Accident Probes

Airplane ownership is not for the faint of heart. In addition to the responsibilities coming with the financial commitment to acquire, operate and maintain an aircraft, theres the decision-making and judgement calls one must make, even before the first flight of the day. These decisions become especially difficult when paired against possible consequences of missing an important business meeting or failing to fulfill a personal commitment, to name but two. And, since an airplane is designed to go places, the ownership burden often becomes more complicated when, at a distant airport, a mechanical problem rears its ugly head. In such a situation, prudence often requires contracting with a facility or person whose skill and dedication isnt known to you. Frequently, conflicting schedules means a maintenance facility cant find the time to perform a detailed diagnosis of a transient airplanes troubles before the pilot is scheduled to leave. One result is attempting to fly an airplane with known deficiencies.

Air traffic controllers have an unenviable job, at least as far as pilots are concerned. Even though theyre well-paid and do their work inside, theres too much stress, the consequences of being wrong can be too high and they have the FAA for a boss. Trying to fit a 200-knot airplane in behind one doing only 100 knots is just one of the challenges many controllers face daily; for the most part, pilots can be oblivious to whats happening on the other end of the frequency. But pilots sometimes need to be more assertive, especially when ATC asks them to do something with which theyre not comfortable. Part of the problem pilots face when deciding whether to comply with ATC instructions and requests is the controllers presumed ability to write up a violation. Too, the very concept of a “controller” can be intimidating. Finally, most pilots understand the system and their role in it; in turn, theyll often try extremely hard to help out a controller, on the theory theyll get helped out next time.

I recently read an online comment from a wizened aviator to the effect that weather, by itself, has rarely if ever been responsible for an aviation accident. On the other hand, failure of the airplanes crew to correctly fly the airplane in that weather will mean a bad day for everyone aboard just about every time. Since the airplane is an inanimate object capable only of responding within its limitations to what its crew commands, the comment is exactly on-target. One of our challenges as pilots is to bring the required judgment, skill and experience along in the airplane. Of course, the average general aviation airplane is a marvel of reliability and capability. Even when considering an older design, the advances in technology since its introduction make trivial the task of equipping it with the latest in automated systems, allowing its crew to benefit from detailed information and situational awareness only dreamed of a generation ago.

Its relatively commonplace to earn the instrument rating without ever having flown in a cloud. Thankfully, our double-I welcomed our wish for training in as much IMC as we could find. We were fortunate: Other instrument instructors with whom we were familiar at the time refused to provide any training in IMC. The point is a new instrument pilot has no idea what he might be getting himself into in those first few unsupervised hours after earning the rating unless hes seen some IMC and can reliably translate a weather report of 400 overcast and a couple miles visibility into what hell see on the approach.

Way back in the Dark Ages, when we were younger and less experienced in airplanes, a buddy and I spent a long holiday weekend huddled in my cold, dark Washington, D.C., apartment waiting on better weather. We had a Piper Archer II reserved for the period, along with a hotel room in Key West, Fla. Try as we might, we couldnt figure out how to get around an area of low ceilings and visibility perched in our path over the Carolinas. Both of us were in the early stages of work on the instrument rating; two half ratings doesnt equal one full rating.

Most of us dont fly personal airplanes to waste time. Sure; there are occasions we might pull back the power, look around for things other than traffic, and revel in the view and the freedom aviation provides. But, those of us who use these airplanes for personal transportation often have to stay on a schedule, regardless of whether its self-inflicted or imposed on us by others. And schedules are made to be broken. Im often reminded of a truism: If you have time to spare, go by air. It seems no matter how hard I try, Im frequently behind someones idea of a schedule. In fact, when people at my destination ask when Ill arrive, I just laugh.

Almost by definition, pilots generally are self-reliant, often preferring to depend on their own talent and experience instead of someone elses. At the end of the day, choosing to fly a personal airplane is, well, personal. Sharing with others our enjoyment of aviation often is a trait among pilots, of course, but the take charge, Type A personality seems more prevalent. In the early years of commercial aviation, the lone pilot shepherding his or her flock of passengers across the country took on mythical proportion. Later, professionalism crept in, replacing “seat of the pants” flying with hard data. Soon, multiple pilots were added to the flight deck, becoming a crew, despite what some of the more hardened pilots may have wanted.

Theres no question flying after the sun goes down is different. Many of the things we take for granted in the daylight-the scenery, the speed sensation, better terrain avoidance to name but three-simply arent available. The same airports we fly to and from in the daytime look…different. Ramps bathed partly in darkness and partly in yellowish or bluish glows appear cleaner, perhaps, more antiseptic. The runways and taxiways, too, take on a different appearance, hidden between rows of blue and white jewels.

The old saying about gear-up landings-“There are those who have and those who will”-applies to all of us flying retractables. Perhaps a fatalistic outlook, its also an admonition to perform those pre-landing checklists at least once each flight. Beyond that, the saying also admits few, if any, have died or were even seriously injured in a gear-up landing. Depending on the circumstances of such misfortune, the airplane might be only minimally damaged. While few of us fly DC-3s, that airplane and others like it are quite capable of landing without the gear extended, likely damaging only the props. Check the engines, hang new props, jack the airplane and its good to go.

In a certain perverse way, its interesting to contemplate the fate of the worlds first multi-engine airplane pilot. The guy (or gal) who first took one of those early contraptions aloft likely had no real clue of what would happen if one of them failed. My dark side tends to smile, trying to conjure up the look on the pilots face when the inevitable happened. Nowadays, of course, flying a twin on a single engine is a well-understood challenge on which multi-engine pilots regularly spend hours training and practicing.