Features

So, what does all this mean? Should primary students and those seeking advanced ratings, proficiency training or just a simple flight review pass up flying with the grizzled veteran in favor of the young whippersnapper? Maybe, but not necessarily based on the results from this research alone.

Despite the very real recent advances in EFB software-including features like ForeFlights synthetic vision and Xavions energy-management capabilities, described in the sidebar on the opposite page-there are some things gadgets still cant do in the cockpit:

Nearly two years have passed since Aviation Safety introduced the concept of gadget flight rules (GFR) in the December 2013 issue. The original article examined using non-certified gadgets-personal electronic devices running appropriate software-to salvage a flight when your certified instruments fail. The conclusion was, yes, gadgets can provide backup, but the user must understand the novel ways they can help or hinder flight safety. Put another way, gadgets are only as good as our ability to use them; a safe pilot must know and understand their capabilities and limitations as well.

Especially if we include Experimental aircraft, there are many different makes and models from which owners and operation may choose, each of them having their own set of features. Whether we want an aircraft to perform aerobatics, do aerial application, conduct training or even engage in cargo operations, theres a model out there, somewhere, optimized for the mission. But all aircraft embody compromises: none literally can do everything.

Beechcraft calculated stopping performance for several scenarios related to this accident flight. The manufacturer concluded the estimated stopping distance for the accident airplane with no antiskid system operative and the lowest braking action recorded would be about 1560 feet, based on the first speed recorded by the EGPWS, which was 83 knots.

Weve all performed a go-around at one point or another, certainly in training. Many of them are begun at some altitude close to the runway, when it becomes obvious a go-around is preferable to rolling off the end of the runway. In most of the airplanes we fly, going around can be a relatively simple matter. It is, however, a high-workload maneuver and can require some finesse.

Every now and then, we come across an accident report that makes us wonder what we would have done differently, and when. Usually, the answer is fairly clear-cut: Do exactly the opposite of what the accident pilot did. Sometimes, though, its not nearly so clear-cut, and we find ourselves wondering if we had been in the left seat, would we have done as well.

General aviation pilots make IFR takeoffs in reduced visibility and low ceilings on a daily basis. We line up, launch, establish a climb, transition to the gauges and press on with the flight. Assuming there is an approach with adequate minimums at home plate or a nearby airport, were confident we can return and land within about 10 minutes should something go sour. If were in a single and the engine decides to take the day off, our ability to pick out a good landing site is minimal but, hey, thats IFR flight any time the weather is down.

While each pilot has to compile his or her own checklist for the go/no-go decision on a low-vis takeoff, heres a start:

So, youve decided the risk is worth it and youre going to execute a zero-zero or low-visibility takeoff. Youve thoroughly prepped the airplane, the cockpit and yourself for the operation, youve practiced it, you have a solid-gold takeoff alternate only a few miles away, with an ILS above minimums, and youre ready. One problem: The weather is so bad, you cant see more than one or two of the runway stripes at a time. Is that enough to help ensure directional control on the takeoff roll? Probably not.