Aviation Safety

Circling an airport after an instrument approach procedure (IAP) to land on a runway other than the one aligned with the IAP is something all instrument-rated pilots have practiced. Its a maneuver that places an airplane relatively close to the ground-sometimes at half the traffic-pattern altitude-and can require steeply banked turns.

You shouldnt have gotten through private pilot ground school without understanding that, for the same power and weight, minimizing drag will result in an increased airspeed. A gross example might be the difference in airspeed with flaps extended at, say, 55-percent power and when theyre retracted. Of course, no one cruises with flaps extended, but you may inadvertently be adding to the airplanes total drag in cruise when you load it.

Ive not found any published data on the subject, but after years or reading accident reports Ive formed the opinion that pilots making takeoffs that will be followed by a flight on an IFR flight plan may unconsciously add a little more I gotta go come hell or high water attitude than their normal, Type A, mission-completion orientation to the decision-making process.

Every few years, the law Congress uses to set the FAAs agenda and priorities expires, creating demand for a new aviation bill in Congress. The last one was enacted in 2012 but only after non-essential FAA functions were shut down when the previous version expired without an extension. That law expires this coming September 30, and Congress will be wrestling with options this summer.

This aircraft was equipped with a turbonormalizing system, which requires a fuel pump with an aneroid compensator to regulate the mixture replaces the original pump. On this installation, the fuel mixture cam profile was erroneous. Fuel flow rate increased normally from idle cutoff to approx 80 percent of mixture-lever range of motion where fuel flow is at maximum. Then the fuel ratio decreases as lever continues toward maximum position: 80 percent mixture provides 37.5 gph; 100 percent provides 35.5 gph.

I enjoyed Jeb Burnside’s article, Crosswinds On Rails, in the July issue and some further suggestions about crosswind landings, plus a correction:

At about 1225 Central time, the gyrocopter was destroyed when it collided with power lines while maneuvering. The solo private pilot sustained serious injuries. Visual conditions prevailed.The gyrocopter had impacted 30-foot-high power lines, breaking two of them. The pilot’s headgear showed thermal damage to the faceshield and soot was evident inside of the shield and around the face relief of the helmet, consistent with electrical arcing. The engine appeared to be mostly intact and fuel was present.

All pilots and controllers know about wake turbulence, the vortices streaming out and downward from an airplanes wingtips anytime its generating lift. We know theyre strongest when the generating airplane is heavy, clean and slow. We know not to fly in-trail of a larger airplane at the same altitude unless there are at least three minutes separation, preferably more.

In the scenario described at the top of this article, were trying to get back to home plate in 800 overcast and two miles, somewhere in the U.S. Its a good idea to get an IFR clearance to deal with that low of a ceiling. But what if the ceiling was 5000 overcast, or unlimited, with the same two miles of visibility? Youd still need a clearance to get home, but it doesnt have to be an IFR.

The ease with which we can carry current charts in an EFB app means theres usually no good reason we dont have approach plates aboard. But stuff can happen. Youll need a little more help from ATC.