Aviation Safety

After only 26 hours of operation after new parts were installed, this magneto quit producing spark. Troubleshooting found the point timing had drifted off and was impossible to reset within manual limits. The plastic cam follower was found worn or melted. New parts were installed and functionally checked good. Engine is a Continental IO-360-A, installed in a Maule M-4-210Part Total Time: 26.0 hours

August 2, 2013, Eagle Bay, N.Y. Cub Crafters PA-18-150 The amphibian’s pilot was flying a visual approach to a lake, over mountainous terrain. On an approximate ¾-mile final approach to the lake, she observed a boat near her intended landing area and performed a go-around to circle for another approach. During the go-around and turn, the pilot did not move the throttle lever to full power. About ¼ through the turn, she noticed the airplane was descending and increased engine power. The airplane continued to descend, and she increased engine power a second time. However, one of the airplane’s floats contacted a tree, and the airplane impacted the ground. Examination revealed substantial damage to the wings and the fuselage.

With all the literal and figurative bells and whistles in today’s cockpits, something as mundane as losing communications with ATC is rare. One reason is the stuff we have in the panel these days is a couple of light years ahead of even two decades ago in reliability. But loss of communications—going “no radio,” or Nordo—thanks to our installed avionics isn’t the only failure mode we might encounter. In fact, your airplane and its equipment may not even be the problem.

All pilots fear mid-air collisions (MACs), even though they’re relatively rare. The AOPA Air Safety Institute’s 2011 Nall Report, an annual look-see at general aviation’s safety record in the U.S., found only four of them. That means the other 1373 accidents occurring in the U.S. during 2010, the year examined, involved other causes, including the always-interesting stupid pilot tricks. Of the four mid-airs in 2010, one of them involved no fatalities; in only one MAC did everyone aboard both aircraft suffer fatal injuries.

Not a flight goes by when I don’t think about the potential for a landing-gear problem. It’s not that I’m a pessimist and think something is bound to happen—I don’t—but the moment you fly a complex aircraft, you’ve multiplied the number of things that can go wrong. I bristle when someone trots out the old “there are those who have and those who will” maxim about gear-up landings. It’s just not that simple.

Perhaps because of its various attractions, night flying presents its own set of challenges. Let the sun go down, and all kinds of aviation-related mischief can ensue. The basic problem, of course, is humans are not well-adapted to seeing and doing complex things in low-visibility conditions. So, we have to compensate.

The why doesn’t matter. It could be catastrophic engine failure, a mid-air, a broken fuel line or a severe downdraft, forcing you to the ground. The punchline is you’ve crashed, off-airport and in a rural location. If you followed all the advice in last month’s article, “The Art of Crashing,” the aircraft’s impact was at a low angle, at a low speed and you didn’t have too much downward g-loading, minimizing the chance of spinal compression injuries. What was once a capable flying machine now is spread across a nice long debris field, meaning you stretched out the crash and dissipated energy over a good distance.

When did you last experience an embarrassing moment on the takeoff roll? Have you ever had to taxi back to the ramp to deal with a problem discovered during the run-up? Any moments of tension or near-terror because you missed something during the pre-flight? Most pilots can recite at least one tale about discovering they missed something in the pre-flight inspection. The idea at its root is to never, ever start the engine without a thorough look-around to be sure all remains as it was when you last landed the airplane. In the case of the day’s first flight, you’re conducting an inspection to confirm the aircraft’s airworthiness, general condition, fuel status, etc.

If you’ve been watching closely over the past few years, you may have noticed several Airworthiness Directives (ADs) from the FAA concerning replacement cylinders for popular GA piston engines. Depending on the engine, the cylinder’s manufacturer and when it was installed, an applicable AD may require removal and replacement within 25 operating hours. At a minimum, it will mandate frequent inspections.

I usually find the material in your publication valuable. The articles are mostly concise and as far as I can tell accurate. I have read Jeb Burnside a number of times without feeling the need to comment. His most recent article, however, is an exception. “High, Hot Downwind,” August 2013’s Accident Probe, left me disturbed. In the last paragraph, he says there is evidence of a cavalier attitude on the part of the dead pilot exemplified by the pilot’s almost immediate gear retraction and a quick initiation of a turn before gaining altitude.