Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Three Counterintuitive Solutions to General Aviation Problems

By John King / Published: Jun 15, 2011
Rate it! 78% or 22%
Flying Magazine | The World’s Most Widely Read Aviation Magazine

John King

General aviation has a lot of good things going for it. Airplanes have gotten more capable, and wonderful avionics improvements have come along to give us amazing inflight information and make flying much more fun. But these good things tend to be overshadowed by a particularly large dark cloud. In an increasingly risk-averse and litigious society the general aviation accident rate is unacceptable. In fact, the fatality rate per mile for airplanes is 7 to 8 times that of cars and the rate hasn’t changed significantly in the last 10 years.

It is not like we don’t know about this and aren’t trying hard to fix it. We have tried all the obvious things and have redoubled our efforts to work harder at them. We’ve had magazine articles, symposia, and courses dealing with the subject, but still little, if any, change. It is becoming apparent that trying harder at the obvious answers won’t work. As for most complicated problems, the solutions won’t be obvious until after the problem is solved. 

So here are three suggested not-so-obvious and counter-intuitive solutions to the problem.

Solution #1.  We should quit talking about safety. 

Most of the times we use the words “safe” or “safety” we don’t really mean them. According to Dictionary.com, the word “safe” means “secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk”; and “safety” means “the state of being safe; freedom from the occurrence or risk of injury, danger, or loss.”

It is clear that in the dictionary sense, you can’t fly an airplane, or for that matter drive a car, and be “safe.” Everything we do in motorized vehicles involves tradeoffs with safety. 

So when we say things like “Safety is our number one priority” or “We will not compromise on safety,” they cannot literally be true.  All of this platitudinous talk about safety is not only disingenuous hypocrisy; it is bad management, because we are setting unachievable goals. Telling someone to have a “safe” trip is a nice, courteous expression of good will, but it is lousy professional advice. It is literally impossible, and gives no advice that can be acted on. More helpful would be a suggestion to “manage your risks well.”

Solution #2. Abandon talk about teaching pilots “judgment” and “decision-making.”

The reason I think these terms are not useful is that I don’t think they are acceptable to the recipient, and therefore not likely to produce good results. Aviation tends to attract competent, achieving individuals who naturally believe they already employ good judgment and decision-making. They are unlikely to pay heed to an (often younger) instructor who tells them they will teach them these things. Much more acceptable would be a discussion of the special risks associated with the activity called “flying” and strategies to manage those risks. Additionally, the term “decision-making” tends to imply that you get to a fork in the road and make a decision. Risk management implies employing a strategy to proactively anticipate the need for a decision before you are in the situation. The latter approach is much better.

Solution # 3.  Improve our stall/spin accident problem by teaching pilots to fly slower.

Year after year a big chunk of all general aviation fatalities have been due to stall/spin accidents. So everybody would assume that these accidents are caused by a lack of slow-flight awareness, and the way to solve the problem is to drill students on slow flight and stall/spin awareness. I believe everybody would be wrong.

Let’s consider that these accidents may be caused instead by flying too fast. An imminent stall caused by flying too slow is easy to recognize. The controls get mushy. The air noise decreases. The airplane buffets well in advance. It is certain that most stall/spin accidents don’t happen at one G. There is just too much warning.

On the other hand, a stall caused by an increase in load factor gives much less warning. The controls aren’t mushy. The air noise is still at the usual level. The buffet gives little if any warning. 

Many pilots fly faster than they should because their instructors taught them to. Flight instructors are afraid their students will stall. Therefore they have them fly faster when maneuvering, especially in the pattern. Since the radius of turn increases with the square of the speed, the result is huge patterns, or steeper banks and more load factor as pilots try to stay closer to the runway. Throw in a skidding turn and it’s a set-up for a fatal accident. So instead of focusing on making pilots slow-flight aware, we should have them be load-factor aware and suggest they fly slow when it is beneficial.

So let’s apply these solutions and think out of the box to find other counterintuitive solutions to our aviation fatality problem. It is the most important thing we can do to preserve general aviation.

John King is, along with his wife Martha, the co-founder and co-chairman of King Schools. He has spent the last 35 years learning about flying and teaching pilots. He considers aviation one of humankind’s greatest achievements and feels that his greatest honor has been to have played a role in the lives of so many pilots.

Comments (11) Post a comment

All Comments

Codehead's picture

Great article!

Dave English's picture

Three different suggestions -- and all three are solid ideas that deserve wide discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to move us forward,

  -- Dave

Inner Art of Airmanship - online at www.PilotPsy.com

samstein1's picture

John, I think that the accident rate comparison of 7 - 8 times the auto rate is misleading. I believe that a more meaningful rate would exclude Alaska as well as those cases of sheer stupidity that no one can stop. For example, not checking fuel before leaving the ground; flying without proper maintenance of known problems; etc.

Thanks, Sam Stein

vfr1200's picture

Thank you for an insightful article. I think I know why many pilots fly fast in the pattern. Many, if not most, flight schools charge time by a Hobbs meter rather than by tach time. With a Hobbs meter, a faster pattern means a cheaper pattern.

Bart's picture

John is on to something here. Most pilots are afraid of the low end of the ASI, they're taught that from day one. Stall and stall awareness training is fine, and necessary, but it doesn't drill the lesson that the wing will stall in any attitude at any speed. The problem is real because there are too many instructors involved in too many training accidents, which only indicates the instructors aren't able to process the concept either. Too many pilots will nod affirmative when you talk about the wing and the critical angle of attack, but most have never experienced a high load factor, or accelerated stall. Neither have most instructors. Therein lies the rub.

Bart R

delta_v's picture

I'm just a student pilot, and will proceed from the assumption that I don't know jack about aviation (or, some might argue, I know just enough to be dangerous...clear the pattern! :-))

But, it seems to me that pilots are afraid of slow flight, the lower end of the ASI and stalls/spins because there is (in my opinion) altogether too much emphasis early in the training process on flying by the numbers.

WTF? Some of you are undoubtedly asking!

A brand new student pilot gets in to the airplane for instruction and spends a heck of a lot of time with his/her eyes inside the cockpit, instead of outside, where they ought to be. The question all new student pilots are constantly asking themselves is: What are all these gages telling me? How do I integrate that information and compare it to the numbers in the POH, and the view out the window?

So, we make endless trips around the pattern, hoping that needle doesn't come anywhere close to the bottom of EITHER arc, as our instructors dispense a constant stream of advice and instruction. Which is always very welcome and helpful, when you're concentrating on not dying.

You know, if I was an instructor, I'd make my student spend the first 5 hours (or so..) of instruction sitting in the RIGHT seat, where they can't really SEE the ASI or turn indicator. I'd spend more than several hours teaching them what it feels and looks like to fly by the seat of their pants, with reference solely to said seat and the sight picture out the window. I'd give airspeed callouts so the student knew where they were with the numbers, but they'd be forced to integrate that small amount of information with what their a$$ and eyes are telling them.

After "graduating" to the left seat (which would make a nice flight training milestone), the student could then spend time learning the story being told by the gages, all the while comfortable in the knowledge that the seat of their pants will be the first "gage" to tell them when something is wrong.

I dunno, maybe I'm way off base here!

freesky's picture

All your points are very good.

With respect to the third point why is it that GA cockpits do not use angle-of-attack indicators? Is it a technical, financial or legal issue that keeps them from being standard equipment in GA cockpits?

Perhaps someone can shed some light on this.

parttimer's picture

The statistics are misleading and I tend to agree with Sam Stein. Exclude Alaska, pipeline, crop-dusting, etc. as well as accidents caused by idiots are are numbers are pretty good. I was at a pancake breakfast fly-in yesterday and witnessed two "high" speed low passes (one by a C-172 and the other a MU-2) that concluded with high-g pull-ups. Then I saw a home-built and a Aerocoupe perform a formation take-off. Those people are all statistics waiting to happen. So many accidents can be taken out of the equation if you remove acts of idiocy. Then you are left with real accidents statistics caused by approach errors, fuel, weather, etc.

Moose907's picture

"Accelerated Stalls" and "Delayed Recovery Stalls" are things that are generally only taught by instructors who have been around a long time. I soloed on May Day (ain't that a hoot) 1960 and became a CFI in 1970 and these two "maneuvers" have been a part of my instructional bag of tricks for 41 years. And! I don't go out to fly with a student until we can "walk the ramp" (with me on the right) and have a FULL understanding of what we're going to do once we start the engine. It's so much cheaper. The concept of "I can't explain it but if we were in the airplane I could do it" doesn't fly here. As a parting shot, I read recently, "When the chips are down, you don't rise to the occasion, you default to the level of your training!".

Spudstar's picture

John,

I'm a B-767 Captain for United Airlines and an FAA Examiner with about 15,000 flight hours in everything from Schweizer 233 Gliders to Lockheed-Martin F-16s to DC-9's, B-737's', B-757's and B-767's. You can stall or put any aircraft out of control with enough pitch, bank, yank, yaw or stupidity; trust me, I've done it!

But the more interesting thing is that I haven't done it lately, not in the last 10 years. Ever since one of my ANG fighter squadron buds pointed out that manuevering an F-16 into a position from which it could easily depart just to gun-track another Lt Col or that "hot shot" 1st Lt, wasn't worth the risk (thank you, OP)! It was an epiphany for me; some things just aren't worth the risk.

Today, I am more risk aware. I maintain proper buffers near the aircraft's operating margins; Goldilock's margins, not too fast, not too slow, just right. But it took me 25+ years before I finally understood the true lesson of managing risk. Is what I'm about to do worth the risk that I'm about to incur? If yes, what should I do to maintain proper buffers to stay within acceptable operational margins?

Everything about flying (and living, for that matter) is risky. Proper buffering so as to stay away from the physical and life limiting margins (airspeed, altitude, attitude and G) is the key to an old and un-bold aviation career! Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and he exists because he knows how to manage risk.

Cheers,

Spuds

cconrad's picture

To those who suggest that the accident rate comparison of 7 - 8 times the auto rate is misleading, and that we should subtract the risky and idiotic flights, consider that there are stupid people who talk big risks in cars too. It will never be a perfect comparison, for starters because the risk drivers are different and the benefits are ifferent (airplanes are so much more useful in some ways). However, it's not fair to start subtracting some kinds of pilots and accidents unless you're going to start slicing up the driving stats in the same way.

That said, the message that we can easily stay away from certain risks and have a personal level of risk better than the average us comforting. I just worry that we tell ourselves comfortable lies and become complacent.

Besides, in terms of what you might call a social licence to operate, the general public and their politicians—whose attitudes will regulate us in the end—probably doesn't care about such fine distinctions. They care about the overall numbers.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use