Search Results for: general aviation inc

AOPA Air Safety Institute’s 22nd Joseph T. Nall Report, General Aviation Accidents in 2010, is hot off the presses and it shows a promising trend in some areas of general aviation safety. Despite a slight increase in the number of GA operations, the number of accidents dropped in 2010 as compared with 2009. All segments […]

The National Aeronautic Association (NAA) has announced the recipients of this year’s Wesley L. McDonald Elder Statesman of Aviation Awards. This year’s recipients include Keith Ferris, Dick Koenig, Christopher Kraft, Henry Ogrodzinski and Dr. Irving Statler. The group will be honored at the NAA Fall Awards Banquet on Tuesday, November 13, at the Crystal Gateway […]

The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) has partnered with AOPA to provide flight training at the annual AOPA Aviation Summit, which kicks off next week in Palm Springs, California. SAFE’s Pilot Proficiency Program, which was first offered at EAA AirVenture this summer, offers free flight training using Redbird’s FMX flight simulator, a full-motion […]

Separate deals announced last week in Wuhan, China, a city of 10 million people, could provide a much-needed boost for the U.S. general aviation market thanks to bulk orders for up to 300 light-sport airplanes and small helicopters for the Chinese training market. Leaders from Wuhan signed purchase agreements to buy 200 Liberty Aerospace XL-2 […]

Last month I discussed the need for balance between hand-flying the airplane and using the autopilot. Another example of a need for balance is in the traditional versus scenario-based flight training debate. When I received my flight training, the airplanes had only basic radios and instruments, and the only parts of most flights that were […]

It’s been a rough few years for private aviation. The advent of GPS, moving map displays and so-called plastic airplanes in the 1990s brought with them renewed growth and interest. Much of that persisted, despite best efforts from national agencies concerned with security above all else, during the following decade. By 2007, signs of economic upheaval put a damper on flying activity. By the time 2008 and its sky-high aviation fuel prices rolled through, used personal aircraft were being sold at unheard-of low prices. Both trends flattened out in the years since, but fuel remains a significant operational expense and many used airframes aren’t worth what they were 15 years ago.

By the time student pilots near the practical exam, they’ve usually got a pretty good idea of how and why to calculate density altitude (DA). If they’re lucky, they’ve even done some high-altitude takeoffs with an instructor, or at least simulated DA’s effects by using much-less-than-full power settings on a few takeoffs. Those tables and graphs overlook an important characteristic of the air in which we’re trying to fly: its humidity. Two classic concerns with mountain flying are density altitude and pressure altitude. Actual altitude doesn’t affect aerodynamic performance. Most of us plan our high-elevation arrivals and departures as early in the day as practical, and are extra attentive on warmer days when seated behind a normally aspirated engine. While reduced horsepower is certainly one reason to be wary of high-DA situations, the thinner air also means higher true airspeeds—and lower indicated ones—resulting in the airplane “thinking” it’s higher than it really is. The impact is felt through mushier controls, since there are fewer air molecules flowing over them. There’s also an impact on propeller efficiency, since its blades are airfoils. The net effect, of course, translates into longer, faster takeoff rolls.

Seemingly for generations pilots have argued over which controls speed and which controls altitude: power or pitch. At varying times the FAA contributed support to both sides with publications outlining flying techniques and training information. The very existence of the arguably adolescent-level debates ignores the hard reality: In powered aircraft neither one works alone. To achieve optimum performance in any setting requires balancing the two to best match the needs of the moment. Different combinations—and different sequences—give us everything from the best climb to the best cruise to the best economy to an optimal descent profile or best-profile for an instrument approach. In all cases, the power equation varies according to the altitude you seek, and the pitch attitude necessary varies with the desired airspeed. Just as an aircraft needs to obtain and maintain a specific pitch angle to match its bank angle in a level turn at any given speed, smooth, coordinated flight requires managing both pitch and power. But before we discuss how best to achieve the desired balance, let’s return to the basics of the impact of pitch and power on a powered aircraft.

As a student of NTSB reports and an active instrument flight instructor, I have come to the conclusion we do not stress preparedness for the missed approach procedure enough, either in initial instrument training or in instrument proficiency checks. In addition to collisions with obstacles because of an improperly flown missed, the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee, an FAA/industry working group charged with identifying and mitigating the causes of fatal general aviation accidents, has identified loss of control during a missed approach as one of its focus scenarios. This suggests that—even when the pilot attempts to fly the missed approach procedure properly—the workload of doing so may be greater than the pilot is prepared to handle. So how can we make certain we are properly briefed for the missed approach, so we know how to fly it correctly? What can we do to reduce pilot workload while flying the missed?

According to the NTSB, “Experimental amateur-built (E-AB) aircraft represent nearly 10 percent of the U.S. general aviation fleet, but these aircraft accounted for approximately 15 percent of the total—and 21 percent of the fatal—U.S. general aviation accidents in 2011.” With those numbers in mind, along with the fact E-ABs represent one of the fastest-growing portions of general aviation in the U.S., the NTSB last year initiated a major study of the segment.The study’s results were adopted by the NTSB in May 2012, after detailed analysis of accident records going back 10 years, in-depth investigations of all E-AB accidents during 2011, a broad survey of E-AB aircraft builders and wide-ranging discussions with industry. What, if anything, did they find? What were the study’s recommendations? Most important, can the study’s results be applied to those of us not flying so-called “homebuilt” aircraft?