Shawn Arena

Welcome back! This is another installment of my personal flying experiences that hopefully others can learn from as well. The twist to this true tale, however, originates from a former student of mine who reminded me of the pitfalls and potential dangers of density altitude operations.

The Prelude

September 20, 2000, was a typical end of summer day throughout Arizona. The annual monsoon season was coming to a close, so the temperatures throughout most of the state were starting to ‘dip’ below 110 degrees. On that Wednesday afternoon, I flew three Arizona airport manager colleagues to a quarterly manager’s meeting to Flagstaff (FLG) from my rented aircraft’s home in Glendale, AZ (GEU).

While I was the airport manager at Phoenix-Goodyear Airport (GYR), I also was an adjunct assistant professor at a nearby college flight program. At the time of the flight, I was instructing an undergraduate Airport Management course, and one of my students (Herman) was also a pilot. One day after class, while he and I were chatting about the course, I mentioned to him that I had scheduled an upcoming flight with three other airport managers to Flagstaff (which for me was to be my first flight to FLG). It was then (as I thoroughly understood after the fact), that I was to learn my first lesson in Density Altitude operations.

A Good Lesson Plan

About two weeks prior to that flight, I was checked out in the flight school’s Beechcraft Sierra (Be-24), because I dreamed of (and still do) getting checked out in a Beechcraft Bonanza (what is referred to as the Cadillac of single-engine aircraft) one day. Since the school did not have a Bonanza, I thought the Sierra would be a good stepping stone towards it. This upcoming flight was to be only my third flight in the aircraft. In our impromptu meeting, Herman reminded me several times “don’t top off the fuel tanks at FLG because density altitude may bite you.” For those unfamiliar with density altitude and its dangers, let me conduct a quick Weather Flying tutorial for you.

Density altitude is pressure altitude corrected for nonstandard temperature. As temperature and altitude increase, the air density decreases. For a pilot that can be a recipe for trouble if he or she is not aware of the conditions. Since the air at higher altitude is less dense, it takes a longer takeoff roll on the runway, and the climb to altitude is slower.

Flagstaff-Pulliam Airport (FLG) sits at the 7,000-foot elevation level in northern Arizona and runway 3-21 is 8,800 feet long. On the day of the flight, the outside temperature was a ‘cooler’ 85 degrees. There you have it: high altitude, high temperature, and lower aircraft performance.

OK Baby, Just Keep on Climbing

The incoming flight was uneventful (oh, I must add, at GEU the departure airport, at 0900 local time it was 95 degrees), so the coolness of FLG would be welcoming. Our departure was at 1:00 PM local time immediately following a delicious catered lunch. Unaware to me until I started my takeoff roll, the entire group of managers watched our departure from the balcony of the airport terminal (oh great, no pressure here Shawn).

I vividly remember lifting off at the 3000-foot remaining point and then it hit me – Herman was right, our aircraft sluggishly lifted off and barely started a climb at the rate of 100 feet/minute. Lesson learned, density altitude is nothing to mess with! Interstate 17 runs adjacent to the airport and heads due south. I made a slight course correction to fly IFR (I Follow Roads) and wanted to stay within landing distant of I-17 ‘just in case.’ Oh, and did I mention the forested areas around the Flagstaff area? So combine poor climb performance, high altitude and high temperatures and trees, you have an almost immediate ‘pucker factor’ of exponential levels. Just climb baby, just keep on climbing I kept telling the airplane!

After about 15-20 minutes we reached our cruising altitude and I uttered a sigh of relief. From that point on the remaining flight back was uneventful- if you consider the temperature rise as we descended into the metropolitan Phoenix area uneventful.

Thank You Herman

A few days after the flight I held my next class meeting and Herman (eager to find out about my excursion), came up to me and asked how things went. Well, I gratefully acknowledged if it weren’t for his advice, it may have turned out different. I couldn’t thank him enough and with that, I knew I had learned a valuable lesson that day. A good pilot should always be very aware of EVERYTHING around him or her and keep in mind all weather conditions that can impact a flight. Too many pilots have learned that lesson the hard way. Herman’s sage advice remains in my brain every time the same scenario occurs. Stay safe out there!

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

Unsolved Issues: Part 2, Amber Berlin

To read Part 1, click here.

According to Wells and Rodriguez, the majority of fatalities in aviation are due to commercial flights on final approach-and-landing, which experience hull loss (2004). In approximately 70 percent of commercial jet hull loss accidents, the main cause has been attributed to flight crew error. People are involved in every aspect of the aviation industry, creating a widespread problem with few sound solutions. Air Safety Week, a top newsletter devoted to news and the analysis of aviation safety, reported, “Among the leading cause of fatal accidents for U.S. air carriers from 1989 to 1996 were loss of control and CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain). Human error was identified as a major contributing cause in a large percentage of these accidents.”(2009).

Aircraft cost millions, and sometimes billions of dollars, so why do aviation professionals make these costly mistakes? In short, they’re exhausted. Long hours in a high-stress environment for an extended period of time leads to fatigue in aviation. We have seen the effects of fatigue in aviation, and with the extreme growth in this industry, the problem will only get worse if not addressed. Air traffic controllers and pilots alike are being asked to push the limits of their ability as management tries to make up for the manning shortage. As we make leaps in technology, many safety program elements are focused on this new technology in the cockpit, to help the pilot make fewer mistakes. However, it should be noted that the misuse of new technology has been the contributing factor in some aviation accidents, and it does not address the underlying deep-rooted problem of human error due to fatigue.

According to the publication, Plain Language About Shiftwork, approximately 15.5 million people work shifts (1997). Working shifts disrupts the body’s natural Circadian rhythm, the 24-hour cycle in the biochemical, physiological or behavioral processes of living beings. Irregular hours, split shifts, and frequent rotations between day and night are common to members of the aviation industry, in addition to extended work hours and high levels of physical and/or mental stress. These Circadian disruptions are often accompanied by sleep loss, with the lack of sleep creating an environment where the individual is too tired to concentrate effectively, resulting in an increased possibility of error or injury.
Fatigue in aviation is also a contributing factor to human error. Fatigue has many causes, including shift-work, lack of personnel or manning issues, circadian disruptions, loss of sleep, long work hours, long periods of physical or mental activity, and fatigue is also a symptom of stress. As stated by Deputy Secretary of Transportation Mortimer Downey, at a fatigue management conference, “Fatigue, due to reduced sleep and irregular hours, has been identified as major factors in a number of crashes and costly incidents.” (2000).

The Body’s Normal Response to Stress

Dr. Peter Panzarino provides an excellent description of the process of the body’s normal response to stress.

A healthy human response to stress involves three components:

1. The brain handles (mediates) the immediate response. This response signals the adrenal medulla to release epinephrine and norepinephrine.
2. The hypothalamus (a central area in the brain) and the pituitary gland initiate (trigger) the slower maintenance response by signaling the adrenal cortex to release cortisol and other hormones.
3. Many neural (nerve) circuits are involved in the behavior response. This response increases arousal (alertness, heightened awareness), focuses attention, inhibits feeding and reproductive behavior, reduces pain perception, and redirects behavior. (2008).

Dr. Panzarino further explains how stress triggers the body’s fight or flight response:

• The combined results of these three components of the stress response maintain the internal balance (homeostasis), increase energy production and utilization, alter electrolyte (chemical elements) and fluid balance in the body. The also gear up the organism for a quick reaction through the sympathetic nervous system (SNS). The SNS operates by increasing the heart rate, increasing blood pressure, redirecting blood flow to the heart, muscles and brain and away from the gastrointestinal tract, and releasing fuel (glucose and fatty acids) to help fight or flee the danger. (2008).

The problem arises when there is no fighting or fleeing to help work those chemicals out of the body. In a natural environment, we would have to fight or flee, and the body would gear up and use those chemicals appropriately. However, in a stressful work environment, with no fighting or fleeing necessary, those chemicals remain in your system, effectively reducing your body’s ability to function properly. Under stress, the body produces cortisol to help meet the challenges of fight or flight. If your body is under high levels of stress consistently, the cortisol builds up in your system, causing damage.

How can we reduce cortisol levels, get a better night’s sleep and enhance our cognitive ability? Get a massage. Since the 1890’s, J.H. Kellog’s research on the effects of massage has opened the door for this luxury item to be realized as a necessary part of health maintenance (1897). However, despite the many documented effects of massage on the biological system, including improving sleep and increasing the ability to do both physical and mental work, it has not been applied to the aviation industry as a legitimate countermeasure to fatigue in aviation. A massage program has the potential to reduce the number of fatigue-related accidents by directly reducing stress and improving sleep. Also, because of the general reconstructive effects of massage on the body, overall healthcare costs for pilots will also be reduced. Understand the science behind massage and its application as a fatigue countermeasure, as well as other ways to fight fatigue will be explored in the upcoming Unsolved Issues: Part III – Working to Address The Problem of Fatigue in Pilots.

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

References:

FAA Seeks to Improve Flight Crew Training. Air Safety Week. 23 Apr, 2009.

Kellogg, J.H. (1897). The Art of Massage.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1997). Plain Language About Shiftwork. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Panzarino, Peter. (2008). Stress.

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2000). Partnering for Transportation Safety Human-Centered Systems Operator Fatigue Management Conference. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wells, A.T. & Rodrigues, C.C. (2004) Commercial Aviation Safety. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc

^{Feature Image: Kent Wien}

John Peltier

Aircraft have sure come a long way when it comes to all-weather capability! One of the biggest advances is how we can deal with ice that can potentially form, or has formed, on the aircraft with aircraft deicing equipment.

There are two types of systems with drastically different purposes to keep you safe. Anti-ice is used before flying into icing conditions, to keep ice from forming. Deice is designed to remove ice after it has already formed. The systems, in general, have many similarities but not all of them are actually approved for flight into known icing conditions.

Anti-icing Systems

Anti-icing systems (preventive aircraft deicing equipment) usually involve some sort of heat. Heating these surfaces keeps water from freezing, and thus, ice from forming. Critical areas that are heated in some aircraft include at least the pitot tube, and sometimes the propellers, windshield, wings, and engine inlets.

Heat for these systems comes from two sources. The first is from the engine, known as bleed air. Turbine aircraft commonly employ bleed air to heat up engine components like compressor blades and inlets. Ducting to engine components is less complex, though sometimes this bleed air is also routed to leading edges of wings and windshields. Carburetor heat on piston aircraft is another form of bleed air anti-icing / deicing systems. In general, however, larger bleed air heating systems are not commonly found on general aviation aircraft. Just about all of these systems introduce excessive noise and rob the engine of some power.

The other method of heating critical surfaces is with electricity, much like your toaster uses. This method of heating is usually applied to pitot-static systems, propellers, and drains. It is important to activate these systems before ice buildup starts, as they may not get hot enough to melt thick ice. It operates by simply applying electricity to a closed circuit. The new Boeing 787 Dreamliner uses electro-thermal systems for deicing rather than bleed air like its predecessors.

Deicing Systems

Additionally, some aircraft are equipped with dispensers to apply deicing fluid to the wings. Deicing fluid has a very low freezing point and delays ice formation. Some of these fluids not only prevent ice from forming but they also inhibit the formation of new ice except in the most extreme circumstances. These systems are known as “weeping wings” and their drawback is the limited supply of fluid that they can carry. Many a pilot has left these systems activated for too long and run out of fluid!

The only other reactive form of aircraft deicing equipment commonly used is slightly more complex. Removing thick ice can be tricky especially given the uneven surfaces. Knocking the ice off of leading edges of control surfaces is the only other way if it’s not done with heat or fluid. This isn’t done by making your passenger get out of the aircraft with a long pole. No, strips of rubber are used instead. These rubber boots inflate, slightly changing the shape of the wing and breaking the ice free from the aircraft. The rubber then returns to its original aerodynamic shape. These too have their drawbacks, adding extra weight and power requirements to the aircraft.

Heat tape is the next great thing to happen in regards to aircraft deicing equipment; this lightweight graphite foil can melt ice that forms on the leading edges of wings and tail surfaces without adding much extra weight at all, without altering the shape of the airfoil, and without requiring a lot of extra power. NASA has been extensively testing these systems.

Regulations Regarding Aircraft Deicing Equipment

So, with all of this fancy aircraft deicing equipment, do you think you’re safe if your aircraft is equipped with deicing systems? You better check your Pilot’s Operating Handbook for the answer. Many general aviation aircraft that have these systems installed are not legally allowed to fly into known icing conditions. This goes for both factory-installed equipment and for retrofitted equipment.

Anti-icing and deicing equipment need to go through a rigorous testing process in order to be certified for flight into known icing conditions. These tests are twofold: first, the airframe is tested to determine which flight regimes will put it at the greatest risk for ice formation. Then the aircraft is tested in this flight regime and all systems are subjected to the worst-case scenarios. The autopilot, engine intakes, ice detection systems – all of them are subjected to harsh conditions to ensure operability. These tests have to show that these systems provide some degree of preventing ice formation or shedding ice. This does not mean that continued flight into icing conditions would be smart, or even safe.

But these tests only occurred after 1977. For aircraft certificated before 1977, these systems were only checked to see if they had any kind negative impact on aircraft performance. There was no guarantee that these systems could handle ice at all.

Even after 1977, not all aircraft go through these tests. The tests are expensive! So manufacturers (mostly general aviation) have these systems installed as “emergency” equipment, much like a parachute. They’re only tested to make sure that they won’t affect aircraft performance so that they can get certified for installation. Flight into severe icing is never legal under any circumstances.

Unfortunately, many pilots see that their aircraft has deicing equipment and believe that means that they can fly into icing conditions. But this equipment usually isn’t certified for that, at least in general aviation! Just remember next time you try to fly into icing conditions that these systems most likely weren’t tested with real ice!

Flying with anti-ice and deice systems, even if they’re certified for flight into icing conditions, does not make you invincible. Especially during freezing rain – this can accumulate ice rapidly, without many visual cues to the pilot, and spread beyond regions that are protected by this equipment.

As with every other system, it is critical to preflight and test operation on the ground. It can be as simple as turning on the switch and making sure circuit breakers don’t pop and turning on the ice detection light and guaranteeing that it illuminates. Check the manuals for the proper procedures.

Next time you hop into an aircraft that has deicing equipment, check the POH, AFM, or the cockpit for placards indicating whether or not flight into ice is legal!

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

^{Featured Image: Mazaletel}

Tori B. Mensching

Regulations can be tricky and sometimes downright confusing. Test your knowledge to see if you would make the same decisions this airplane pilot made in the example below. Would you make the same mistake?

The Scenario

Mark is an instrument rated private pilot who hasn’t flown at night in a while. He wants to fly his wife and two kids to the beach this weekend. They will need to fly at night because he doesn’t get off work until late on Friday. Mark hasn’t flown at night in a while so he isn’t legally current to carry passengers at night.

In order to regain the experience he needs to do the flight this weekend, Mark needs to go to the airport and take his Mooney up for three takeoffs and landings at night (per FAR 61.57).

As Mark walks to his hangar at the airport, he catches up with his friend Joe in the hangar next to his. Joe is also a pilot. He tells Joe he needs to go fly and do three quick landings so he can be legal to fly his family this weekend to the beach in the Mooney. Joe says, “Well it’s a nice night, would you like me to come along and be a second pair of eyes?” Mark isn’t sure if he can have Joe come along. Mark knows he isn’t legal to carry passengers yet, but Joe is also an airplane pilot. Surely two pilots are safer than one pilot. Can Mark and Joe legally fly together?

The Choice

Mark decides it would be helpful and invites Joe along on the flight. Mark completes the landings then heads home for dinner. When the weekend comes, Mark and his family have a fantastic family trip.

Was the flight legal? Would you make the same decision in that situation?

The Answer

You might be surprised to find, the answer is no. Technically, the first night flight was not a legal flight. Joe, although he is a pilot, is still considered a passenger if Mark is the pilot in command on the flight. A Mooney doesn’t need two pilots to operate. Mark needs to be the pilot in command so he can complete his three takeoffs and landings at night, and that makes Joe a passenger.

The FAA has determined that the relationship between a CFI and a student need not be considered a pilot and passenger relationship. But all other combinations are considered a pilot and a passenger. Mark made the wrong decision and flew at night with Joe, a passenger, while he wasn’t yet current to carry passengers. It doesn’t matter that Joe is also an airplane pilot.

In Conclusion

This is just one confusing scenario of many which you will face as a pilot. You must be sure you get the best training possible from an FAA approved flight school that covers all the bases with you. Test your instructor’s knowledge with this question. See if your instructor is as proficient with regulations as you need them to be.

Did you make the right choice or did you mistakenly agree with Mark?

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

John Peltier

Does Special Use Airspace (SUAS) scare you? If you see a Restricted Area on the chart, will you always just avoid the restricted airspace because you don’t even want to think about dealing with getting a clearance through there?

Avoiding all types of Special Use Airspace because you don’t want to deal with the “hassle”, or don’t know how to deal with it, or you can’t even correctly identify them, can actually cause you more of a hassle in added flight time, fuel, and cost.

Knowing how to correctly identifying the different types of Special Use Airspace, their controlling agencies, and their restrictions will take a lot of intimidation out of flying.

The Different Types of Special Use Airspace

If you were to go to your commercial pilot check ride right now, would you be able to name all of the different types of SUAS and their restrictions?

Here’s a good mnemonic to remember them by: MCPRAWN – MOA, CFA, Prohibited, Restricted, Alert, Warning, NSA. Let’s take a look at each of these types of Special Use Airspace and figure out what you need to do to fly in them.

Military Operation Area (MOA)

An MOA is specifically set up to separate IFR traffic from military training traffic. However, this doesn’t mean that as a VFR pilot you’re exempt from acknowledging it. Activities in MOAs can include air-to-air intercepts, “dogfights”, and low altitude training. You don’t want to get in the middle of a dogfight! ATC clearance is not required for you to fly through an MOA.

MOAs have defined vertical and lateral limits – the lateral limits are depicted on the VFR Sectional and the vertical limits can be found in the margin of the sectional. In the same margin, you’ll find the ATC facility and frequency you can talk to before entering the MOA. Just ask them if it’s active. They’ll let you know if there’s any military traffic in there, and where, and then you can make your own judgment call about flying through it. FSS will know as well.

Here’s an example of the information found on the sectional.

Controlled Firing Area (CFA). What does a CFA look like on a VFR Sectional? Trick question – they’re not on there! You really shouldn’t have to worry about these areas while you’re flying. CFAs are generally used for small arms target practice or mortar practice. There are always spotters and/or radar that will detect you approaching the area. When they see you coming, they’ll stop all firing even though you’re most likely higher than any of their shells will reach.

Prohibited Area. A Prohibited Area is established for reasons of national security and you may never fly through one except for in emergencies where overflight cannot be safely avoided. With some prohibited areas, the dimensions start at the surface and as far as you’re concerned, they go up to infinity! However, the Special Use Airspace information in the margins of the Sectional charts contain the precise information for lateral and vertical limits, which vary depending on their location.

Prohibited Areas are identified on charts by numbers, such as “P-40”, which is the Prohibited Area over Washington, D.C.

Restricted. Flight through a Restricted Area is not completely prohibited, but doing so could be extremely hazardous to you! There may be dangerous military activities in restricted areas, like aerial gunnery or live bomb drops. You certainly don’t want to fly through that!

Fortunately, a Restricted Area is only “hot” when the users have it scheduled, which will only be during certain times of the day. You can find the status of Restricted Areas by referencing the margin of your VFR Sectional. Hours will be listed, as well as the ATC agency and frequency to contact for more details. Here’s an example:

Alert. An Alert Area is just as it sounds – when you fly through these areas, be on alert! You’ll usually find these areas where there’s a large concentration of military pilot training, parachuting, or glider activity. Alert areas are depicted on charts by either a hatched box or a Glider or Parachute icon. Alert areas are not regulated and therefore not under any ATC jurisdiction. Be extra vigilant when you fly through them – all parties are equally responsible for avoidance!

Here’s an example, with the “UA” indicating Unmanned Aerial activity near Fort Sumner.

Warning. A Warning Area, or sometimes called a “whiskey”, is only found offshore. They start three miles from the coast and extend outwards as depicted on the sectional. A Warning Area serves to warn pilots that there’s activity going on in there that may be hazardous to them if they’re not a part of it. Examples include air-to-air intercepts and naval exercises. An ATC clearance is not required but it’s advisable to make contact with ATC first and get the scoop on what’s going.

National Security Area (NSA). An NSA may sound like a Prohibited Area, but it’s not. It’s just a place where, for security and safety, pilots are requested to avoid overflight as depicted on the chart. For example, Livermore Labs has an NSA requesting pilots don’t overfly below 800’. Further restrictions can always be put in place by NOTAM, so make sure you check them.

Other Flight Restriction To Be Aware Of

Don’t forget the TFRs! A Temporary Flight Restriction is a “roving” restricted area, temporary in nature. They’re not on the sectionals and are issued by NOTAM. TFRs have different restrictions specific to why the TFR was setup. You’ll need to avoid them by a certain distance, a certain altitude, and/or just not go anywhere near them at all.

Examples for TFRs include rocket launches, wildfires, the Super Bowl, and movements of the President. Details for each TFR can be found in the NOTAMS or by contacting your Flight Service Station.

In Conclusion

It’s prudent to always check NOTAMs and study the charts before you go fly – this should go without saying, but yet many pilots still accidentally fly through active Restricted Areas, Prohibited Areas, and TFRs. Flying through a TFR can cost you your certificate! Don’t let that happen to you.

For more information on Special Use Airspace, see the Aeronautical Information Manual, Chapter 3, Section 4.

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

Additional Flight Safety Articles:

The Different Ways of Checking Your VOR Receiver

Do You Know How To Give the PIREPs?

How Crew Resource Management Makes Flying Safer

Unsolved Issues: Part 1, Amber Berlin

The FAA’s final rule on pilot fatigue places more responsibility on the pilot by making fatigue a joint responsibility between pilots and certificate holders (i.e. the employers). This stated responsibility is designed to curb the pilot’s desire to stay out too late and become overly fatigued. However, pilot fatigue is not only a product of off-duty pilot behavior but also a result of the scheduling practices of the certificate holder and circumstances beyond the pilot’s control. Some additional factors which contribute to fatigue include both positive and negative stressors, the suboptimal use of caffeine and alcohol, and improper diet and lack of exercise. These factors work together to reduce the quality and quantity of sleep and the level of recovery attained during sleep. With each of these factors even mildly contributing to the fatigue level, a pilot may become fatigued through no direct fault of his own, but simply because of normal human behavior.

Once fatigued, the pilot’s cognitive ability is reduced to a point where they are unable to determine, using their own fatigued brain, the level of fatigue they are experiencing. The conscientiousness that makes a good pilot, which “reflects facets of order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation” also causes the pilot to underestimate subjective fatigue (Calderwood & Ackerman, 2011, p.441). This attitude causes an erroneous perception of being able to discipline their body into compliance; the false idea they can try harder and achieve a state of wakefulness even though they are under the effects of fatigue. The pilot has a duty to the certificate holder to fly the schedule, and the pilot also wants to be able to fulfill this duty without repercussions. Because fatigue affects perception, the pilot may end up with the illusion of being fit for duty, when he is actually operating under a dangerous level of fatigue.

According to Neri, Dinges and Rosekind (1997), “when attempting to judge how sleepy an individual is, the worst person to ask is that individual” (p.11). When applying this statement to the FAA’s rule, individual reports of fitness for duty cannot include a pilot fatigue assessment because it is impossible for the pilot to make an accurate assessment of his fatigue level. Considering the magnitude of the problem of fatigue, a fatigue assessment is the main factor the FAA is seeking with this report.

While the FAA does realize the pilot is unable to make an accurate self-assessment of fatigue, they assume fatigue education and training will mitigate the problem and have mandated a Fatigue Risk Management Plan (FRMP). However, the solution they have provided is dependent upon a properly functioning brain, which a pilot under the effects of fatigue will not have. Therefore, the solution will not be effective for those who need it most, the pilots who are too fatigued to fly. Whereas a normal, rested brain will be able to assess the situation and make a determination of risk, and also recall from memory the information needed to do so, a tired brain operating at a fraction of its normal ability will not be able to provide an accurate assessment or recall the information necessary to perform this task. Is there a viable solution? This is what we’ll be taking a look at next time, in Unsolved Issues: Part II Countermeasures For Fatigue in Aviation That Are Ignored

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

References:

Calderwood, C., Ackerman, P. (2011). The relative impact of trait and temporal determinants of subjective fatigue. Personality and Individual Differences, 50 , 441445.

D. F., Dinges, D. F. & Rosekind, M.R. (1997). Sustained Carrier Operations: Sleep Loss, Performance, and Fatigue Countermeasures. Fatigue Countermeasures Program. NASA Ames Research Center.

Additional Resources:

FAA Brochure on Pilot Fatigue

Additional Flight Safety Articles:

Halley’s Comet and the Go No-Go Decision

Positive Exchange of Flight Controls and Language

How Crew Resource Management Makes Flying Safer

^{Featured Image: Morgan Schmorgan}

Dr. Mary Ann O’Grady

So what comes first: the pilot’s license or buying an airplane? At first glance, this question seems to elicit a fairly straightforward response that an individual would not be buying an airplane if he or she was not planning on flying it personally. However, business entities, organizations, associations, and even individuals often purchase aircraft with the intent that they will be hiring a corporate pilot to transport them in their own airplane. There is one other category of individuals who makes the decision to purchase an aircraft prior to completing their private pilot’s license, because it provides him or her with the incentive to finish his or her pilot’s training by removing the option of quitting due to the financial investment that is now sitting on the tarmac or in the hanger as a constant reminder of that individual’s commitment.

What to Look For When Buying an Airplane

Whichever option comes first, there are specific guidelines that should be followed to ensure that buying an airplane runs as smoothly as possible. Financing is at the top of the list as many individuals and/or companies do not enjoy the luxury of paying cash for their aircraft. It is often wise to remember that the aircraft purchase is the least expensive part of owning an airplane, due to the costs of items like insurance, periodic inspections, and required maintenance, so investigating the operating costs and loan information then becomes a priority. Another financial consideration is the valuation or online Vref of the aircraft under consideration, which allows the prospective buyer to see if it is reasonably priced. In addition, conducting a pre-purchase inspection helps to eliminate any unanticipated [and typically unhappy] surprises. It is important to verify that parts are still available for the aircraft and that the local mechanics are able to work on it. Taking the airplane for a test flight prior to purchase is the best way to determine if it is a good fit for the skill level of the buyer. A thorough examination of the aircraft logs is a must and non-negotiable. Any evidence of an unusual entry should immediately raise suspicion, such as “replaced sections of fuselage skin,” which could be an indication of a gear-up landing. While still compiling the financial obligations of buying an airplane, it also becomes necessary to research the cost and availability of aircraft insurance.

Probably one of the most common errors in purchasing an aircraft is making an impulsive buying decision without fully considering the effects of that choice, rather than analyzing the requirements realistically and carefully [want versus need scenario]. To avoid purchasing more aircraft than is needed or can be used, it is wise to reflect upon whether all those fancy bells and whistles are really warranted. Renting the type of aircraft of interest is an excellent and less-expensive way of seeing how well it suits the frequency and duration of anticipated flights. Since the amount of the loan, as well as the interest rate, has a substantial impact on the total cost of the purchase, it pays [no pun intended] to invest considerable effort into finding the best source of financing.

The major factors that affect the resale value (valuation) of the aircraft are the following:

• Engine hours where the closer an engine is to its recommended between overhaul (TBO), the less its value but equally important is a record of its consistent use combined with a good maintenance program.

• Installed equipment which includes avionics, air conditioning, deicing gear, and interior equipment where the avionics constitutes the biggest ticket item increases the value of the aircraft; however, older equipment is typically far more expensive to maintain.

• Airworthiness Directives or ADs are issued by the FAA for safety reasons, and once issued, the owners of the aircraft are required to comply with the AD within the designated time period. The AD history should be reviewed for the nature of the ADs as well as whether they are recurring or a one-time compliance. The log books should indicate compliance with all applicable ADs which can be found through an online Internet search.

• Damage history that indicates major repairs can significantly affect the value of an airplane depending upon the type of accident, nature of the damage, and the degree to which major components of the aircraft were involved. Any aircraft indicating a damage history must be closely examined to ensure that it was correctly repaired in accordance with the applicable FAA regulations and recommended practices.

• Paint/interior is used occasionally to give older aircraft a quick facelift so new or recent paint jobs must be carefully checked for any evidence of corrosion under the surface, and interior items must be checked for a correct fit and condition. If done properly, both items enhance the value of the airplane.

• Exercise caution when reviewing the terminology used to describe the engine condition. A top overhaul translates into a repair of the engine components outside of the crankcase while a major overhaul involves the complete disassembly, inspection, repair, and reassembly of the engine to its specified limits. If an engine has received a top or a major overhaul, the logbooks must show the total time on the engine if it is known, as well as its prior maintenance history. A “zero-time” engine is one that has been overhauled according to factory new limits by the original manufacturer and is issued a new logbook without the previous operating history which usually has a higher value than the same aircraft with just an overhauled engine.

• Aircraft records should include the following documents that have been maintained in proper order for examination: airworthiness certificate, engine and airframe logbooks, aircraft equipment list, weight and balance data, placards, and FAA-approved aircraft flight manual or owner’s handbook. Any missing documents, pages or entries from the aircraft logbooks can cause significant issues for the buyer as well as reduce the value of the aircraft. Prior to purchase, hire a trusted mechanic to thoroughly inspect the aircraft, and provide a detailed written report of its condition; the pre-purchase inspection should include at the very least, a differential compression check on each cylinder of the engine and any other inspections that may be necessary to accurately determine the aircraft’s condition. In addition to the mechanical inspection, the aircraft logbooks and all other records should be carefully reviewed for such things as the FAA Form 337 which is a Report of Major Repair or Alteration, AD compliance, the status of service bulletins and letters, and aircraft/component serial numbers. The ideal choice of mechanic to perform the inspection would be experienced and familiar with the issues that may be encountered on that type of aircraft, with the goal of making buying an airplane and ownership of the aircraft under consideration as rewarding as possible.

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

Dr. Mary Ann O’Grady

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issues legally enforceable Airworthiness Directives or ADs for the purpose of correcting an unsafe condition in an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance under 14 CFR Part 39. The FAA Aircraft Certification Service maintains 12 Aircraft Certification Offices (ACOs) within four Directorates, and each one is responsible for the continued operational safety of the products over which it holds jurisdiction. This directorate responsibility is assigned by the type of product: transport category airplanes, small airplanes, rotorcraft, or engines and propellers. The Aviation Safety Engineers (ASEs) employed by the Directorate monitor the assigned products to identify unsafe conditions, and the necessity to generate airworthiness directives. These ASEs are also responsible for monitoring products that are manufactured in other countries but are approved for use in the United States as well as initiating airworthiness directives for those products as deemed necessary. The functions of the four Directorates can be details as follows: to draft, coordinate, and issue airworthiness directives based upon the information that is provided by an ACO or Directorate Standards Staff.

The responsibility of the owner of a Type Certificate that has been issued an AD involves:

• Notifying the FAA when they are made aware of any failure malfunction, or defect in any product, part, process, or article manufactured by them.

• Developing appropriate design changes to correct any unsafe condition.

• Incorporating the correction (corrective action) in the future generation of the product that will ensure that the product remains in a safe operating condition.

Aircraft owners as well as operators are responsible for ensuring that they are in compliance with the requirements of all airworthiness directives that apply to their aircraft. Anyone who continues to operate a product that is not in compliance with an applicable AD is in violation of 14 CFR 39.7. In order to locate all applicable ADs, an online search must be conducted for the product, such as for the aircraft, engine(s), propeller, or any other installed appliance. If multiple series are discovered under the aircraft or engine model, it then becomes necessary to also search for ADs that are applicable to the model as well as to the specific series of that model. No person may operate a product to which an AD has been issued except in accordance with the requirements of the AD, and the owner or operator of an aircraft must continue to remain in compliance with all ADs within the compliance time that relates to the effective date of the AD which determines when the actions are required.

Airworthiness directives are constructed in two parts: the preamble and the rule, where the former section provides the basis and the purpose of the AD while the latter section provides the regulatory requirements for correcting the unsafe condition(s). Typically the ADs will include: the description of the unsafe condition; the product to which the AD applies; the required corrective action, operating limitations or both; the AD effective date; a compliance time; the source for additional information; and information regarding alternative methods of compliance with the requirements of the AD. ADs provide a three-part number designator which can be demystified as follows: the first part is the calendar year of issuance; the second part consists of the biweekly period of the year when the number is assigned; and the third part is issued sequentially within each biweekly period. It is important to note that not all ADs necessitate a corrective action; some ADs just include limitations, but each AD is intended to resolve an unsafe condition.

The Federal Register is the official daily publication of the United States government which generates the printed or hard copy method of providing information to the public regarding laws that have been enacted or will be enacted. Electronic versions of the airworthiness directives are available from the Federal Register and from the FAA Regulatory and Guidance Library (RGL). The RGL contains all of ADs which can be searched under the manufacturer, model or AD number itself. Electronic copies of the ADs can be downloaded from the RGL to the computer of the owner or operator, and subscription services are also available via email from the RGL home page. Once a subscription has been activated, any AD that pertains to aircraft and engine makes and models that have been selected, will be emailed as attachments within minutes of the document being posted. The FAA provides the public an opportunity to comment on the notices of proposed rulemaking as well as on final rule ADS that are published without prior notice. They are all published in the Federal Register and include information regarding how to submit comments. The FAA does not request comments regarding Emergency ADs at the time of their issuance although the FAA does request comments when they are published as a final rule AD in the Federal Register.

The standard airworthiness directive process for the three types of ADs (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or NPRM, which is followed by a Final Rule, Final Rule, Request for Comments and Emergency ADs) adheres to the following procedure: once an unsafe condition is identified, a proposed solution is published as an NPRM, which then solicits public comment on the proposed action. After the comment period concludes, the final rule is generated while considering all substantive comments received, with the rule perhaps being changed as warranted by those comments. The preamble to the final rule AD provides response to the substantive comments or states that there were no comments received. In cases where the critical nature of an unsafe condition warrants the immediate adoption of a rule without prior notice and/or the solicitation of comments (typically in less than 60 days), a finding of impracticability becomes justified for the terminating action which allows it to be issued as an immediately adopted rule which is then published in the Federal Register with a request for comments. The Final Rule AD may be changed later if substantive comments are received. When an Emergency AD is issued, it requires immediate action by the owner or operator since its intent is to rapidly correct an urgent safety of flight situation. An AD is considered to be no longer in effect when it has been superseded by a new AD which states that the previous AD is no longer in effect and that there are no compliance requirements for an AD that has been superseded.

Different approaches or Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) that are not specified in an original airworthiness directive can, with FAA approval, be used to correct an unsafe condition on an aircraft or aircraft product. Although the proposed alternative may not have been known at the time the AD was originally issued, it could be acceptable to accomplish the intent of the original AD. A compliance time that differs from the requirements of the original AD can also be approved if the revised time period provides an acceptable level of safety that equals or exceeds the requirements posted in the original AD. Provisions for an AMOC are desirable from the owner’s or operator’s point of view because it can eliminate the necessity of constant AD revisions when acceptable methods are developed for AD compliance. If an AD does not contain any provision(s) for approving an AMOC, the AD must undergo revisions before compliance can be accomplished by any method other than what is stated in the original AD. Each AD states which office within the FAA Aircraft Certification Service that is responsible for that particular AD. An AMOC can be approved by the manager of the office that is responsible for that specific AD including different compliance times for the requirements of a specific AD. One FAA Aircraft Certification Office will have responsibility for AMOC approvals for products manufactured within the United States while a product manufactured outside of the United States will be under the jurisdiction of a Standards Staff branch office of one of the four FAA Aircraft Certification Directorates.

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

Additional Aircraft Safety Articles:

What Are the Aircraft Annual Inspection Requirements?

The Reasons Behind Male and Female Pilot Error

Positive Exchange of Flight Controls and Language

Do You Know How to Give PIREPs?

John Peltier

When was the last time you checked your VOR receiver? As an IFR pilot, how often are you required to do this test? What about as a VFR pilot? Are you required to check your VOR receiver?

The answer for VFR pilots is, well, no you’re not required to check your VOR receiver. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a good idea.

And for IFR pilots, how often do the Federal Aviation Regulations say you must check your receiver when using it for instrument flying?

According to FAR 91.171, you may not conduct an IFR flight using VORs for navigation unless your VOR system has been checked within the preceding 30 days and found to be in limits. The check must also be logged in the aircraft records.

Fortunately, these are checks that pilots can accomplish on their own, and in many different ways.

The FAA allows pilots a handful of different methods for checking VOR receivers. There’s an easy acronym to remember about these tests, including tolerances – do you know it?

The acronym most taught to IFR students is VODGA. This stands for VOT, Ownship, Dual, Ground, Air. Let’s take a closer look at the steps to check your VOR receiver using this acronym.

VOT

The VOR Test Facility (VOT) is the most accurate and is the preference to check your VOR receiver. Not all airports have a VOT. You can discover which airports do have a test facility in Section 4 of the FAA Chart Supplement (formerly known as the Airport Facility Directory [AFD]). The supplement indicates which airports have the test equipment, which frequency to use, and any other notes specific to that location.

Steps to using the VOT:

1. Ensure you are situated on the airport in an appropriate area – the parking apron, taxiway, or end of runway. The Supplement will make note of which areas on the airport will not work.
2. Tune to the appropriate frequency annotated in the Supplement.
3. Turn up the volume to identify the station, which is indicated by a series of dots or one continuous tone.
4. Twist the OBS to center the needle. The TO/FROM flag should indicate TO with 180 degrees (+/- 4) selected. Remember: Cessna 182. One-eighty two, or 180-TO. It should show FROM with 360 selected.
5. The tolerance must be within four degrees, i.e. the needle must be centered when the OBS is from 176 to 184 degrees or 356 to 004 degrees.

In the absence of a VOT, you may use other checkpoints designated in the Supplement. These are the ownship tests, and they may be conducted in the air or on the ground.

Ownship

Checking your VOR receiver may be done at either a designated location on certain airfields or over specific geographic locations while airborne. These locations, frequencies, and notations may also be found in Section 4 of the FAA Chart Supplement. The Supplement will provide the name of the VOR and/or airport facility, the frequency, and whether or not it is a ground or airborne checkpoint. If it’s an airborne checkpoint, minimum altitudes will also normally be listed. If it’s a ground checkpoint, the location on the airfield to perform the test will be listed.

Ground checks are preferred over air checks because it’s easier to position your aircraft to a more precise location on the ground.

Steps to doing an ownship location VOR receiver check:

1. Tune to the appropriate frequency annotated in the supplement.
2. Identify the station by turning up the volume and ensure the Morse code or voice identifier is correct.
3. Twist the OBS knob to the azimuth listed in the Supplement.
4. Position your aircraft at the appropriate location annotated in the Supplement, either on the ground or over a geographic location in the air, ensuring you’re at an appropriate altitude if airborne.
5. If the needle is not centered, twist the OBS until it centers up.
6. The tolerance must be within four degrees for ground checkpoints or six degrees for air checkpoints. So if an airborne checkpoint azimuth is listed as being 177 degrees, the OBS must be centered in a range from 171 to 183 degrees.

You may also make your own airborne check by looking at the charts and picking a significant geographic landmark under a VOR airway. Fly over the landmark and note the azimuth that your aircraft VOR receiver indicates. It should be within 6 degrees of the annotated airway azimuth.

The FAA allows for one more method of checking a VOR receiver, and you may do this if you have two separate receivers in your aircraft (they can share an antenna).

Dual Receiver Check

A dual receiver check is valid if you have two separate receiver units in your aircraft. They can have a common antenna but the actual receivers must be separate. These checks can be done on the ground or airborne.

Steps to conducting a dual receiver VOR check:

1. Tune both receivers to a nearby VOR station.
2. Identify the station in both receivers by turning up the volume and verifying the Morse code or voice identifier.
3. Compare the OBS settings for both receivers with the needle centered. They must be within four degrees of each other.

Ground / Air

The final pieces of the VODGA acronym, GA, is to remind you that there are different tolerances for ground checks and air checks. It should make sense that ground checks are more accurate, and thus have a lower tolerance for error. All tolerances are 4 degrees, including a dual check in the air. The only exception is the ownship airborne check, which has a tolerance of 6 degrees.

Logging the VOR Receiver Check

This may be the most neglected part of the VOR checks, and if the check is not logged you are in violation of the FARs. Doing the actual checks is important! But so is logging them.

Logging the check is easy. It doesn’t even have to be in official aircraft maintenance logs, it just needs to be with the aircraft and available for inspection. A simple spreadsheet will suffice.

The log must contain the date, location, bearing error, and signature of the pilot conducting the check.

Summing Up the VOR Receiver Check

If you’re an IFR pilot using VORs for navigation, you must check your VOR receiver within 30 days preceding an IFR flight, and log the check.

You may check two receivers against each other if your aircraft has two separate units. This will be the easiest if you have two units. Tolerance is 4 degrees.

You can also check your receiver while on the ground at certain airports using a dedicated VOR test facility or a designated VOR ground checkpoint, both found in the FAA Chart Supplement. Tolerance is 4 degrees.

In the absence of any other way to check your VOR, you may conduct a check airborne. The tolerance is 6 degrees.

The checks must be logged with the date, location, bearing error, and signature.

These regulations are found in FAR 91.171. More information can be found in AIM 1-1-4. But most importantly, don’t forget to keep current with these checks, and log them.

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

^{Featured Image: Ryan Blanding}

A Summary of Qualifications, Ethics, and Responsibility

Amber R. Berlin

I catch the look exchanged between the pilot and his cargo as they board their commercial flight to Los Angeles. Can we trust you? This unspoken request hangs in the air, each gaze finally broken by the crowd pressing forward to find their seats. A few of the passengers here are flying for the first time. All of them trust the pilot and flight crew with their lives. What is it that makes the crew able to accept the responsibility for so many? Do they hold certain personality traits that make them better suited for this type of work, or have they simply adapted to the high demands of the job, and high expectations of the public? These are the questions we will answer as I take you on a journey with an in­ depth look at today’s aviation professionals, their responsibilities, and the characteristics that enable them to carry our most precious cargo, the passengers.

The aviation industry is responsible for thousands of lives every day. Each aviation accident has the potential to cost millions of dollars in equipment, and even more tragically, extinguish precious life. In a field where trust is hard earned, and accidents happen, they must hold themselves to a higher standard of accountability.

The ability to think clearly in times of crisis, when most people freeze, is what defines us as aviation professionals. Many people can do their job well every day, but when disaster strikes they stand frozen, unable to react. “Fear is the most powerful emotion,” said University of California Los Angeles psychology professor Michael Fanselow. (Associated Press 2007). Professionals have the ability to separate their personal feelings from the task at hand, and since their thought process isn‘t hampered by emotion, they retain the ability to make sound decisions.

The public also holds aviation professionals to a certain standard of excellence. They are expected to know their job, and know it well. Thousands of hours are spent learning in classrooms, on­ the­ job, and later in the field, and training on updated techniques or upgraded equipment is never ending. Every airline passenger expects certain needs to be met, with safety, timeliness, and comfort ranking high on the list of importance. If you let them down, they go straight to customer service, or the news, with their complaints. American Airlines Executive Vice President of Marketing Dan Garton said, “There are huge costs when you have inconvenienced your customers.” (Associated Press 2009). Staying current in techniques, technology, and industry news is vital to being able to assist the customer and your crew to the maximum extent.

As aviation professionals, we must have the ability to follow the rules, pay close attention to detail, and get the job done as scheduled. Following the rules means being aware of the rules in the first place, so staying abreast of changing procedures and regulations is vital to success. Because of the steady evolution of the aviation industry, professionals must continue to expand their knowledge, with a willingness to learn new techniques being essential. It is important to follow the rules, even when no one is looking. This “ethical behavior is learned behavior, and managers can build organizational processes and strategies that contribute to this learning effort.” (Menzel 2006).

Individuals in the aviation industry have certain personality traits that enable them to hold positions that require a high level of accountability. According to the Keirsey Temperament Test, most of these individuals have a guardian­ type personality, with a strong desire to protect others. This desire is what drives them to step into aviation instead of some other field. It is spurred by the desire to gain knowledge, and the motivation to step into a position of command.

The Keirsey website further explains a guardian’s motivation in their 1 1⁄2 page description:
“They have such a clear vision of the way that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles…they are extremely talented at devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what steps need to be taken to complete a specific task.” (DeBruhl, 2002, p.67).

Guardians have a deep set vein of integrity and they hold their crew’s honesty, as well as their own, in high regard. They also tend to hold themselves to higher than average standards, and consistently strive for excellence in their work. This description of a Guardian is accurate according to a survey of aviation professionals and college students taken earlier this year, making them a perfect match for the high standards of aviation.

As a former air traffic controller, holding oneself to a higher standard was a way of life. With hundreds of lives depending on you each second and only moments to make each decision, professionalism was a requirement of the job. It was this high standard that kept us safe, and training was focused on the perfect execution of each task. There was no room to be sloppy as the traffic picked up and when you’re too busy to think, you fall back on the training you worked so hard to master.

One evening I was working approach at Sheppard Air Force Base, TX. I had only been certified to work alone for a few months. Storms had hit northern Texas hard that day and the visibility was poor. A flight of T­38’s joined my pattern and requested a flight split. I separated and identified each aircraft, and my gut instinct was to vector them with additional spacing. Instead of the required 3 miles, I was giving them nearly 7. My supervisor came to stand behind my chair and started criticizing my way of working traffic, saying it was a waste of resources to make them use so much fuel in a wide pattern. I maintained my professional attitude and continued to work the pattern, although the criticism wasn’t easy to listen to. I felt a sinking sensation in my stomach…Was I wrong? The thought echoed in my head as I pushed everything out and focused on the task at hand. After several minutes the aircraft landed and the supervisor walked away, obviously displeased. Within the hour, one of the pilots called the RAPCON and asked to thank me for providing the extra separation on final with such poor visibility. I was relieved to hear that my decision was the right one for the situation. But more than that, I’m glad
I didn’t let the criticism compromise safety or cause me to respond to the supervisor in a negative way.

Each individual in the industry has the ability to prevent an accident from happening, and it is each individual’s responsibility for costly mistakes. They are constantly striving for the unattainable goal of perfection, and consistently falling short. However, this quest is not without rewards. Saving just one life is reward enough, and whether you’re the maintenance man who turned the last screw, or the pilot in command during flight, each of the aviation professionals involved in this process ensures the safety of the skies.

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

References:

Associated Press, (2007). Frozen with fear? Science tells why. Retrieved from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21547710/from/ET/

Associated Press, (2009). As fares and fees rise, passengers want service. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26791797/

DeBruhl, A.D., (2006). The ultimate truth: An objective commentary on just about everything. Boston: 1st World Publishing.

Menzel, D.C., (2006). Ethics management for public administrators: Building organizations of integrity. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

^{Featured Image: Jetstar Airways}

Dr. Mary Ann O’Grady

The aircraft annual inspection that is required by the Federal Aviation Administration is a straightforward process that is not difficult to conduct. However, difficulties can arise when the mechanic that is hired to perform the aircraft annual inspection is neither familiar with the process nor capable of keeping track of the time and materials. So, it is the responsibility of the aircraft owner to research the experience of the mechanic with his or her particular airplane, since the annual inspection is certainly not the time for on-the-job-training on the part of the mechanic.

In addition to determining the mechanic’s proficiency with performing annual inspections, it is also the aircraft owner’s responsibility to locate a qualified shop that is equipped with all the special tools and equipment to conduct the annual inspection properly. For example, are the tools well organized, and are stickers readily apparent to validate that the shop’s equipment has been calibrated and will test according to current tech data? The employees working in a qualified shop have been trained much more than just the bare minimum to attain an A&P license, although lesser-experienced mechanics may be working under the guidance of a senior mechanic with advanced training and many years of experience. Well-qualified shops should demonstrate a high degree of organization with the use of a tracking system that not only tracks the job and what parts were required, but also which mechanic(s) worked on the job and for how long. This can be accomplished with a scanner to ensure that the customer is only charged for the work that was done and the actual time and materials that it took to do it. The treatment of the aircraft, including its parts, is also an important consideration with regard to where it / they will be stored before and after the aircraft annual inspection, as well as where it will be parked if it is awaiting new parts.

The inspection guidelines dictate that the aircraft owner should have a record or inventory that identifies just what was given to the shop, and copies made of the most important documentation, such as previous log entries for past years detailing major repairs, tach and total time as well as AD note compliance, modifications and alterations, and 337 forms. Disorganized record-keeping can result in significant delays and greater financial expense since the shop is required to list in the aircraft records any maintenance, all repairs, inspections, and the results and AD notes that were complied with. The shop can only return the aircraft and associated prop, engine, etc. to service if there are no outstanding AD notes due at the time they completed the inspection.

The pre-inspection phase of the aircraft annual inspection determines that the aircraft meets the type certificate design or original configuration and that it is in safe operating condition, which is governed by various approved data including aircraft maintenance manuals, AC-43 13-1b, AD notes, and service bulletins. However, the FARs specify exactly what must be done during the annual inspection via a checklist, and the items that are to be inspected are listed under FAR Part 43, Appendix D.

The preparation for inspection and the inspection itself is divided into separate parts since repairs are accomplished only after the inspection has been completed, all the AD notes have been researched and a determination made regarding what applies and ultimately what needs to be done. To avoid conflict between the aircraft owner and the shop conducting the inspection, the inspection should be treated as a separate entity without including servicing, lubrication, repairs or AD note compliance. The cost of the inspection including labor and materials should be clearly communicated to the aircraft owner so that he or she is aware that any repairs, AD note compliance, parts, alterations, fluids and hardware are additional charges.

Once the inspection has been completed, a list should be constructed identifying each deficiency that was found and whether the repair should be classified as “required” or “just a good idea.” It is important that the inspection be completed prior to discussing repairs, and a determination made that pertains to the airworthiness of the aircraft – did it pass inspection or not? If it did not pass, a discrepancy list must be provided to the owner, and the inspection categorized as “un-airworthy” in the aircraft records. If the owner disagrees with that inspection designation or wants another shop to conduct the repairs, he or she may choose another facility depending upon the required repairs. Once the required repairs are completed, the aircraft does not require re-inspection, and the annual inspection date remains in effect requiring another inspection 12 calendar months after the previous inspection.

Pre-Inspection Details

Usually, the first step in a pre-inspection is the walk-around, which is similar to the pre-flight, to identify any previous damage as well as to note of the general condition of the aircraft, such as strut inflation, flap, rudder and aileron position and condition as related to the cockpit indication. The fluids (oil and fuel) are also examined for leakage or puddling, and the engine is checked for oil level, missing parts, baffles, cowling damage, missing fasteners, etc. The aircraft is then operated with a taxi check to determine the proper function of the instruments including gyros, compass, autopilot, radios, brakes, etc., and a written record is constructed. At the time of the run-up, the readings of all instruments before, during and after the run-up are recorded including a static power check using a calibrated RPM instrument which is mandatory as part of the aircraft annual inspection. This detailed record should be kept with the aircraft inspection data for future comparison.

During the actual inspection phase, the inspection panels are removed by anyone including the airplane owner, and the inspection should begin with an oil drain, a portion of which should be collected for analysis, removing the suction screen (if removable), the oil filter and/or the pressure screen to properly check for contamination. While the engine is warm, the spark plugs, either upper or lower, are removed and a compression check computed, after which the results are written on paper rather than on the cylinder. If one or more cylinders indicate low compression or a significant amount of metal particles in the oil, sump screen or filter media there is no point in conducting an in-depth inspection of the engine. If the engine compression is fine, and there is a negligible amount of metal apparent, the inspection continues at which point the inspection panels, seats, carpeting, battery, etc. are removed. Mechanics should report their observations of stripped screws, broken wires, etc. as well as to hang a bright colored streamer from each area that needs attention prior to reassembly. Mechanics should remove the wheels and service the wheel bearings; mufflers are also removed and checked for leakage with a test unit, and any discrepancies are noted in writing.

When the airplane is ready for the actual inspection, the shop inspector is contacted so that he or she can review the AD notes and log books for compliance as well as to review the recent mechanic’s notes recorded in the current pre-inspection phase. The shop inspector then records all of his or her findings, and when this inspection has concluded, he or she will inform the mechanic, what, if any, part of the aircraft can be reassembled. Any areas that require repair will be left open or accessible, and a complete list will be compiled with a written estimate for the necessary repairs as well as for the repairs that can be deferred.

The aircraft owner is contacted and notified prior to any repairs being made, but it is important that all necessary repairs be disclosed by the mechanic whether or not that shop is capable of making the major repairs. Owners are often distressed when an inspection reveals unanticipated or more extensive damage than initially thought to exist, but it is not the inspector’s fault that further damage was identified suggesting a “don’t-shoot-the-messenger” scenario. When the aircraft annual inspection is signed off, it is stipulating that the entire airplane has been found to be airworthy and safe to fly, so there is no such thing as “good enough” to return to service if the inspector is willing to affix his or her signature to the inspection report.

Repairs are another phase that follows the completed aircraft annual inspection, but they are becoming more difficult as parts continue to increase in price and decrease in availability. Competent shops are always searching for ways in which repairs can be made more economically by checking for all options that may be available to complete the job correctly the first time, thereby guaranteeing the airworthiness of the airplane.

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.

Additional Flight Safety Articles:

Know the Signs and Symptoms of Hypoxia and Avoid Becoming a Victim

Positive Exchange of Flight Controls and Language

Halley’s Comet and the Go No-Go Decision

Anders Clark

There are a vast amount of different types and models of general aviation aircraft from a variety of manufacturers. And there are a lot of interesting facts and information about these different aircraft.  Here are five lesser known facts from the world of general aviation aircraft that you will hopefully find as interesting as I did.

The Longest Continual In-Production General Aviation Aircraft

So, you’ve probably heard before that the Cessna 172 Skyhawk is the most produced aircraft of all time. However, though this is true, it’s not the general aviation aircraft with the longest continual production run. Delivery of the first of 172s started in 1956, but in 1986, Cessna was forced to stop production of all single engine aircraft for a decade due to the increasing cost of lawsuits and insurance. So, who’s the winner?

Buh bah duh buh bah duh buh bah duh buh, Bonanza! The Beechcraft Bonanza, that is. With the first Bonanza’s being delivered in 1947, the Bonanza has been in continual production for 69 years, making it the winner. During this time, more than 17,000 Bonanzas (including variants) have been produced, putting it a respectable 15^th on the all-time production list. Even more amazing, during the aforementioned period of hard times in the 80s and 90s that hit all aircraft manufacturers and stopped production of most other single engine aircraft, Beechcraft was able to keep the Bonanza (and their twin-engine Baron) in production.

The next closest competitor was the Russian-made Antonov AN-2, a single engine Biplane. The AN-2 started production in the same year, 1947, as the Bonanza. However, production stopped in 2001, after 54 years. China started building variants of this aircraft around that time, which some think keeps the streak alive, but in the case of a tie, I figure the Bonanza gets the win with the clearer claim.

The First Airplane Manufacturer

Speaking of aircraft manufacturers, who was the world’s first to start making production aircraft? You may expect a name like Cessna, Boeing, or Piper to pop up, but it was actually some brothers. No, not those brothers (though they weren’t far behind), but rather the Irish Short brothers, Eustace, Oswald and Horace. The Short Brothers actually started their business in 1897, to manufacture baloons. However, in 1908, after hearing reports from the Royal Aero Club of the Wright Brothers demonstration of their aircraft in Le Mans, they shifted gears towards production of airplanes. By November of 1908, the three borthers had registered their partnership under the name Short Brothers and were ready to start taking airplane orders.

Their first two orders came from Charles Rolls (one of the co-founders of Rolls-Royce) and Francis McClean, a founding member of the Aero Club and repeat customer who would also act as a test pilot for the Short Brothers. So they set to work on a pair of designs, and exhibited McClean’s aircraft, the Short No. 1 Biplane, in March 1909 at the British Aero Show. They also were able to obtain the British rights to manufacture aircraft based on the design by the Wright Brothers.

Short Brothers is still around today though it was acquired in 1989 by Canadian aerospace giant Bombardier. In addition to making aircraft components, engine components and flight control systems for Bombardier, they also provide these services to Boeing, Rolls-Royce, General Electric and Pratt and Whitney. Not bad for a trio of brothers a little more than a century ago.

OK, So What Was the First Mass-Produced General Aviation Aircraft?

Well, there appear to be two candidates for this honor, the Wright Model B, and the Bleriot XI. After achieving sustained, powered flight with the Wright Flyer 1 in 1903, the Wright Brothers developed a series of additional models, including the Wright Flyer III which is considered their first practical model, and was their first to carry a passenger. By 1910 (a busy year in which they were also establishing the first flight school), they arrived at the Wright Model B. Built and sold by the newly formed Wright Company, this was their first mass produced general aviation aircraft. From 1910 – 1914, they built an estimated 100 of these aircraft, with four of them going out a month at the height of production. Despite the number built, only one original Wright Model B survives fully intact, and it’s currently displayed in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There is a second Wright Model B on display at the United States Museum of the Air Force in Dayton, Ohio, but it appears to have been manufactured after the original production run. Orville Wright is said to have inspected the airplane when it was displayed at the 1924 International Air Races, and called it a “mongrel.” Harsh, man.

Meanwhile, during this same time, Louis Bleriot was making waves over in Europe, after becoming the first person to successfully fly across the English Channel. He achieved this feat on July 25^th, 1909, in his Bleriot XI. After the flight, demand for this aircraft took off (bah dum CHH) and by September 1909, Bleriot had received 103 orders for this aircraft. They started building, and production continued until the outbreak of World War I. Two of these aircraft have been restored to airworthy condition, one in the UK and one in the US, and they are thought to be the two oldest flyable aircraft in the world.

The Highest Fixed-Wing Landing Ever

So, there are some high altitude airports out there, with the recently opened Daocheng Yading Airport in China being the highest, at 14,472 feet (4,411 m). However, the highest landing by a fixed-wing aircraft ever is still thousands of feet above this. In April 1960, a prototype of the Pilatus PC-6 Porter, nicknamed “Yeti,” was landed on the Dhaulagiri Glacier at an altitude of 18,865 feet (5,750 m). The Porter, well know for it’s STOL capabilities, was described by Flying magazine as being “one of the most helicopter-like airplanes in terms of takeoff performance.”

And if that wasn’t enough street cred for one plane, the Porter also holds the record for the most take offs and landing in a 24 hour period, set while helping Skydiver Michael Zang achieve his goal of 500 skydives in a 24 hour period. Takeoff, reach 2,100 feet, Zang jumps, land, pick up Zang, and repeat. 500 times. The average length of each of these cycles was roughly 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Also, the Porter pilot Tom Bishop holds a record for the most consecutive takeoffs and landings with 424 over a 21 hour period.

Speaking of High Altitudes

The highest altitude obtained by a piston engine, propeller driven airplane is 60,866 feet. This was achieved in 1995 by a Grob Strato 2C, a twin-engine experimental aircraft specially designed for high altitude flight.

So, how about the single piston engine, propeller driven airplane altitude record? That would be 56,047 feet (17,083 m), a record set by Italian pilot Mario Pezzi. But here’s the truly incredible thing: Prezzi set this record on October 22^nd, 1938, and the record still stands today. He set it in a Caproni Ca. 161 Biplane, with a pressurized, airtight cabin, and wearing a special pressure suit.

In Conclusion

These achievements and stories regarding general aviation aircraft reflect only a fraction of the ingenuity and achievements attained during the history of aviation. They represent a monumental push onward and upward, one that is joined and continued every day by scientists, engineers, pilots, and adventurers. I think the early pioneers of flight would be astounded by just how far we’ve come. Here’s to seeing how far we can go.

Get Started With Your Flight Training Today

You can get started today by filling out our online application. If you would like more information, you can call us at (844) 435-9338, or click here to start a live chat with us.