FLYING LESSONS for May 23, 2019 by Thomas P
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FLYING LESSONS for May 23, 2019 by Thomas P. Turner, Mastery Flight Training, Inc. National Flight Instructor Hall of Fame inductee FLYING LESSONS uses recent mishap reports to consider what might have contributed to accidents, so you can make better decisions if you face similar circumstances. In almost all cases design characteristics of a specific airplane have little direct bearing on the possible causes of aircraft accidents—but knowing how your airplane’s systems respond can make the difference as a scenario unfolds. So apply these FLYING LESSONS to the specific airplane you fly. Verify all technical information before applying it to your aircraft or operation, with manufacturers’ data and recommendations taking precedence. You are pilot in command and are ultimately responsible for the decisions you make. FLYING LESSONS is an independent product of MASTERY FLIGHT TRAINING, INC. www.mastery-flight-training.com Pursue Mastery of Flight This week’s LESSONS: Chances and Consequences From the NTSB: The pilot of a Beech [Bonanza] declared an emergency due to an engine failure while over Lake Michigan. The pilot attempted to divert to Frankfort Dow Memorial Airport (KFKS), Frankfort, Michigan. Radar and radio communications were lost at 1849 [local time] when the airplane was approximately four nm west of KFKS. The pilot and passenger are presumed to have sustained fatal injuries, and the airplane is presumed to be destroyed. The flight originated from Ontonagon County- Schuster Field (KOGM), Ontonagon, Michigan, was en route to Custer Airport (KTTF), Monroe, Michigan. Water depth in the area where the airplane ditched is 600 feet, and water temperature varied between 39°F and 42°F [4°C to 6°C] based on buoy readings, according to the NTSB preliminary report. See https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190513X03825&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FAMS The ATC flight track shows the pilot flew diagonally across Lake Michigan at one of its widest points before descending into the water. It also reveals that the flight “diverted” toward Frankfort at airspeeds generally approximating Best Glide speed and appears to have remained under control until impacting the water. See https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1561Z/history/20190512/2215Z/KOGM/KFKS The engine failure happened when the airplane was not quite within gliding distance of land from its 7000-foot cruising altitude. The Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH)-advertised maximum glide performance of the Bonanza is 1.7 nautical miles for every 1000 feet of altitude loss. At 7000 feet the airplane was 6423 feet above Lake Michigan’s 577 feet MSL surface elevation. The airplane was capable of gliding about 10.9 miles horizontal distance from that cruising altitude if the pilot followed the Best Glide procedure and maintained indicated airspeed precisely. ©2019 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 The FlightAware record suggests the flight had a 15- to 20-knot tailwind that would have become maybe 10 knots tailwind component after the turn toward Frankfort, which would have extended this glide a short additional distance. For much of the time over water, however, there was no hope of making it to either shore, into or with the wind, in the event of engine failure from the 7000-foot cruising altitude. Studies warn that at the water temperature noted in the NTSB report a fit person would lose consciousness in 15 to 60 minutes and die of hypothermia in 15 minutes to less than three hours. See http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/coastal_communities/hypothermia#time The GPS-direct route from Ontonagon to Monroe is 389 nautical miles. In still air and at the pilot’s filed 160 knot cruising speed the flight time would be about 2.4 hours. Altering the route to remain over Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (“the U-P”) and then cross the five- mile-wide Straits of Mackinac adds 55 miles or about 18 minutes to the total flight time. Admittedly, had the Bonanza’s engine failed at the same time after departure on the “Mackinaw” route, the flight would have been over some very remote forest terrain in the UP, but perhaps within gliding distance of the airport at Newberry (KERY). But had the pilot made a successful off-airport landing near there, on land, at least the time before unconsciousness and death from exposure would have been far greater, and the Coast Guard would have had a far better chance of rescuing the two than as darkness fell over the frigid lake off Frankfort. It’s often noted that an engine is no more likely to fail over water, or over mountains or other hazards than it is over flat, dry land. What is not usually discussed in that context is that although engine failure is no more likely over hazardous surfaces, the consequences of failure if it occurs are much more dire. Would the extra 18 minutes of an overland route have been an appropriate mitigation of risk? Which way would you have gone before you read this week’s LESSONS? Would you do anything different now? Questions? Ideas? Opinions? Send them to [email protected] See https://www.pilotworkshop.com/botched-go-around?ad=turner-goaround-botch ©2019 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 Debrief: Readers write about recent FLYING LESSONS: Frequent Debriefer and retired airline pilot Larry Olson comments on the May 9 FLYING LESSONS about dynamic hydroplaning on wet runways: Good article and dynamic hydroplaning, and how to deal with it. Can we address the benefits of a grooved runway in this situation? That could be an option if the airport being used has one. Carving small parallel grooves in a runway is a technique is used to aid in water drainage. Surface water film flows into the grooves and the peaks between grooves will still be in contact with the aircraft tires. Although this does not completely eliminate the threat of hydroplaning, it reduces it enough that many air carrier aircraft performance charts (but not all) permit the use of “dry runway” performance numbers when operating on a grooved runway in the rain. Most general aviation aircraft do not mention runway grooves, or provide any landing performance data for anything other than level, dry runways at all. Runway grooving is almost exclusively limited to major air carrier airports. Check the Chart Supplement (formally the Airport Facilities Directory) for the abbreviate GRVD in the runway description. If given the choice following a very heavy rain, you might plan on a grooved runway to mitigate the chances of hydroplaning, or divert to an air carrier airport if needed. Thanks, Larry. See http://www.mastery-flight-training.com/20190509-flying-lessons.pdf Jet experimental test pilot, flight instructor and Designated Pilot Examiner Dale Bleakney writes about the February 21 LESSONS: I read your crosswind landing discussion in your newsletter and it is spot on. One of the things that I see when flying with students on checkrides and with other pilots, is that some people are crab and kick people, and some are more of the forward slip variety. I have found that it works best for me if I “test the crosswind waters” a bit when I am on final approach at 500 feet to see if I have enough control to go from the crab to a slip. If I can’t, I find another runway. As a certification test pilot who has done some of the “max demonstrated crosswind” testing, there are some things maybe your readers would like to know: The max demonstrated crosswind must be at or above 0.2 Vso or it becomes a limitation. If it is not a limitation, it is at least 0.2 Vso. The maximum demonstrated numbers that I have been involved in are not always the maximum; we but are sometimes limited to a lesser number (but greater than the 0.2Vso number) so that the maximum demonstrated number is within what is subjectively assessed as “normal” pilot skill. It is important to also understand that when we demonstrate the crosswind capability, it is done in the normal landing configuration and at the normal short field approach speeds. We don’t develop the speed using less than full flaps and with added speed. In my experience, the biggest challenge I have seen with students is that they will use extra speed and less flaps. Everything is fine until the roll out and then they can struggle to keep the airplane on the centerline when they relax and don’t keep the crosswind controls in throughout the landing roll. I have found that crosswind is not the only issue. I have concluded that I don’t want to fly a high wing airplane in winds (including gusts) that are more than 80% of the power off stall speed in the landing configuration. I developed this personal limitation one day when I landed at Newton [Kansas] in a Cessna 182 with winds down the runway at 38 gusting to 48 knots. The landing was fine but the taxi to the hangar gave me more than I really wanted. Thoughts? First, thanks for the details about the creation of the maximum demonstrated crosswind component. Second, at least in the airplanes I routinely fly, I have had no issue landing with full flaps even in very strong crosswinds and routinely do so. For example I recently landed an A36 ©2019 Mastery Flight Training, Inc. All rights reserved. 3 Bonanza at the Spirit of St. Louis Airport in St. Louis, Missouri, on the narrow Runway 26R (26L was closed) in winds from 170 degrees at 13 gusting to 25 knots.