Features

Its been a while, so Ive forgotten plenty of things I learned when earning my multi-engine rating several years ago. As one result, Id be dangerous until and unless I obtained some remedial instruction in a conventional twin. Meanwhile, I have enough experience with night operations, complex airplanes and flying into unfamiliar airports to know I would not approach such an undertaking lightly, and wouldnt even consider it in a twin without a competent-in-type pilot sitting beside me, preferably in the left seat.

They seem to come in as many varieties as hotdogs-and with about as many interesting names. You know what I mean: Chicago Style, New York Style, Half-Smoke, Coneys, Hot Links and so forth. Ordering without confessing unfamiliarity with variations in flavors, spices and condiments can prove painful. Its the same with flaps, though the consequences of inadequate knowledge are different. For example, you need to know what kind of flaps youre flying and how theyre used. This knowledge, in turn, enables their management for takeoffs, landings and other operations. Knowledge of your flaps and their peculiarities can be particularly powerful should you find yourself in unusual circumstances, and need to maximize their benefits. Lets take a look.

Few chapters in the great book of safe flying are as incomplete and misleading as guidance for avoiding mid-air collisions. In over 50 years of active flying, I have not yet seen any information accurately describing a workable method ensuring awareness and avoidance of mid-air collisions for the general aviation pilot. In fact, the FAAs well-meaning rules and guidance may be dysfunctional seeds of disaster, sown early in a pilots flying career, later leading to a mid-air collision. Its actually a familiar story: Concepts based on intuitive assumptions-instead of empirical knowledge-so often become concrete and immutable. The pilots ability to see and be seen is one of the most profound of all safety myths, and understanding why pilots are not always able to meet this obligation will help avoid complacency, motivating us all to compensate for deficiencies in the system. Lets get started.

Having the instrument rating opens up a wide range of options for planning and completing flights our VFR-only brethren cant make. But the instrument ticket usually is not a piece of paper allowing go-anywhere, anytime capability, especially when used with most personal aircraft. Often, however, the same flight can be completed safely by staying VFR. More planning may be required, and youll likely be busier than if you went IFR, but safety isnt likely to be compromised. Here are some reasons you might want to stay VFR, and ways to do it safely.

Symmetry. Balance. These concepts are universal to virtually all human philosophy and aesthetics. An aviation credo is that “if an airplane design looks good, it will fly good.” In most cases, “looking good” means having proportions-and symmetry-that please the eye. We strive for balance and symmetry in the way we fly as well. Pitch attitudes. Bank angles. Airspeeds. Rudder coordination. Almost everything we do is designed to make maneuvers steady and balanced. Some of the most challenging maneuvers on practical tests make us demonstrate symmetry, with airspeeds, altitudes and bank angles at one point of the maneuver equaling those at others, and balanced rudder input throughout. But there are times when we must violate the concept of symmetry to make the airplane perform. Most notably, this means something other than balanced rudder input.

A wise old pilot once told me here are three distinct types of flying: simulator flying, checkride flying and typical everyday line flying. Although the context of this nugget was originally air carrier operations, there seems to be an innate understanding of this concept among all pilots. When administering flight reviews to experienced owner-pilots, I often get to see them on their “best behavior.” Of course, flight reviews arent checkrides, but many pilots view them as such, especially if its been a while since their last “real” pass/fail flight. While somewhat flattering to me, its usually obvious which aspects of their behavior are part of their normal operation and which are a show put on for my benefit. Often, Ill see them whip out a ratty old checklist, dust it off and try to use it sequentially as a do-list. Almost comically, the effort comes across almost as awkward as a middle school dance: The desire is there, but they just dont seem to know what to do with it.

Most pilots know a majority of mishaps can be traced back to a chain of events that, if broken, would have prevented the accident from happening. No doubt some could have been prevented if the pilot had been able to press pause, or activate an airframe parachute, when the flight started going south. While most of us dont have that option, we can pull a mental ripcord of sorts and stop a progression of poor decision-making from becoming catastrophic. While most pilots are familiar with the chain-of-events explanation as to how accidents happen, little time is spent trying to figure out how to break the chain, particularly when it involves a form of distorted decision-making. That is, of course, easier said than done. If it were an easy task, we wouldnt spend as much time reading about perfect-performing airplanes operating in ordinary circumstances plowing into terrain with tragic results. One place to start is to look at the chain of mental events leading up to an accident, rather than just the aerodynamic aspects of the flight. Doing so can provide some helpful insights toward identifying the bad link before it gets added to the chain.

A close friend e-mailed recently to inquire about what happens to the turn coordinator/turn and bank instruments ball in certain flight attitudes. After giving him what I thought was the answer he needed, several more e-mails ensued, each one raising my frustration level-admittedly not a difficult thing to do. Finally, I picked up the phone and called, and Im glad I did, since his real question had very little to do with the ball. But his questions-and little bit of research I did to verify my understandings before responding-highlighted one thing: There probably are a large number of pilots out there who have forgotten exactly what the little ball does and how it does it. Theres also another number of pilots who never were taught these things correctly. Lets try to fix both problems. First, though, lets refresh our understanding of why and how an airplane turns.

Many pilots think running out of fuel is in the same category of a gear-up landing: It can never happen to them, until it does. While there may be several good reasons for landing with the gear still stowed, we can think of only two for running out of fuel. One of them involves fuel starvation-theres fuel aboard, but it cant get to the engine. In our view, the only time this excuse holds water is when it involves some kind of mechanical event-the fuel selector breaks off in the pilots hand between detents, for example, or a transfer pump fails. The only other legitimate excuse for running out of gas is when the weather caves and theres literally no place to land within our dwindling range. And thats rare enough we couldnt find any recent examples, although they may be out there.

One of the most misunderstood pieces of equipment in the modern cockpit is airborne weather radar. For most of us, its a luxury we cant afford: either sferic devices (Stormscope/Strikefinder) and/or datalinked Nexrad images serve as a pilots third-best tool for avoiding thunderstorms. We say “third-best” because the best thing ever used for this purpose remains the Mk. I, Mod. I human eyeball. The trick, of course, is the eyeball only can be used in visual conditions. By happy coincidence, thats the best place to be when contemplating flight in an area of thunderstorms. But visual circumnavigation of convective activity isnt always possible. Instead-and if youve got the room in the nose or a wing-mounted radome-an airborne radar installation remains your second-best solution. Yes, Nexrad is widely available and much less expensive, but it doesnt do the same job as the airborne equipment.