In Flight USA Article Categories
In Flight USA Articles
Safe Landings: The Pursuit and Presumption of Balance
Weight and balance has been a critical issue in aircraft operations since the beginning of aviation. Loading errors can go unnoticed and have potential to cause great harm. Clerical mistakes that account for cargo weight and location can be subtle and equally costly.
This month’s CALLBACK examines several reports that highlight weight and balance errors. In the following accounts, all the aircraft unknowingly departed with uncertain centers of gravity and most departed with an inaccurate gross weight that was assumed correct. Many of the mistakes were not discovered until the aircraft was airborne and some, not until the aircraft landed. Other similarities included unknown cargo weights and freight that was loaded in improper locations. These mistakes might have been prevented. The ASRS report excerpts reiterate the need for attentiveness and accuracy in every aspect of weight and balance procedures.
The first three reports describe incidents where cargo was loaded in the wrong location on the aircraft. The remaining accounts detail various other errors that were experienced in Air Carrier Operations.
The Usual Suspects
Cargo loaded into the wrong compartment and closeout paperwork that did not specify its location allowed this B737 Flight Crew to launch with an inaccurate Center of Gravity (CG) that was not discovered until after the aircraft landed.
Safe Landings: December 2014
What's Up
OK, Here we go again …
And
I Told You So
By Larry Shapiro
I know by now you are probably tired of hearing my song and dance routine about using “common sense.” May I respectfully request that you try and get over it! You see my fellow aviators, it continues to work and save a few lives along the way. Admittedly I am not a CFI, I don’t play one on television and never aspired to be one, but I will admit that I love teaching and sharing the tit-bits I’ve picked up along the way to old age, not zero time students but those of you who have been sitting on your ticket long enough to be a member of AARP.
I truly love the title of “Mentor” or King of Common Sense. I’ve begged, borrowed and threatened so many of you to give me the benefit of the doubt and join my Church of Common Sense. Day after day I cover my head, or eyes so I won’t see the silly things one sees when you spend more than half your life on an airport. Your troops do some really dumb things that you would never do in the other parts of your life, the part that pays for your flying expenses, sunglasses and silly shirts.
A Brief Analysis of Takeoff Safety Concerning the Proper Decision Making of GO/NO GO
By Ehsan Mirzaee
Introduction: Do more planes crash on takeoffs or landings? This is a challenging question for some people and an easy, clear one for others. According to official statistics, landing phase of a flight is the most dangerous phase, noticing the number of incidents and accidents occurred during this phase. In this final phase of flight, pilots are required to take into consideration more variables in a shorter period of time. They should deal with speed, altitude, pitch corrections, comply with ATC instructions, and at the same, time monitor all other systems and instruments to know if they are working properly.
On the other hand, takeoff is the second most dangerous phase of flight. During the takeoff roll, as the speed of the aircraft is increasing, the pilot is supposed to decide more quickly and react more precisely in case of an emergency.
In this essay, I want to talk about the importance of decision making by pilots during takeoff run in case of an abnormal situation; whether to continue takeoff or to reject it and to discuss the standards according to which pilots must decide GO/NO GO.
Editorial: Safety Last: Lies and Cover-Ups Mask Roots of Small Plane Carnage
By Ed Downs
Does that title grab your attention? It should, as it is emblazoned across the USA Today web link to an article written by Thomas Frank (with 11 additional “contributors” listed at the end of the article), an investigative reporter for the print publication, USA Today. The print article was entitled, “Unfit for Flight,” but the web version seeks to grab readers’ attention with a title smacking of yellow journalism, (a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines and photos to sell more newspapers) complete with a full-color photo of a crashed helicopter engulfed in flames. To be sure, the title, photo and article are designed to incite fear and mistrust of General Aviation by the reading and web-viewing public. Written in six short “installments,” accusations are made that General Aviation is an industry full of large companies that do not care about safety, an FAA that is obscuring the facts, longstanding deficiencies in design that go unchallenged and multiple lawsuits that prove just how dangerous General Aviation is. Now do we have your attention?
AOPA Refutes USA Today’s Misleading Report on General Aviation Safety
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) recently responded to a USA Today article written by reporter, Thomas Frank. This extremely flawed article paints a misleading picture about the safety of general aviation: It gets the general aviation safety record wrong, it ignores efforts by the industry to make general aviation safer, and it violates basic tenets of fairness and accuracy when it comes to good journalism.
The article leads one to believe that general aviation is an unsafe form of transportation, but in truth, general aviation has demonstrated significant progress in safety. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the number of fatalities has declined by more than 40 percent since the early 1990s. Of course mentioning that sort of fact would have undermined Mr. Frank’s narrative; you won’t find those statistics in his piece.
GAMA Responds to Sensationalistic USA Today Story on GA Safety
By Pete Bunce
President and CEO, General Aviation Manufacturers Association
President and CEO Pete Bunce issued the following response to Thomas Frank’s sensationalistic story in, “Unfit for Flight:”
Thomas Frank’s sensationalistic three-part series in USA Today (Unfit for Flight, June 18, 2014) fails to acknowledge the significant progress general aviation manufacturers have made to improve safety.
The reality is that the number of fatal accidents in general aviation aircraft has declined substantially in recent years. In fact, the goal of one fatal accident per 100,000 hours flown by 2018 now appears increasingly likely.
Aircraft manufacturers spend significant time and expense to ensure the safety of their aircraft. This process begins with a three-to-six year period in which the manufacturer demonstrates to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that each design meets the applicable regulations. The tightly controlled aircraft design process results in a specific design approval – the type certified design, or TC – which applies only to that particular approved design that can then be produced. If a manufacturer wants to make something different, it must go through another safety review process for approval.
Tips from the Pros - July 2012
Apply Professional Acrobatic Skills to Your Safety Practices
Tip provided by Julie Clark
You might think of flying the professional aerobatic circuit as an extreme sport where pilots fly outrageously fast, 500 feet above a crowd while they perform seemingly outrageous maneuvers and play with G-forces like a yo-yo. One second they are in the middle of an Immelmann maneuver with a slow roll out to a half reverse Cuban eight and the next moment they seem to be plummeting towards earth in a hammerhead stall. It’s almost magic, the aircraft’s movement seems choreographed to the music and pyrotechnics often illuminate the sky. It appears as though such performers are blessed with daring, incredible skills, split second timing and a lot of luck.