not make that selection in the first place.

The simpler an aircraft’s fuel system, the easier it is to avoid selecting the wrong tank. A Cessna 150, with a separate fuel tank in each wing, has a very simple fuel selection, either ‘off’ or ‘on’. Although the Cessna 172 and 182 have a similar fuel system, the fuel selector has four selections; ‘off’, ‘both’ wing tanks at the same time, or either wing tank. In contrast, the Piper single engine training fleet all have separate wing tanks, but only one tank can be selected at any one time.

Once a selection of tanks is available, there is a greater chance of selecting the empty one, and the greater the number of tanks, the greater the chance of a mistake. The risks are increased when pilots forget to change tanks during the cruise when workload is lower, or when pilots forget to select the appropriate tank prior to the approach to land. Although tank selection for approach and landing is often specified in the aircraft flight manual, following this procedure will only be successful if the pilot has also ensured that there is sufficient fuel in the required tank for landing.

These risks are best managed by the strict application of a standard procedure, fuel logs and checklists. If a pilot is disciplined in always writing down a tank change with the time of the change, then any doubt about whether a tank was changed can be checked against the fuel log. If a tank change had been forgotten, then there will be enough information available to work out how to rebalance the fuel quantities. The use of a fuel log is discussed in the next case study.

The RV paperweight

I "finished" N614EF after a more-than-10-year construction over the weekend. And I sat down to figure out how to finance getting it into the air, only to realize -- again -- I can't. So there it sits, ready to be inspected, and presumably ready to fly. But the sales tax, insurance, and transition training costs are -- for now -- insurmountable, especially since my wife's unemployment started yesterday and who knows how long that will last. I also badly timed getting an estate plan put together which comes with a $4,000 legal bill. D'oh!

In the meantime, though, I'm buoyed by the RVers who produce great videos.

Like this one:



(h/t: Fun Places to Fly)

Why aviation people need to be better at telling media's stories

I'm a big fan of the podcast, Uncontrolled Air Space, which is three very knowledgeable gentlemen gassing on for an hour about all things (general) aviation. They're smart, they make excellent points, and they're a great companion for me out at the hangar.

A couple of years ago, I interviewed U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood at Oshkosh along with Jeb Burnside, one of UCAP's founders, although I doubt he'd remember me and I wouldn't expect him to.

It was surprising on Sunday, then, to be listening to a recent podcast while I was working on the RV-7A at the hangar, when this blog was mentioned and came up for discussion. Unfortunately, they did to me what many reporters do to aviation, they talked as informed analysts even though they didn't fully know what they were talking about and, in the process, they got the story wrong and did a disservice to the listener.

The subject of their segment was this blog post about the landing gear problems of a Polish airliner on a flight to Poland from Newark.

I had access to (I think from the Aviation Safety Network) the English version of an initial report from the Polish version of the NTSB. Not only that, I read it and I provided links and information contained therein.

I made clear in the post that the belly-up landing did not have its roots in the circuit breaker -- that clearly was from a hydraulic leak -- but that one reason for the belly-up landing was the circuit breaker.

In the telling of the story, however, my three friends neglected to read what I wrote and adequately inform themselves about the information before commenting on what they were reading.

You could hear the whole presentation here.

Even though I provided the source of my information, they initially questioned from where I was getting it. They proclaimed it an "implausible" scenario, and they objected to the possibility that a circuit breaker wouldn't have revealed itself via the usual annunciation systems. They also didn't quite comprehend that I was talking about the failure of the alternate landing gear system, not the initial problem of the hydraulic leak.

As they worked their way through the post, they eventually figured things out, although by not reading it ahead of time, they also missed the very real factoid that the landing gear came down on this airliner once the CB was pushed in; that just didn't happen until it was already on the ground.

But, I guess what I generally object to is the live questioning of a journalist's work to a wide audience without fully understanding what that work was. I rather hope in the future that my three companions will take the time to fully familiarize themselves with the topic before tackling it, because people's reputations are valuable.

It's nothing we don't ask of journalists toward the aviation world, and nothing we shouldn't expect of ourselves.

All that said, it's a hell of a great show, they're three great guys, and if you're not a regular listener, you should be.

I'd have posted these comments in the show's forum on their excellent website, but I haven't been approved yet.

Reporter/blogger in battle over EMI on aircraft

It's pretty unusual to see journalists sniping at each other across the country, but that's happening today between aviation reporter Christine Negroni and a blogger at the New York Times.

Negroni, who reported for the Times this year on a story about the electromagnetic interference consumer devices could cause for airplane navigation systems, is hitting Times blogger Nick Bilton hard for a series of posts that pooh poohs the threat.

Negroni makes a rationale rational argument before unleashing the journalistic version of the "nuclear option."

For those who prefer their pilots not to be wetting their pants over suspected EMI flight control issues I'll point out that it is a basic tenet of aviation safety that events are more predictive than accidents. These pilots were reporting on the precursors to crashes.

But Bilton, having spoken to at last count about half a dozen people over the course of four posts tells Times readers its "time to change the rules."

He's wrong. Aviation's remarkable record is the result of eliminating anticipated risks and creating redundant systems for the risks and errors that are unpredictable. The use of portable electronic devices falls squarely in the former.

Bilton would know that if he felt the need to take his reporting even slightly off the path between his hunches and his biases. As a blogger he may not need to do that, but as someone who's opinions fall under the banner of The New York Times, he and his editors certainly ought to.

Ouch.

By the way, it would be "whose opinions."

Don't turn back

This article from AOPA last summer really caused a lot of furor in the piloting community, and it's probably what's led a few pilots to get it into their head that it's advisable to turn back to the airport when there's an engine failure on takeoff.

I'm a big fan of Internet builder and pilot forums. You can find a lot of great information there. I also think they can kill people, and I think Doug Rozendaal thinks so too.

Rozendaal is one of the best pilots in the country. He flies his Rocket up from Iowa to fly the CAF's P-51 Red Tail and the B-25 out of KSGS. He does spin training and upset maneuver training, as I recall.

So I tend to listen to what he says. This week, he penned a response to another discussion, this time on Van's Air Force, about the possibility and practicing of returning to the airport when there's a failure on takeoff.

I was leisurely digesting my Christmas Dinner, surfing VAF, and "what to my wondering eyes should appear......" Another Turnback thread.... OMG

Those who know me can imagine my indigestion...

Nothing seems to change.... Every few months I read about another SSCBD accident after a turn-back after take-off...

The AOPA did a terrible disservice to General Aviation with their articles this summer... I know for a fact that there was disagreement internally about the things they have published on the subject this summer...

I also realize this thread was started to gather data, but for what purpose.... If you believe you have the skills to consider a turnback when the unthinkable happens to you, the you have the skill set to collect your own data on your own airplane. If that is beyond your skill set, then a turnback from an EFATO should not be in your toolkit...

The most recent post that says pulling the mixture at altitude is going too far??? If pulling the mixture 4000 ft above a 4000 ft runway increases your heart rate even 1 bpm, then the turnback from an EFATO is not for you....

Long term readers of this forum know that I have never said it is impossible. What I have said, and continue to repeat, is this..

When it happens for real, there are so many variables that must be considered that make it impossible to have a cookbook go-no/go decision. That combined with the shot of adrenaline that comes with the emergency turns the brain to mush.... The statistics bear this out...

The default response to an EFATO needs to be, "lower the nose and pick a point ahead of the wings, into the wind, and land at the slowest possible airspeed." Airplanes that arrive at the earth, wings level, under control, at minimum airspeed, have survivors onboard...

There is an attorney in Des Moines IA, Tom Drew, who coined a phrase that I call "Drew's Law" Tom says that "80% of the pilots believe they are in the top 20%..."

To that I add a corollary, "The reality is that half of us are below average." (the median actually for the statisticians, but that's a detail)

Pulling off a turnback from an EFATO is a maneuver that requires the skills found a group much smaller than the top 20%.

Trying would be fine if failure did not result in almost certain death for all aboard....

Everyone have a wonderful Christmas, and I will go find a roll of Tums....

Over the years, I've covered a fair amount of accidents involving people who tried to turn back to the airport. They usually end up looking a lot like this.

Here's an article Doug wrote a few years ago which might help explain why you shouldn't turn back.

Almost done

I took this week off from work to make some progress on the RV-7A project and, wouldn't you know it, I got a bad cold on my vacation. But I got two long days of work in, including installing the interior from Flightline Interiors.



You can see when I close the cowling how well the fiberglass "skirts" I made came out. I didn't like the gap between the fuse and canopy, not so much because it looked lousy from the outside -- it did -- but I didn't like seeing so much daylight when inside, even if I had put the weatherstripping in place there (not to self: don't forget to put the weatherstripping in there).

And then, realizing a little more about how the baffling material relates to the nose inlet "ramp," I drilled out a couple of pieces and added a few more, finalizing that project. Even better, having moved a couple of pieces, the cowling fits better.

(The music is the Killers, which I have begun and ended every work session with since this video came out)

The white cowling? That's Smooth Prime -- a filler primer and UV blocker. I have some sanding to do on the bottom piece before painting. I bought a can of MarHyde from the auto parts store and some catalyst and reducer, intending to shoot the cowling, then realized the can they sent me wasn't grey, but beige. Beige? Man, that'll look lousy. I may just get a big rattle can of MarHyde grey to finish this off.

There are a few more things to be done, yet. The empennage fairing is almost complete, just need to sand some SuperFil off and roll on some Smooth Prime. I haven't done the leg fairing, intersection fairings or wheel pants yet, and I still need to configure all of the avionics.

I had the Grand Rapids EIS-4000 engine monitor updated to allow a second tach reading, but I don't know yet where that shows up on the unit. Also, it occurs to me as I look at the engine start video that the RPM reading off the lightspeed ignition was probably half of what it actually was.

Oh, and I have to rivet on the most forward piece. After that, done! Well, there's the weight and balance and static system check, of course.

I did see an unusual blue spot on the floor under the tank the other day. It's very suspicious for a couple of reasons (a) I went almost three months without seeing any such spot, (b) the spot was big enough that you'd think there'd be fresher gas dripping (or any additional, for that matter) and c) we considered playing a practical joke on another builder in which we'd pour a small amount of avgas under his wing just to watch his reaction.

I've been filling out the paperwork to get a bill of sale from Van's so I can register this. Also contacted the Minnesota Department of Aeronautics regarding sales tax. I've been dreading this. You have to pay sales for anything you buy online, although all they really want to know is kit cost, prop cost, and engine cost, which should run me about $3,700.

I'm looking for Minnesota builders to come "inspect" the plane before I even think about having a DAR look at it. Interested? I'll be at KSGS most weekends.

My wife is losing her job at the end of the month and most of the things I thought might come true when I put this plane up for sale last winter actually have come true. So writing big checks right now is not something I feel comfortable doing. So, the plane will sit until we figure out a solution to what life is throwing at us.

Wired discovers homemade airplanes

A nice piece on the RV line of homebuilt airplanes was posted today by Wired.com.
Find it here.

Remember: The media is stupid and never writes anything positive about aviation.

It's the little things

See this?



It's a circuit breaker that's "popped." They sell for about $30.

It apparently contributed to this, which happened a month ago today (and which I wrote about here):



The Polish airliner left Newark and noticed right away there was a leak in the plane's hydraulic fluid. That's when the pilots made mistake #1, according to a report that was just released (available here). They decided to continue flying to Warsaw, where they found out the plane's landing gear wouldn't extend.

An alternative landing gear extension system didn't work because of that $30 part shown above.

Had the pilots noticed the circuit breaker, they could've pushed it in, lowered the gear, and landed the plane.

But these days, airline crews depend on computers to tell them what's wrong and the Boeing airplane wasn't built to tell pilots when a $30 circuit breaker had popped (pilots of smaller airplanes have an old-fashioned fail-proof system: They touch run their fingers across each circuit breaker to be sure they're all engaged before taking off).

When authorities lifted the plane off the runway, pushed in the circuit breaker, applied power, and flipped the landing gear switch, down came the landing gear.

And that's the simple sort of thing that causes major air disasters.

Acknowledging an uncommon skill

Pilots and non-flyers are reading differently the story of a pilot who crashed in his plane in Princeton yesterday.

Most of the news stories, like this one in the Star Tribune, hinted that the result pilot Barry Ramage, 33, of Princeton, encountered -- crawling out of wreckage after his plane lost power when taking off -- was primarily because of his inexperience.

Ramage was not immediately available to explain what happened, but one of his partners in a gymnasium floor installation business said that this was just his second solo flight.

"There were a lot of trees in the area" where he was trying to land, said Debbie Covlin, a former commercial pilot, who spoke with Ramage afterward and added that she got him interested in flying. "It was a small area to put it down in, with what training he had."

The reality? There are a lot of pilots with much more experience than Ramage who are dead because they couldn't resist the urge to do what Ramage was able to resist -- turning back toward the airport when an engine quits.

Pilots are taught from an early flying age to "land straight ahead" when an engine quits at such a low altitude. There's no way a plane without an engine could stay aloft long enough to make it, and pilots often die trying (like this, for example).

"Landing straight ahead," however, is no fun, even if it's the best alternative. That a pilot on only his second solo, with minimal training, was able to make the right decision not to turn back to the airport, and then survive the forced landing, is a significant tribute to his skill and his flight instructor.

It's the kind of decision and result that the best pilots make. Perhaps you remember one such pilot.

Acknowledging the pilot's considerable skill would have been a much more accurate story.