Safety Archives - Page 2 of 31 - Golf Hotel Whiskey

Keep an eye on your passengers (because “big brother” is watching…)

On the Ask a CFI website, a pilot named John has posted a query about an interesting incident involving a passenger of his who accidentally crossed over the Non-Movement Area Boundary at a controlled airport:

Our plane was next to the boundary, he got on the phone while I was securing the airplane (puting on the cover, writing down the time, etc, etc) and he stepped into the controlled area (an active taxiway). He was one or two steps into the taxiway when others saw him and started yelling at him. I looked up, saw where he was and asked him to step in. Airport security showed up, my passenger apologized, they took down his information, and we left.

John went on to ask whether he broke any FARs as explaining to his passengers what the Non-Movement Area Boundary is has never been part of his brief as he had never parked so close to a controlled area (in this case, two or three steps after clearing the wing).

However, “big brother” was obviously watching. While Airport Security didn’t initially ask for John’s information, he later heard they asked around for his Certificate # and Contact Information – which a fellow pilot was nice enough to supply. Hence, John asked whether or not he should be expecting a call from the FAA.

Mark Kolber replied by pointing out a pilot is generally responsible for the aircraft and its passengers and if the airport has had incursion problems, John might be hearing from the FAA. In that case, he suggested there is no downside to filling out a NASA ASRS form and not breaking the anonymity of the process as the incident is a very good example to educate others about airport safety.

In addition, Mark suggested that John might need to speak with a qualified aviation attorney to discuss the situation and get some general direction of what to do it the FAA comes knocking at the door. While that may seem like overkill, you never know how an individual FAA inspector might view the situation. Mark also added a “PS” to say it’s generally not a good idea to discuss an actual regulatory violation on a public forum where a real name is listed – something else to remember.

Obviously there are some lessons in this seemingly innocent incident in that “big brother” might be watching you and your passengers at the airport. Hence, you need to also watch yourself and your passengers as well.

Proper constant-speed propeller maintenance

Ron Rapp, the blogger behind the House of Rapp blog, has a lengthy post about a topic that will probably bore most pilots or aviation enthusiasts: Proper or improper maintenance on a constant-speed propeller – a critical safety issue. Ron began his post by telling how Rob Cable, who was the grandson of the founder of Southern California’s Cable Airport, billed as “the world’s largest family-owned public-use airport,” was killed during a post-annual test flight in his twin-engine Beech 95 Travel Air.

The cause? A 2.5 foot-long portion of the right engine’s propeller blade had failed – meaning the hub ended up attached to a three-foot blade on one side and a broken 6″ stub on the other. This imbalance caused a vibration which severely overstressed the engine mount and tore the right engine off the airframe – rendering the aircraft uncontrollable.

Although what happened to Cable was a massive failure, Ron commented that he has seen cases of props shedding just an inch or so off a blade tip – enough to cause a vibration severe enough to shatter instruments in the cockpit, tear cowlings away and cause other serious damage.

However, the NTSB delved the maintenance records of Cable’s aircraft and found that the props had just been overhauled at an FAA-approved Repair Station. The problem was the investigation revealed a whole series of discrepancies between the overhaul procedures specified in maintenance manuals and the physical evidence found in the propellers – meaning the mechanics were criminally negligent in the performance of (or lack of performance in) their work.

Ironically, Ron himself had his propellers serviced at the same shop and was forced to spend another small fortune to have them re-serviced at another shop – meaning the “FAA Certified Repair Station” designation actually means nothing.

Ron also mentioned that props have a recommended Time Between Overhaul (TBO) and for most constant-speed props, it’s 2400 hours or six years. However, there are instances where a TBO is not mandatory – meaning it’s not uncommon to have aircraft where its been 10, 20 or even 30 years since the prop and/or governor were overhauled. And yet, all of those tiny parts or seals inside the propeller are exposed to both the elements (one way or the other) and to age or use related wear and tear (Ron himself would actually rather fly behind a 30 year old engine than a 30 year old prop).

If you fly an aircraft with a constant-speed propeller, Ron’s entire post will be a must read and will encourage you to check up on the maintenance of your constant-speed propeller.

Pilot error: Asking the “why” question

Colleen Mondor has written a thought provoking essay for the Alaska Dispatch about what causes pilot error that is well worth reading by pilots everywhere. Colleen began by telling the story of how a friend of hers was flying on a a clear day in a single-engine Cessna 207 hauling a load of mail when he flew into a box canyon at a low altitude, hit the ridge line and cart-wheeled. Her friend did not survive.

The weeks and months after the tragedy was followed with the overwhelming question of "why," a question she has become accustomed to asking after a crash – an all too common occurrence in Alaska. She then added:

Why did a pilot seek to overtake one of my classmates on final approach at an uncontrolled airfield resulting in a fatal mid-air collision when I was in college? We will never know. Why did one of my co-workers at a Fairbanks commuter crash into the Yukon River when one engine failed on a twin engine aircraft? We will never know.

And while Colleen noted that Alaska is famous for its treacherous landscape and unpredictable weather, she was quick to add that such characteristics alone are no excuse for the state’s poor aviation safety record and the question everyone still struggles with after an accident is why pilots “sometimes abandon the most fundamental of flight safety lessons for nebulous chances at success.”

As for the NTSB, Colleen pointed out their task is only to determine what causes an accident. And even after the Probable Cause accident reports are completed, investigators often still do not know why a pilot made the last choices before a crash – especially if the crash was fatal.

As for Colleen’s friend who died in the Cessna 207 crash, the NTSB concluded he was flying at a low level because he was following a wolf pack. However, why he allowed the wolves to lead him into a box canyon he was unfamiliar with at a low altitude will always be a mystery…

Two reasons a pilot should invest in an expensive pair of sun glasses

Flying and taxiing towards the sun can be a dangerous for pilots as two accident reports from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reprinted in General Aviation News illustrate.

In the first accident report dated July 2010, a CFI was taxiing a Cessna 152 in Ephrata, Washington, to an active runway. After he taxied around a hangar, he noted that the sun was extremely bright as it was just on the horizon. He then taxied the aircraft into a fire hydrant which resulted in substantial damage to the right horizontal stabilizer.

The second accident report involved a Taylorcraft BC-12-65 in College Place, Washington, and led to substantial damage to the aircraft and one serious injury. Apparently, the pilot departed for a short flight and about 20 minutes later, he returned to land.

However, the sun was low on the horizon. When the pilot turned onto the final approach leg of the traffic pattern, his view was completely obscured by the sun’s glare – causing the aircraft to hit trees about 250 feet to the right of the runway.

In other words, investing in a pair of potentially expensive sun glasses might turn out to be a better value than having to invest in a new aircraft.

Attempting the “impossible turn” proves fatal in Florida

On Friday afternoon, a small plane crashed into a parking lot after developing engine trouble shortly after taking off from the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. All three people onboard were killed with no injuries on the ground.

According to Terry Knowles who owns the repossession lot, six of the destroyed vehicles were repos with the seventh being his own truck. His boat, mud buggy and camper were also destroyed while several other vehicles sustained lesser fire damage. Terry also indicated that he and one of his employees were in the lot at the time, which is part of a busy industrial area filled with warehouses and stores; but luckily they were not injured in the accident.

Apparently and in part according to Terry’s eyewitness account, the pilot made a classic pilot mistake: His engine failed after takeoff and he attempted to make the so-called “impossible turn” back to the airport. You can see some of our past articles about the impossible turn here with one of our articles quoting a pilot as saying:

…if the engine ever really did quit on takeoff below 500 feet, the best thing to do is just land straight ahead. Once you get above 500 feet (and get some airspeed) your options improve greatly, to maybe include a return to the field.

In other words, the pilot might have been better off trying to find a road or something to land straight ahead on, but he or she was flying over a well developed area and its probably to early to second guess the pilot’s decision making until an actual investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is concluded.

The Associated Press article posted on Yahoo! also listed several other high-profile crashes at the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport over the last decade with the latest incident no doubt going to lead to more scrutiny of the airport.

Flying on empty in British airspace

Both The Sun and the Telegraph have reported that at least one aircraft a week runs low on fuel during a flight over Britain. In fact, airlines reported 224 “low-fuel safety incidents” in the past four years (2009 to 2012) with one unnamed airline being responsible for 84 of those incidents or three times more than any other operator.

Reading between the lines, one can probably guess which airline that is (hint: the first part of the airline’s name sort of rhymes with flying!) while another airline has reported 32 incidents and a third airline had 29. Apparently, airlines must inform the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of any low fuel incident with none of the 44 registered UK airlines being completely incident free (The Telegraph also pointed out that these figures do not include any low fuel landings outside of Britain by a certain low-cost carrier registered in Ireland…).

What the CAA regulations say is that any aircraft entering British airspace must have enough fuel to complete their journey, have enough fuel in reserve to reach another airport and enough to circle an airport for 30 minutes. However, carrying any extra fuel will add to the aircraft’s weight and adding to the cost of the flight while delays by flight queues or bad weather can leave fuel tanks dangerously low.

So its a cost verses safety/risk trade off with many airlines flying over Britain apparently focused on cost rather than safety.