X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:47:44 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.146] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0) with ESMTP id 5961640 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:58:56 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.146; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaout-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.130]) by imr-da04.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id DD31E1C00005A for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:58:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.119] (24-107-65-42.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.65.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 1EDCCE000CC1; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:58:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fwd: Flying Lessons Weekly References: From: vtailjeff@aol.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-11EC3890-C474-4B06-9D1A-3C87A47034E7 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) X-Original-Message-Id: <92B5C34C-E659-4F79-BED7-BE4142837490@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:58:17 -0600 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 1:2:521936480:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 16 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338250d3c23d50d7 X-AOL-IP: 24.107.65.42 --Apple-Mail-11EC3890-C474-4B06-9D1A-3C87A47034E7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Worth reading for all. Jeff Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Mastery Flight Training, Inc. > Date: December 19, 2012 10:14:42 PM CST > To: > Subject: Flying Lessons Weekly > Reply-To: Mastery Flight Training, Inc. >=20 >=20 > =09 > Personal Aviation: Freedom. Choices. Responsibility. > Read FLYING LESSONS online. > FLYING LESSONS Weekly >=20 > FLYING LESSONS uses recent aircraft mishap reports to consider what might h= ave contributed to accidents, so you can make better decisions if you face s= imilar circumstances. Verify all technical information before applying it t= o your aircraft or operation, with manufacturer's data and recommendations t= aking precedence. YOU are the pilot-in-command, and are solely responsible f= or the decisions you make. > =C2=A9 2012 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. >=20 > This week=E2=80=99s lessons > =E2=80=9CGeneral aviation is safer now than it has ever been.=E2=80=9D =E2= =80=9CThe rate of fatal accidents is very low, and consistent.=E2=80=9D =E2= =80=9CThere are always going to be pilots who crash. Flying is as safe as i= t=E2=80=99s ever going to get, and there=E2=80=99s not much we can do to mak= e it safer.=E2=80=9D These quotes, and many more like them, have appeared i= n aircraft publications in recent months, some written by persons holding ve= ry prominent positions in aviation safety. >=20 > Some of the data, however, differs from the overall message the industry a= nd media have portrayed for years. Without the full picture of crash statis= tics, these reports have been, unintentionally, misleading. > This is the chart we usually see (figure 1). It shows a fairly consistent r= ate of total GA crashes each year since 2000, and a very consistent rate of f= atal events=E2=80=94a little over one fatality for every 100,000 flying hour= s each year for more than a decade. > =20 > =20 > Figure 1: GA accident rates per estimated 100,000 flying hours (NTSB) > =20 > What we usually don=E2=80=99t see, however, is a breakdown of the fatal ac= cident rates by type of general aviation operation (figure 2). Noncommercia= l (US Part 91) flying encompasses a lot of very different things, including i= nstructional flight, professionally flown corporate jets and turboprops, bus= iness flying (by pilots not employed specifically as pilots) and the persona= l/recreational flying most of us do. The data reveal some significant diffe= rences between these categories of general aviation, and some trends that th= e mainstream media have missed. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > =20 > Figure 2: GA accident rates per estimated 100,000 flying hours, by categor= y (NTSB) > =20 > Note that while the overall GA accident rate has remained steady, as we=E2= =80=99ve seen before (the turquoise line), the rate of corporate flying is a= lmost nil, the business flying rate has held low and steady, and instruction= al accidents are actually down per estimated 100,000 flying hours. The rate= of accidents among personal flying, however, has actually gone up 20% in th= e last decade. Have you read that recently in the aviation press? > =20 > The chart of fatal crash rates by type of GA operation (Figure 3) shows a s= imilar pattern. While the overall fatal rate has held very steady since 200= 0, corporate flying fatalities are almost nil, the business flying record ha= s varied but averaged low and steady, and the instructional fatal crash rate= has trendy slightly down, the rate of fatalities per estimated 100,000 flyi= ng hours in personal aviation has increased about 25% in the last decade. >=20 >=20 > =20 > Figure 3: Fatal GA accident rates per estimated 100,000 flying hours, by c= ategory (NTSB) =20 >=20 > Why has personal aviation become demonstrably less safe in the past decade= ? What are the differences between personal flying=E2=80=94recreational and= non-business aerial transportation=E2=80=94and the very similar business av= iation category that makes personal flying=E2=80=99s record so much worse? >=20 > We can speculate the worsening personal aviation record it has to do with t= he cost of flying and the average age of the pilot population. When we fly l= ess we become less proficient; as we age our reactions slow, and we may beco= me more susceptible to fatigue. This may be an oversimplification, but cert= ainly both these factors play a part in the increased crash and fatal crash r= ates.=20 >=20 > The irony is that when we can fly less, we need to train more. >=20 > Many FLYING LESSONS readers are =E2=80=9Cbusiness=E2=80=9D pilots, or fly a= s part of a corporate flight crew. Your professional record is good, but ev= en it can be better. And even corporate and business pilots tend to do at l= east some personal flying. >=20 > It=E2=80=99s natural we=E2=80=99ve been complacent, with most of the aviat= ion media telling us the general aviation mishap rate is declining and the r= ate of fatalities very low and steady. A closer look at the statistics, how= ever, reveals we=E2=80=99ve got to do things differently than we=E2=80=99ve b= een doing them if we want to continue to safely enjoy the tremendous benefit= s of personal aviation.=20 >=20 > Next: The leading causes of personal aviation fatalities, the differences= between personal and business flight that affect the crash record, and what= we=E2=80=99re going to do in 2013 to reverse this awful trend. >=20 > Comments? Questions? Tell us what you think at mastery.flight.training@c= ox.net. >=20 > Thanks to AVEMCO Insurance for helping bring you FLYING LESSONS Weekly. > Debrief: Readers write about recent FLYING LESSONS >=20 > Reader Jim Quinlin writes about the list of 15 tasks a student pilot must e= xperience before being permitted to solo (under U.S. rules), and a recent LE= SSON suggesting that list serves as a good regimen for any pilot=E2=80=99s c= ontinuing education:=20 >=20 > With regard to tales of soloing after only 4 or 5 hours back in the day, i= t's important to understand that the current political and legal climate tod= ay doesn't even resemble what it did back then. For example, fifty or sixty= years ago, making an off-field landing in a field would get you an audience= of curious onlookers and maybe a helping hand. Today, depending upon locat= ion, you might be greeted by a SWAT team or, at the very least, slapped with= a lawsuit by the property owner. At the risk of sounding cynical, these a= re the realities of general aviation in the 21st century. >=20 > That may indeed be a factor, Jim. If so, it=E2=80=99s more a reality of t= he late 20th century=E2=80=94the regulation requiring exposure to 15 tasks a= nd a written test before solo went into effect in 1989. I suspect the litig= ious component was due more to serious crashes among very inexperienced solo= pilots leading up to the rules change, which went into effect just after I b= egan instructing. Do any FLYING LESSONS readers have first-handle knowledg= e of environment in which the list of 15 presolo requirements came about? >=20 > Reader Woodie Diamond addresses last week=E2=80=99s LESSONS about landing i= n radiation, or ground fog.=20 >=20 > I was always told that ground fog acts just like a convex mirror, =E2=80=9C= things in the mirror are closer than they appear=E2=80=9D. Thus a normal ap= proach leads to a nasty surprise when the runway is actually closer than it a= ppeared. Is this not true? >=20 > I don=E2=80=99t know, Woodie, and I could not find anything in the literat= ure. Perhaps a reader better versed in optics will answer your question for= us, at mastery.flight.training@cox.net. >=20 > Reader Karl Thomas continues: >=20 > Wow, right on point for me. My son is moving to Del Rio [Texas] and I fle= w there last Saturday evening to pick him up and take back to Houston. TAF f= or Sunday am (my original arrival time) was 300ft & 0.5mi in fog. Following= the TAF for the last week or so shows this to be a common event for the are= a. We actually left DRT at midday with 700ft & 1mi visibility. Thankfully I= 'm IFR current and with the excellent lighting @ DRT, I don't think it will b= e much of an issue, just interesting!! >=20 > Thanks, Karl. Light twin owner and retired airline captain Larry Olson wr= ites: >=20 > Good page about fog, and a great review. >=20 > I'd like more discussion about how to "fly the fog". Your cautions in the= article are great, and there is risk in "fog flying". However, I believe th= ere's some options that make it doable=E2=80=A6. to a point. > Often one has a situation where the airport is "half or three quarters" so= cked in but the runway end is visible. It can be awkward to maneuver for a l= anding on an IFR flight plan, especially in controlled airspace. One cannot [= request or] accept a contact approach because the ground visibility is proba= bly below a mile. However, one could accept any approach with a circle[-to-l= and maneuver], regardless of ground visibility, as long as flight visibility= [was] one mile (or what was required for the circle). They could really be a= bove the fog, in good visual conditions during the circle, and really circle= until lined up with the runway where a safe landing could be made. >=20 > Of course, one has to consider the roll out, if it takes one into the fog,= could be very limiting. And your point about "glowing" runway lights are a g= ood clue of reduced visibility, which we need to take into consideration. T= houghts? >=20 > The Beechcraft Bonanza mishap that led to last week=E2=80=99s fog LESSON w= as a VFR-pattern arrival. All appeared normal for the night landing until t= he pilot descended into the fog on final approach. Visibility went to near z= ero and the pilot became disoriented and lost control. >=20 > Although an IFR arrival to circling minimums, and as I presume from your p= ost, using the circling maneuver to evaluate runway conditions and, ultimate= ly, to descend for landing, the foggy-weather arrival would not differ much w= hen compared to the visual pattern. In either case, the fog may be invisibl= e until the airplane enters it.=20 >=20 > In the case where fog partially covers the airfield, but permits landing o= utside of the fog bank=E2=80=94I=E2=80=99ve done that very thing once, in a t= urbocharged Baron at a rural New Jersey airport just east of Philadelphia. = I could not see the fog in the dark; we touched down normally but as I rol= led to a stop the Baron entered a very thick fog.=20 >=20 > The first problem was that the Beechcraft=E2=80=99s two cowling-mounted la= nding lights nearly blinded me in the sudden plunge into fog=E2=80=94it was l= ike driving a car in fog with your bright headlights on. Luckily I was near= ly stopped, and had the clarity of thought to immediately snap off the landi= ng lights. Now in a silky, pitch dark, I could barely see the runway lights= to either side of my wingtips. I turned around, and taxied until I found t= he blue glow of taxiway lights. Turning onto the taxiway, I suddenly though= t about the airplanes on the ramp ahead I could not see. So I shut down the= engines where I was and got out. >=20 > I was meeting a friend who had seen us land. He walked out with a flashli= ght, followed by the FBO manager. We got the airplane into the first availa= ble tiedown off the runway. Strangely, as I finished securing the airplane t= he fog completely cleared, a mounting wind swirling the moisture back into s= uspension. >=20 > Back to Larry=E2=80=99s comments: a circling approach does not provide bet= ter protection from a low-lying, dark fog than a visual traffic pattern. Ei= ther maneuver, however, gives the pilot time to evaluate the surface conditi= ons, with a glow around runway and taxiway lights being the telltale sign of= ground fog. If ground fog is present, reported or strongly suspected, my e= xperience landing the Baron (and the incident that spark last week=E2=80=99s= discussion) is that it=E2=80=99s time to divert to another runway in air kn= own to have acceptable visibility. Overly conservative? Perhaps. But I kn= ow how easily I could have lost directional control when rolling into the fo= g, and how tempted after landing I was to taxi to parking when it was so ver= y likely I would have driven right into another airplane. >=20 > Thank you, Larry. >=20 > What do you think? Let us hear from you at mftsurvey@cox.net. > =E2=80=9CI'm just one of 1000s that enjoy your weekly FLYING LESSONS, and t= hought it time I contributed a little! > Feel free to pass this on; perhaps more will do the same!!!!!=E2=80=9D > - Richard Benson, Bend Oregon > =20 > It costs a great deal to host FLYING LESSONS Weekly. Reader donations hel= p cover the expense of keeping FLYING LESSONS online. Please support FLYING= LESSONS through the secure > PayPal donations button at www.mastery-flight-training.com. > Thank you, generous supporters. > Share safer skies. Forward FLYING LESSONS to a friend. > FLYING LESSONS friend Gene Benson is offering a three-session, online Huma= n Factors ground school in January. Sessions will be recorded and available f= or later online viewing. The course will serve as a fundraiser to help suppo= rt Gene=E2=80=99s safety initiative in 2013. Learn more at www.genebenson.c= om. > Flying home for the holidays? Give yourself plenty of time and options. M= ake it home for (and back from) safely. >=20 > Something to say? Let us learn from you, at mftsurvey@cox.net. > Question of the Week >=20 > Readers continue the discussion on What makes a good instructor? Readers r= espond: >=20 > Maybe after initial training, it is the ones who have the ability to make y= ou sweat! =E2=80=9CNice=E2=80=9D instructors are just that, they don't teac= h you much. Flying lessons costs a lot of money and the training follows you= the rest of your life. In aviation a relaxed mindset and poor training can k= ill you. >=20 > Did I enjoy flying with the one nameless instructor that I remember? Not a= t all! I was a bundle of nerves. But the lessons taught have stayed with me= until today. Like he said, "I haven't had any of my students kill themselve= s yet, and you aren't going to be the first"! > *** > This is an easy one. I used to put on a FAASTeam presentation on how to fi= nd and keep a good instructor. We were three Master CFI's who put the presen= tation together. One of the presenters said he wouldn't fly with a CFI that h= ad less than 1000 hours instruction given. My position is very clear. Your b= est instructor is one that truly wants you to learn. >=20 > When getting my rotorcraft rating, I had an instructor with less than 300 h= ours total time and was literally half my age. He was fantastic because he w= as motivated to teach me. Our lessons where never completed until he felt th= at I learned something, whether it be in the helicopter or on the ground.=20= > If you find a CFI that truly wants to teach you, that's your guy/gal!!! >=20 > The consensus continues: When it comes to superior flight instructors, cha= llenging beats chummy, and the ability to teach is independent of hours in a= n instructor's logbook. >=20 > What do you think makes a good instructor pilot? Let us know! >=20 >=20 >=20 > =20 > Aviation: Freedom. Choices. Responsibility. >=20 > Thomas P. Turner, M.S. Aviation Safety MCFI > 2010 National FAA Safety Team Representative of the Year > 2008 FAA Central Region Flight Instructor of the Year >=20 > I welcome your comments and suggestions. Contact mastery.flight.training@= cox.net. If someone has forwarded this message to you and you want to have = FLYING LESSONS sent directly to you each week, you may subscribe for free. = =20 >=20 > Holder of an ATP certificate with instructor, CFII and MEI ratings and a M= asters Degree in Aviation Safety, 2010 National FAA Safety Team Representati= ve of the Year and 2008 FAA Central Region CFI of the Year, Master CFI Thoma= s P. Turner has been Lead Instructor for Bonanza pilot training program at t= he Beechcraft factory; production test pilot for engine modifications; aviat= ion insurance underwriter; corporate pilot and safety expert; Captain in the= United States Air Force; and contract course developer for Embry-Riddle Aer= onautical University. He now directs the education and safety arm of a 9300= -member pilots=E2=80=99 organization. With over 3800 hours logged, includin= g more than 2400 as an instructor, Tom writes, lectures and instructs extens= ively from his home at THE AIR CAPITAL--Wichita, Kansas.=20 >=20 > Subscribe > For Piston Beechcraft Pilots >=20 > The Beech Weekly Accident Update is now posted on the Mastery Flight Train= ing, Inc. website >=20 > 10 Tips for Avoiding Gear Up and Gear Collapse Mishaps >=20 > There are those who have...and those who won't have a landing gear-related= mishap (LGRM), if they know the most common scenarios of LGRMs, and the 10 t= echniques for avoidance. If you fly a retractable gear airplane, you need t= o view Those Who Won't. $25 may prevent totaling your airplane.=20 > =20 > Share safer skies: Forward FLYING LESSONS to a friend=20 > Copyright =C2=A9 2012 Mastery Flight Training, Inc., All rights reserved. > You are receiving this email because you have subscribed to the free Flyin= g Lessons weekly e-newsletter from Mastery Flight Training, Inc. >=20 > Our mailing address is: > Mastery Flight Training, Inc. > 247 Tiffany Street > Rose Hill, KS 67133 >=20 > Add us to your address book > unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences=20 --Apple-Mail-11EC3890-C474-4B06-9D1A-3C87A47034E7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Worth reading for all.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

Begin forw= arded message:

From: Mast= ery Flight Training, Inc. <mastery.flight.training@cox.net>
Date: December 19, 20= 12 10:14:42 PM CST
To: <v= tailjeff@aol.com>
Subject: Flying Lessons Weekly
= Reply-To: Mastery Flight Training, Inc. <mastery.flight.training@cox.net>

=20 Flying Lessons Weekly =09 =20 =20

Pers= onal Aviation: Freedom.  Choices.  Responsibility.

 Read FLYING LESSO= NS online.
=
FLYING LESSON= S Weekly
=
Share= safer skies: Forward FLYING LESSONS to a friend 
Copyright =C2=A9 2012 Mastery Flight Training= , Inc., All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you have subscribed to the free Flying= Lessons weekly e-newsletter from Mastery Flight Training, Inc.

Our mailing address is:
Mastery Flight Training, Inc.
247 Tiffany StreetRose Hill, KS= 67133

Add us to your address book<= /div>
unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences<= /a> 
=