Safety Archives - Page 10 of 31 - Golf Hotel Whiskey

Night takeoff mistake causes a passenger to abort the takeoff

General Aviation News often reprints accident reports from the USA’s National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), including one from October 2009 that involved a Piper Cherokee in Angwin, California which led to substantial aircraft damage but no injuries.

According to the accident report, the pilot of a Piper Cherokee was attempting a night takeoff after he thought he had positioned the aircraft for a takeoff 1/4th mile from the start of the runway. He then attempted to use his radio to activate the runway lights – which did not activate. Hence, the pilot used his landing light to taxi and then attempt a takeoff.

However and when the aircraft reached 65 mph, the pilot figured out that he was not on the runway as he saw dirt and grass. At this point in time, his passenger requested the takeoff to be aborted while the pilot felt he could continue the takeoff.

When the groundspeed reached 80 mph, the passenger decided to abort the takeoff by grabbing the yoke while having her feet on the rudder pedals. The aircraft ended up hitting a fence.

The accident investigation revealed that the pilot had not selected the right radio frequency in order to activate the runway lights. Moreover, it was ruled that the pilot (rather than his passenger….) should have aborted the takeoff when he realized that he was not on the actual runway.

Are older pilots safer pilots?

Pilot Bob Claypool, who will turn 85 next February and who is the Executive Vice President of the United Flying Octogenarians, an international group of pilots over 80 years of age, has written an interesting opinion piece for Air Facts where he stated that older pilots are safer pilots. Bob then cited Captain “Sully” Sullenberger, who was 57 years old when he performed his miraculous water landing plus Bob has cited a recent Stanford University study which found that both the extent of aviation expertise along with the greater number of years of education will result in better flight simulator performance. In fact, the FAA in the USA has already raised the maximum age of Airline Transport Pilots from 60 to 65.

Moreover, Bob wrote that older pilots usually have a serious interest in being able to remain pilots. Hence, older pilots are less likely to take the kind of risks that younger pilots might be willing to take and will be more serious about about maintaining their good health by watching eating habits, avoiding weight gain and exercising more regularly.

However, commenter Jay Raymond, who says he is one of Britain’s youngest pilots, disagreed with Bob’s rational for older pilots being safer pilots by writing:

New pilots, or younger pilots are relatively fresh out of flight school, and are taught to do things by the book, if anything, ‘fresh’ pilots are more likely to over-think a situation rather than to use short-cuts that my have been picked up during a long and relatively trouble-free history of flying for say a seasoned pilot, like yourself.

On the other hand, commenter MJF responded to Jay by pointing out that “you don’t have TIME to over-think a situation because you need to make a decision immediately, and that is based on training…and experience.”

Meanwhile, John Young wrote:

Us old fellas need not worry about the comments of the young. Ask them again in 30 or 40 years and they will have a somewhat different opinion.

Hence, we want to ask you our readers what you think: Are older pilots safer than younger pilots or is more of a combination of factors such as experience along with health AND age?

Water landings: Some facts and figures to consider

If you fly over bodies of water, then a recent post about water ditchings by Paul Bertorelli for AVweb is well worth reading. Paul began his post by mentioning a recent ditching of a Cessna 310 13 miles off the coast of Hawaii (probably due to fuel exhaustion) and then commenting that such incidents are not all that uncommon.

Paul then recited some of the following data and statistics that he has collected over the years about water ditchings:

For warm water ditchings where the chance of survival in the water is measured in hours rather than minutes, the chance of survival is well into the 80th percentile.
Pilots and passengers rarely get trapped in the aircraft as the uninjured egress rate is more than 90% in most waters. The exceptions being deep ocean bluewater where its slightly less while the survival rate is markedly less in a deepwater ditchings at night. Otherwise, the overall survival rate after leaving the aircraft is 88% for general aviation aircraft based on a study of about 220 accidents over 30 years.
Rivers and lakes are the best places to ditch followed bays and estuaries and then open oceans. However, there is not enough data to draw any definite statistical conclusions.
Helicopters will almost always turn over after a ditching while fixed wing aircraft will sometimes turnover but often will not. Hence, a turnover should be less of a concern for general aviation pilots.

Finally and if you are wondering whether or not you should ditch with full power or try to press on to land and risk ditching with no power, Paul pointed out that a water landings will be tough enough even with power. Hence, he would just cut his losses and ditch. Then its just a matter of waiting for the aircraft to stop, releasing the seatbelt and opening the door.

At the end of his post, Paul once again reiterated the survival rate of water ditchings – meaning it might actually be a better option than attempting a landing where there are trees and rocks.

Do you know your aircraft’s unusable fuel amount?

General Aviation News often reprints US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident reports, including one from October 2009 that involved a Cessna 180 in Mitchell, Oregon, where the aircraft was severely damaged plus two people were injured.

According to the accident report, the pilot had acquired the aircraft several years before the accident. On the day of the accident, the aircraft’s engine lost power due to fuel exhaustion – forcing the pilot to make an off-airport landing.

During the subsequent investigation, the pilot informed the FAA that the fuel capacity on the airplane was 58 gallons thanks to a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) installation and that the previous owner had told him that all 58 gallons were usable. However, the FAA reviewed the paperwork and found that the actual usable fuel was only 51.4 gallons. In addition, the FAA showed the pilot the fuel selector decal which had also been placarded with 51.4 gallons usable fuel.

The pilot did note that he had already made the same trip eight or nine times before the accident but he would also normally refuel en route. However and on the day of the accident, he did not refuel.

Moreover, the STC installation information noted that to determine the aircraft’s usable fuel, its type certificate data sheet needed to be referenced and then the unusable fuel amount listed on the sheet needed to be subtracted from the new total fuel capacity. The aircraft’s datasheet showed that five gallons of fuel were unusable – meaning the aircraft’s actual usable fuel capacity was 51.4 gallons. Moreover and as part of the STC:

The airplane flight manual and the fuel selector valve placard were supposed to be updated with the revised usable fuel quantity. This action was noted on the FAA Form 337 for the STC installation. The pilot reported that there was no AFM supplement for the STC included in his paperwork, and that he did not ever look at the quantities indicated on the fuel selector valve placard in the cockpit due to its location between the seats.

The cause of the accident was ruled the pilot’s lack of understanding about his aircraft’s fuel system – leading to fuel exhaustion. Hence and its worth asking: Do you understand your aircraft’s fuel system and more importantly, how much of that fuel will be unusable?

Preparing your plane for winter

Winter will be here sooner than you think and for pilots in Northern latitudes, it may already be here. Hence, a General Aviation News article by Ben Visser, a pilot and aviation fuels and lubricants expert who spent 33 years with Shell Oil, is well worth reading as he provided a few fuels and lubes related tips for getting your aircraft ready for the winter.

Since Ben is an aviation fuel expert, he began by writing that it’s a big mistake to assume that can just put your plane away and change the oil in the spring time. He then pointed out that small amounts of fuel and combustion by products will get pass the rings and into the oil, increasing the chances of corrosion and rust when moisture enters the engine due to rising and falling winter temperatures.

Hence and if you do not plan on doing much or any winter flying, Ben wrote that you should change the oil before you put your aircraft away. He also suggested that you add one quart of preservative oil during the oil change and then do a short flight (if possible) to make sure that all engine parts are supplied with the new oil.

On the other hand and if you live in more southerly latitudes or if you will be using your aircraft during the winter, sticking with your normal every four months oil change should be just fine.

Ben then pointed out that on the fuel side, there is not much you need to do – unless you are using a fuel that contains ethanol which can absorb water and become corrosive. In that case, he suggested completely draining the fuel.

Finally, Ben warned that you will need to be careful if you use a power wash on your aircraft. Specifically, he warned not to get the power wash near any bearings on your aircraft as water can get inside and then freeze and thaw all winter long – causing harm the bearing and/or the seal. Otherwise, there is no other problem with getting your aircraft nice and clean for the spring flying season.

Putting some hard statistics on general aviation accidents

General Aviation News has recently reported that a first-ever study published in the journal “Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine” has put some hard statistics on injuries in General Aviation accidents. Specifically, the study found that:

- Aviation-related injuries in the USA resulted in 1,013 hospital admissions each year along with 753 deaths.
- Approximately 32% of hospital patients were injured in civilian and noncommercial aircraft.
- Lower limb fractures were the most common general aviation injury at 27%, followed by head injuries at 11%, open wounds and upper extremity fractures at 10% and internal injuries at 9%.
- Approximately 38% of general aviation fatalities were caused by head injuries while burns, although seen in only 2.5% of all patients, caused 13% of deaths.
- The fatality rate in civil aviation accidents stood at roughly 20% or about 200 times as high as in car crashes with over 80% of fatal injuries in aviation crashes occurring at the scene of the crash or before the victims reached the hospital.
  (Source: Macgillivray)

Its worth noting that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the FAA have not systematically recorded injury and hospitalization data for civil aviation crash survivors. Hence, Susan Baker, Ph.D., both a licensed pilot and a professor at the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) Center for Injury Research and Policy in Baltimore, Md. had to turn to the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which contains information about approximately 20% of annual hospital admissions in the USA.

Baker’s study ended up concluding that the sizable number of lower limb fractures would suggest modifications are needed to structures that will likely impact both feet and legs during a crash. Moreover, moving general aviation aircraft controls away from the front of the pilot and to the side, as in some Airbus and military aircraft, could also reduce both head and chest injuries. Hence, its hoped that Baker’s study will lead to better general aviation aircraft designs that will ultimately reduce both fatalities and injuries.