AircraftOwner Online

Can you imagine being alone with the Wright Flyer for a few hours? Or the Spirit of St. Louis? Or the Bell X-1? Or the Apollo 11 Command Module? A "significant" donation to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum made on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board Bar Association allowed us to have just such an evening recently. As the Gala Finale to an Evening Devoted to Air Safety, the Bar Association awarded its presigious Annual Joseph T. Nall Aviation Safety Award to Herb Kelleher, the founder and long-time CEO of Southwest Airlines, during a black-tie evening at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.

Mr. Kelleher might not seem, at first glance, to have been an obvious choice for a "safety" award. But, when you hear about the Billions of passenger miles, in Millions and Millions of revenue flights, over more than three decades, without a single passenger fatality, and then realize that over the same period of time, Southwest Airlines remained profitable, while other airlines drowned in a sea of red ink, the point is made.

Mr. Kelleher and his airline are living proof that an airline can be profitable without sacrificing a committment to safety.

There was perhaps no more-fitting place at which to honor Mr. Kelleher than the Air and Space Museum, as he has for many years, sat on its Board of Directors. He was welcomed to the IMAX Theater stage by the Director of the Air and Space Museum, Lt. Gen. John R. Dailey (USMC, Ret.), the current Director of the Museum. After an emotional speach, during which he credited all of the accomplishments of the airline to its employees, a trademark of his management style -- a mutual love-fest between labor and management -- we were feted to a lovely catered dinner in the "America By Air" section of the museum, wedged between the forward fuselage of a Boeing 747 and a Ford Tri-Motor, under a DC-3 and a Curtis Jenny, while overlooking the monuments of Washington, DC through the floor to ceiling glass walls of the museum.

A private event at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum is almost like a dream. I hope that all of you can one day attend such an event.

A few weeks ago, I had one of the best experiences of my aviation life. As part of the annual conference of the National Transportation Safety Board Bar Association in Washington, DC, we got private tours of the NTSB laboratories. We were given access to the room where the only people to listen to the actual cockpit voice recordings after a fatal accident actually sit around and listen and create the transcript that is made public. We were shown the lab where Flight Data Recorder information is extracted from the black boxes recovered from accident scenes (they also take data from panel-mounted and handheld GPS receivers, engine monitors, and other electronics). We got to explore the structures laboratory where they examine large and small pieces of aircraft (and other modalities) for signs of what caused them to fail. We were taken to the animation labs, where the NTSB specialists design and create animations to demonstrate, for the Board and for the public, the last few minutes of a crash, and all of the relevant information from multiple sources, in an audio-visual presentation which is easy to understand.

The next day, we were taken by bus to the NTSB's accident investigation academy near Dulles Airport, where investigators from the US and from around the world are trained in the fine arts of accident investigation. This academy was built after the families of the victims of TWA flight 800 recognized the expertise of the investigators who worked tirelessly for years to determine the manner in which that aircraft came apart in a blaze over Long Island Sound. Thousands of pieces of the wreckage were recovered from the water and from the bottom of the Sound and were painstakingly reconstructed in a hangar at one of the old Grumman Aircraft plants. This reconstruction was then taken apart, moved to the academy, and carefully reconstructed there as a teaching aid for future investigators. The families approached Congress and asked for money to be allocated to develope an academy dedicated to this work so that others could learn from their tragedy. Out of respect for the victims and their families, the families control access to the reconstruction, and no photographs are allowed. We were very fortunate to have been able to get access to the reconstruction.

Words are simply inadequate to convey the sensations one experiences when the double doors open from a building hallway, and you come face-to-face with some 40% of a B-747 showing obvious signs of an explosion and of ripping apart, literally, at the seams. A climb up a tall staircase allows you to look into the fuselage from an area just behind the cockpit, each seat, in the condition in which it was found, placed exactly in the location it occupied right up until the aircraft came apart under those unfortunate passengers. It is like looking into a tomb, only without the bodies. To me at least there was an overwhelming feeling that this was where over 200 people died.

On the floor, dwarfed by the wreckage of the 747, are other aircraft fuselages, including a Cessna that suffered an in-flight fire. Although the instructor who showed us around took pains to show us the way that the smoke trails from the rivet holes indicated the initial point of origin of the fire, the chared interior of an aircraft type in which I had many hours of flying time was quite sobering. Engines, props, control cables, spinners, and other debris from numerous fatal accidents were on shelves around the room. For the professionals, they serve as instructional aids. For me, they served as a stark reminder of the consequences of mistakes.

Having now spent quite a bit of time with NTSB personnel, both in the field and at their offices and the academy, I am more than ever impressed with this small, independent government agency. No one that I met reminded me of a "typical government bureaucraft." Everyone with whom we came in contact was not only an expert in his or her field, but was clearly keenly aware of the seriousness of the mission of the agency. The entire NTSB -- Board Members, Judges, staff, investigators, and others -- numbers only about 400 people spread around the country, and ready at a moment's notice to assist other countries around the globe. They do more with less than just about any other government agency I can think of. As Americans, we can be proud that we have this agency to lead the world in pursuing safety in transportation. As passengers and pilots, we can and should also be thankful that we have this agency to search for causes, and to make safety recommendations in an effort to keep us all as safe as we can be.

There was a time when aircraft accidents were most likely fatal. Though too many fatalities still occur, advances in aircraft technology have greatly increased survivability. Now, a crucial safety issue could be post-impact survival. As we saw in the Aug. 9, 2010, accident that killed former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens and four others, locating the wreckage and getting first responders on site took almost seven hours. Alaska has lots of remote terrain, but you don’t have to be very far from a major city in the lower 48 to find that weather, terrain, or a number of other factors could delay rescue and leave you to fend for yourself and your passengers until help arrives.

It’s All about Preparedness

What can you do? That’s where the Office of Aerospace Medicine’s Airman Education Program comes in with its specialized training and resources. A basic survival training course, conducted at the FAA’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City, Okla., covers survival in desert, arctic, and water environments. CAMI instructors provide two perspectives: how to prepare before the flight and the skills needed to endure environmental extremes.

The one-day course includes discussion of the psychology of survival, aircraft egress, search-and-rescue operations, signaling devices, fire starting/ building, personal survival kits, rafts and accessories, and helicopter pickup devices. Better still, there is a hands-on portion that, depending on availability of personnel/equipment, may include a fire-starting lab, signaling lab, thermal (cold) chamber, ditching tank, underwater egress trainer, and an aircraft emergency evacuation (smoke) simulator. In short, the course gives general aviation pilots and their passengers a thorough grounding in preparing for survival both before and after an aircraft accident.

Know Thyself

CAMI also offers a class on aerospace physiology. This one-day training session includes such topics as physics of the atmosphere, respiration and circulation, decompression, stress, hypoxia, and hyperventilation, among others. In addition to the basic academic contents, this course offers practical demonstrations of rapid decompression (8,000 to 18,000 feet AGL) and hypoxia (25,000 feet AGL) using an altitude chamber. It also includes a demonstration of vertigo, using a spatial disorientation demonstrator.

Each year, CAMI offers more than 170 classes to more than 2,000 people. In addition, the Airman Education Program staff members are working to launch online courses based on the training materials. In the future, this will enable everyone to have access to the courses on www.FAASafety.gov and pilots will be able to get credit in the WINGS pilot proficiency program.

If you cannot make it to Oklahoma, you can still benefit from the information. The FAA has an online library of videos on survival training, aerospace physiology, human factors, and more at: www.faa.gov/pilots/training/airman_education/.

Lastly, one of the best things about all this training, whether in person or online, is that it is free. Whether you come to CAMI in person or visit the Web site, there are resources available. Check it out. You will be glad you did.

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D., M.P.H., received both an M.S. and a M.D. degree from the University of New Mexico and an M.P.H. from the University of Texas. During a 26-year career with the U.S. Air Force, Dr. Tilton logged more than 4,000 hours as a command pilot and senior flight surgeon flying a variety of aircraft. He currently flies the Cessna Citation 560 XL.

Benjamin Franklin, printer, scientist, diplomat, signer of the Declaration of Independence, among his many wise sayings, coined, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

That aphorism perfectly characterizes the work of the International Helicopter Safety Team, or IHST, that Mark Schilling wrote about in the July/August 2010 FAA Safety Briefing Vertically Speaking column. That column introduced IHST’s work to reduce the worldwide helicopter accident rate by 80 percent by 2016. The approach: Rigorously analyze accident data and then develop mitigations based on the analysis.

The U.S. Joint Helicopter Safety Analysis Team (JHSAT) is the IHST element that analyzes U.S. helicopter accidents. JHSAT includes members from FAA and NASA, helicopter and engine manufacturers, operators, and helicopter associations. The team does not determine probable cause; that’s the role of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Yet, JHSAT uses the significant amount of information gathered through NTSB investigations to probe deeper than the probable-cause finding. For example, for a helicopter accident earlier this year, NTSB stated the probable cause as: “The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the helicopter during takeoff.”

That is the probable cause, but, it alone, does not provide the needed information to develop an effective ounce of prevention. That’s the point of the JHSAT’s work—better understanding the factors that lead to accidents in order to develop the most effective interventions.

Over recent months, JHSAT analyzed 523 helicopter accidents from the NTSB accident docket for U.S.-registered type-certificated helicopters. The product: Thoroughly researched findings on the leading problem areas in U.S. helicopter safety and recommended interventions. It should be no surprise that the analysis affirmed what many already know—the biggest safety challenge is addressing “pilot judgment and actions.”

The judgment of a pilot is often the initiating event in the accident sequence and comes into play in all phases of flight. One of the first questions is whether the preflight planning was sufficient? Did the pilot adequately consider the enroute weather? At other times, the pilot’s incorrect judgment or reaction during flight turns a manageable situation into an accident. For example, an improperly executed autorotation following power loss as well as attempts to fly to the destination airport after a hydraulic system failure, rather than landing at the first suitable area, has led to accidents.

Since the pilot is the single-greatest factor affecting accidents, improving pilot judgment and performance offers the greatest area for improvement. The JHSAT’s strongest recommendation was for improved pilot training, specifically for “training on cues critical for safe flight.”

While the pilot has the last opportunity to affect a given flight’s outcome, the pilot’s organization has the first opportunity to affect the safety of all its flights. This involves, of course, the organization’s commitment to safety, both in general and in terms of its specific commitment to operate under a Safety Management System (SMS). That’s what the JHSAT found to be the second greatest problem area: the lack of an organizational SMS.

An effective SMS incorporates both organizational and individual risk management. For example, an organization with an SMS provides clear guidance on whether a flight occurs or not. An organizational SMS can include standard operating procedures on such topics as weather minimums, crew-rest requirements, landing-zone requirements, and oversight of remote operations. To address this problem area, the IHST provided an SMS toolkit that helicopter operators can use to develop their own SMS.

This is a snapshot of a major work in progress. The JHSAT will continue to analyze what it hopes will be fewer helicopter accidents and provide additional recommendations on prevention strategies.

Jim Grigg, Co-Chair of the Joint Helicopter Safety Analysis Team, is an Aviation Safety Engineer at the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate in Ft. Worth, Texas.

When most people think of NASA, images of exploding supernovas and spiraling galaxies come to mind. But for airmen who use the National Airspace System (NAS), NASA’s significance takes on a much different meaning. For the past 35 years, NASA has been the backbone of the Aviation Safety Reporting System (­ASRS), a program that relies on candid feedback from airmen to promote the quality and safety of the nation’s aviation system. Yet, despite its positive influence on aviation safety, there are still many questions and misconceptions about the program that keep it from being used more frequently. A closer look can reveal just how easy-to-use and effective this system is in promoting safer skies for you and your fellow airmen.

The success of the ASRS program is directly attributed to the users of the NAS whose reports on unsafe conditions and self disclosures help identify discrepancies and deficiencies in all facets of aviation operations. The program accepts comments from pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, ground personnel, flight attendants, and most recently, air traffic controllers. Comments received—on everything from airport lighting issues to engine problems—all feed into the heart of the system, which is the ASRS database. With nearly a million reports received since the program’s start, the ASRS database is considered the largest source of voluntary aviation safety information in the world.

“Safety hazards and incidents may occur regularly in the NAS,” says Jay Pardee, FAA Chief Scientist and Technical Advisor for Vulnerability Discovery and Safety Measurement. “Without the firsthand flight-crew perspective offered in ASRS reports, many of these system-safety problems would go unnoticed and unresolved.”

Consider the following ASRS report, which describes a Cessna 172 pilot who becomes disoriented while taxiing at night, resulting in a runway incursion on each of the airport’s three runways:

I expected my taxi clearance would take me down the west side of Runway 2, but realized later that this route did not exist. Ground gave me an unexpected clearance of D3 to D to D1. I decided to taxi down it until I saw Delta. Once on D3, however, the confusion of lights and the odd angles of runway and taxiway intersections confused me and I found myself taxiing down Runway 2 with no immediate way off. I notified Ground that I was ‘lost’ and needed some help. Experiencing a sort of 2-dimensional spatial disorientation among the lights, I made another false start onto Runway 6...and in the darkness, overshot the somewhat faded hold line for Runway 31 by about 10 feet.

Keeping it Confidential

Despite its many benefits, it’s understandable how an airman might be hesitant to submit an ASRS report on an unsafe condition, especially if it involves a possible violation of federal regulations. For this reason, FAA designed the program to safeguard the anonymity and confidentiality of the reporter. This explains NASA’s involvement: The agency acts as a non-regulatory third party to receive and analyze the reports, and to ensure they are deidentified before being passed on. To further encourage a free flow of information, the program also offers immunity from disciplinary action under certain circumstances. The conditions required to have immunity from a penalty or certificate suspension include:

• An ASRS report form submitted within 10 days of the event

• A violation that is inadvertent and not deliberate

• A violation that does not involve a criminal offense or accident

• An airmen who is qualified or competent to hold his/her certificate

• The person who submits the report has not been involved in an FAA enforcement action and found in violation of federal aviation regulations within the previous five years

How Does It Work?

To submit an ASRS report, use ARC Form 277B, (or simply the “NASA form”). Visit your local Flight Service Station or Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) for hard copies, or you can request one by mail from NASA. Airmen can also submit a report online at http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.html. Pilots should select the General form.

Each form has a tear-off portion that contains the submitter’s name and contact information, as well as a section for details about the event or situation. When NASA receives the report, the tear-off section is removed, time-stamped, and returned to the submitter as a receipt. Going a step further to protect anonymity, NASA also deletes all details elsewhere in the form that could potentially identify the submitter. The only exception to this de-identification of personal data is with criminal offenses and accidents which are reported, in full, to the Department of Justice and NTSB.

FAA is also bound to uphold this non-punitive agreement by Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) section 91.25, which prohibits using ASRS reports in any enforcement action, except with regard to accidents and criminal offenses. The FAA’s level of commitment and continued support of this program speaks volumes about how much it values the safety information gained by these reports. There has never been a breach of confidentiality in the ASRS program’s history.

A Win-Win for Aviation Safety

During the last 20 years, ASRS reporting has steadily increased and now averages more than 4,000 reports a month. General aviation reports contribute to nearly 30 percent of total ASRS reports. For FAA Aviation Safety Analytical Services Manager Vivek Sood, these thousands of reports represent more than just numbers. “They translate to real opportunities to improve safety and monitor trends that can benefit everyone in the system.”

One way reports are leveraged to promote safety is through an alert messaging system. The alerts relay safety information about a potentially unsafe situation, e.g., a confusing approach procedure, to the appropriate FAA office or aviation authority for evaluation and corrective action if needed. Another ASRS product is CALLBACK, a popular monthly newsletter that incorporates information from reports in an insightful and thought-provoking style. The issues are at: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/

publications/callback.html.

The concept of ASRS-type reporting isn’t limited to the United States. Brazil, China, Spain, and more, have adopted their own versions. Industries like medicine and railroad safety have also adapted the ASRS model to help them identify problem areas. “The ASRS concept is simple, but its impact on aviation safety is far-reaching,” says Pardee. “This trusted system has demonstrated for decades the ability to help prevent avoidable accidents by relying on its biggest asset and best source for information—the eyes and ears of frontline users.”

Tom Hoffmann is associate editor of FAA Safety Briefing. He is a commercial pilot and holds an A&P certificate.

You do it at the movie theater, the supermarket, as well as your favorite coffee shop on the way to work: You line up and wait. And, after September 30, 2010, you may also be asked to do it at your local towered airport.

Designed to help simplify and standardize air traffic control (ATC) phraseology, as well as to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, U.S. controllers will use the term “line up and wait” in place of “position and hold” when instructing a pilot to taxi onto a departure runway and wait for takeoff clearance. Both current and future versions of the phrase are used when takeoff clearance cannot immediately be issued, either because of traffic or other reasons.

Why “line up and wait?” The phrase has actually been in use by a majority of ICAO contracting states for many years. It has proven useful with many non-native English speakers who can sometimes confuse “position and hold” with similar-sounding phrases like “position and roll,” “position at hold,” or “hold position.” Misinterpretation of this instruction can have serious

consequences. Using “line up and wait” helps avoid ambiguity and keeps the global aviation community accountable to the same standard.

Here’s an example of the phrase in use:

Tower: “Cessna 1234, Runway Three Four Left, line up and wait.”

Pilot: “XYZ Tower, Cessna 1234, Runway Three Four Left, line up and wait.”

This change is expected to take effect September 30, 2010. The specific date and additional details will be communicated via updates to the Aeronautical Informational Manual (AIM) and Pilot/Controller Glossary, both located under the Air Traffic section of www.faa.gov.

Other changes have also made their way into standard ATC lexicon. Effective June 30, 2010, air traffic controllers no longer use the term “taxi to” when authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway. Now, controllers must issue explicit clearances to pilots crossing any runway (active/inactive or closed) along the taxi route. In addition, pilots crossing multiple runways must be past the first runway they are cleared to cross before controllers can issue the next runway-crossing clearance.

As you may recall, previous “taxi to” clearances authorized pilots to cross any runway along the assigned route. One exception to the new rule is at airports where taxi routes between runway centerlines are fewer than 1,000 feet apart. In this case, multiple runway crossings may be issued if approved by the FAA Terminal Services Director of Operations.

The elimination of the “taxi to” phrase will apply only to departing aircraft. Arriving aircraft will still hear the phrase “taxi to” when instructed to taxi to the gate or ramp. However, controllers in these situations still will be required to issue specific crossing instructions for each runway encountered on the taxi route.

Remember, if you’re unsure of any ATC instruction or clearance you’ve heard, contact ATC immediately. It’s always better to check and be certain. And, remember to “line up and wait.”

For More Information

Pilot/Controller Glossary

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/pcg.pdf

Aeronautical Informational Manual (AIM)

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATPubs/AIM/AIMbasic2-11-10.pdf

Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP)

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIP/aip.pdf

     Sometimes you find reminders and lessons in the natural world which provide lessons or reminders for you in your own life. Such was the case with me and a family of Robins just last month.

    The Robins have found the prefect place to build their hangar home on a protected ledge on the front porch of our house. I enjoyed watching the hangar construction progress and subsequent growth and development of four new flyers. They began their flight training just two weeks after hatching. This set me to pondering just how much flight training was necessary as a percentage of their life expectancy.

    My curiosity thusly piqued, I began my research. Turns out, the life expectancy of your typical Robin is roughly 6 years (in case you are curious, the oldest know wild Robin lived nearly 14 years). The flight training for the fledgling Robins on my porch was just under two weeks. That was from their first solo until they did a self checked out and left the hangar area for good.

    Assuming the average American has a life expectancy of 80 years, converting the Robin-to-human years, the fledgling pilots’ training took the human equivalent of just under six months – a surprisingly comparable number – and those Robins were born to fly. Six months is a very reasonable time period to earn a private pilot’s license so it seems we were also born to fly.

    After coming to that conclusion, I also came to the realization that once a Robin solos, practice comes pretty much automatically. Flying around the yard, they reminded me that the summer flying season is here – and that I needed to get out and do some practicing myself.

    So, this weekend was dedicated to getting some practice and training in preparation for some serious flying I plan to do this summer. I pulled three aircraft out of the hangar and dedicated Saturday, Sunday and Monday to flying. Saturday was tail dragger day with several hours of flying in the Fairchild PT-23. This included numerous landings in crosswinds on both grass and concrete. After that, I could not resist pulling out another PT for some fun flying with my
wife Suzanne, and fellow pilot’s Jim Obowa and Paul Hodapp.

    That Sunday, I pulled the Husky on amphibs out and did takeoffs and landings on several lakes and a fast running river. This practice also included docking, sailing, step taxing, turning on the water in the wind and the like. On Memorial Day, I was ready for some serious training.

    Last month, while the Robins were growing, I purchased a used Beech Barron. My good friend and veteran flight instructor, Nickoli Pontecorvo has just come up from Key West to ANE on a ferry flight. Nick has thousands of hours in the Baron and agreed to give me a day of dual and a checkout, including my BFR and Instrument Proficiency Check in the Baron. It went well, but with Nick running me through the ringer, I sometimes felt like one of those newbie Robins flapping around in the air.

    If you fly several different types you know how important it is to be competent in each of them. Systems vary, techniques vary and knowing how to finesse each one also varies. The only way to stay up to speed is to get out and fly the aircraft and be constantly practicing. I would also be remiss if I didn’t add – and use a checklist. Everyone forgets something now and then and it is no different in the cockpit.

    Every summer I pledge to do at least as much flying, if not more, than the summer before. This summer is no exception. I hope to get to more fly-ins and more aviation events than ever. Hopefully I will get to see you there. In the mean time, let’s get out there, practice our techniques and fly somewhere – there are only so many Robin years to go!

It’s often said, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” When it comes to improving rotorcraft safety, this is certainly true. The model followed is the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST); the follower is the International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST).

The helicopter community came together in 2005 to form the IHST, whose sole purpose is improving helicopter safety. The seminal meeting was the first International Helicopter Safety Symposium (IHSS), hosted in Montreal by the American Helicopter Society International (AHS), Helicopter Association International (HAI), and AHS Montreal/Ottawa Chapter. At this meeting, participants made a compelling case for change. For instance, the worldwide number of helicopter accidents has remained relatively constant at around 600 per year. The United States, which comprises about half of the worldwide fleet of rotorcraft, accounts for about 40 percent of the annual accidents—or about 180-200. Based on these numbers and the desire to do better, participants achieved agreement to form the IHST.

Early on, the IHST membership strongly agreed that work to improve helicopter safety must follow three basic tenets that are so successful with CAST:

- Solutions must be data driven, i.e., based on actual accident data.

- Helicopter community stakeholders must perform the analyses.

- Performance of recommended safety improvements must be measurable.

The key to success is examining and understanding accident data. For example, two thirds of the 2001 U.S. accidents were in part 91 operations. The majority of these accidents occurred during personal/private flying and instructional/training operations, with EMS operations in a not-too-distant third place. Based on the data, we know the top accident categories were loss of control, auto rotations, and system-component failures. The main causes were attributed to poor pilot judgment and actions, lack of safety management systems, and inadequate pilot situational awareness.

This tells us we can do better. IHST, which includes international partners and members from helicopter operators, manufacturers, maintenance organizations, as well as regulatory and accident investigation agencies, set an ambitious goal: Reduce all helicopter accidents by 80 percent by 2016.

The IHST approach is working. Here’s how. IHST has one group that analyzes accident/incident

data and another group that develops prioritized interventions based on the data analysis. The worldwide data reviewed includes the full range of helicopter design types—from small reciprocating engine helicopters to large multi-engine turbine types. The analysis team also addresses the varied missions flown by helicopters in conjunction with the wide spectrum of operators, from single helicopter operators to large companies with complex organizations.

We’re finding common themes across the community. We are close to developing the ten top accident causes/causal areas, which, in turn, will help us focus our intervention strategies. Here’s an example. We already know there are too many accidents involving helicopters that provide emergency medical transport. Yet, further study shows that the accidents are more frequent during the repositioning of the helicopter, not during the actual transport of the patient to the hospital. This is a crucial piece of information in designing the intervention that will make the biggest difference for safety. For one, it focuses our attention on the existing regulations and the need for implementing a safety management system and risk management procedures for large and small EMS helicopter operators.

In another example, we know that leading factors in accidents—especially for helicopters operating under part 91 in personal/private flying and in instructional/training flying—are loss of control and the inability to control the helicopter during an autorotation. This guides the workgroup as it develops interventions that could take us back to the basics: Reviewing Practical Test Standards, knowledge test questions, and advisory material. This could lead to changes to training and testing standards with a sharpened focus on autorotations and loss of control, aeronautical decision-making training, and improved access to helicopter

simulators and flight-training devices.

Yes, knowledge is power. The knowledge that the IHST is gaining about the “whats” and “whys” of helicopter incidents and accidents is going a long way to inform safety professionals on how to more effectively prevent accidents and save lives. It doesn’t get any more important than that.

Mark Schilling, acting manager of the FAA’s Rotorcraft Directorate, co-chairs the IHST with Matt Zuccaro, president of HAI.

When the Sport Pilot/Light Sport Aircraft rule was implemented in 2004, one of its many benefits was the creation of a new repairman certificate: Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (ELSA) repairman with an inspection rating and Special Light Sport Aircraft (SLSA) repairman with a maintenance rating. These ratings authorize owners, maintainers, and pilots of Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) to perform certain inspection and maintenance functions. As with any aviation privilege, exercising the privileges of these ratings means accepting responsibility for doing the job correctly. That, in turn, means ensuring that you have the knowledge, skills, and equipment you need for the task.

To help you determine your readiness for this responsibility, the FAA has developed a Personal Minimums Checklist for Maintenance. Already widely used in the maintenance community, this checklist can be a great resource to those with LSA repairman certificates. Here are the things you’ll want to address before you start any given inspection or maintenance task:

Have I had the proper training?

Inspection Rating Training Requirements: Prior to applying for a repairman certificate with an inspection rating, the owner/pilot of an ELSA must complete a 16-hour training course in the same class of aircraft for which you seek inspection privileges.

Maintenance Rating Training Requirements: Prior to applying for a repairman certificate with a maintenance rating, an individual owner/pilot must complete the required training for a specific class of light-sport aircraft. The length of training varies with the class of aircraft for which you seek maintenance privileges. Also the repairman needs to check the manufacturer’s requirements for additional task specific training.

Do I have the knowledge to perform the task?

Training is the necessary starting point, but you must also have knowledge and understanding of the task. For example, do you understand the manufacturer’s instructions as set out in the maintenance manuals? Here’s a real-life example. In some gyrocopters, there is a requirement for the cables to be reversed. If you don’t have sufficient knowledge and understanding, you might install the cables incorrectly.

Have I performed the task previously?

Experience counts too, and, in fact, it is required. A repairman must demonstrate the ability to do the work correctly or perform the task under the direct supervision of an appropriately certificated, trained, rated, and experienced mechanic or repairman, before he or she can approve any ELSA or SLSA aircraft or part for return to service.

Have I researched the regulations to ensure compliance?

You will want to review Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 1, 21, 39, 43, 45, 65, 91, as well as industry-developed ASTM International consensus standards on topics, including, but not limited to, continued airworthiness requirements and inspection practices/ techniques.

Am I mentally prepared to perform the task?

With today’s fast-paced lifestyle, fatigue affects everyone’s mental preparation to at least some degree. Recognizing fatigue is a key to ensuring you are prepared to do the work. Since fatigue is cumulative, you can mitigate the level of risk by simply getting some sleep—including naps. If naps are not in your  schedule, know your limitations. Have someone check your work. Use a task checklist to ensure that you haven’t missed anything. Accept your limitations, and do critical work only when you are mentally and physically refreshed.

Am I physically prepared to perform the task?

Whether it is strength, flexibility, or vision, make sure you’re physically prepared for the task. In my early years as a maintenance technician, I had no problem occupying a small aircraft compartment, and I could easily read numbers on electric wires. Things are different today. I can’t get into a small compartment, and there is no way I can read those numbers without a magnifying glass.

Have I taken the proper safety precautions?

Make safety precautions a high priority, and don’t put yourself in the position of saying “if only…” If only I had worn safety glasses, I would not have a metal sliver in my eye. If only I hadn’t propped the airplane while it was parked on ice, I would not be asking you to sign my cast. If only I had bought a fire extinguisher, I would not be paying off the loan for a pile of molten metal.

Do I have the necessary technical data?

Always refer to appropriate maintenance manuals, inspection schedules, technical data, etc., while carrying out your maintenance tasks. No matter what, never rely on “…but I’ve done it a thousand times” to justify or replace current technical data. Always refer to the chapter dealing with standard maintenance procedures for a particular type of aircraft, engine, propeller, etc. Technical data should be readily accessible to your work area. Manuals that you don’t read are of no value.

Do I have the proper tools and equipment to perform the task?

Maintenance of Light Sport Aircraft requires a variety of basic tools. These include many common items that you may already have, such as a drill, a tape measure, files, and wrenches. Other tools might include a reamer for cleaning paint out of holes. Specialized tools are normally listed in the aircraft’s maintenance manual. Good tool safety practices require that you establish controls to account for tools. These may include shadow boards, foam cutouts in your toolbox, and a checklist.

Do I have the resources available to perform the task?

Before you start, ensure that you have the resources needed to complete the work. First, establish a list of general resources needed (consumables) such as oil, anti-freeze, safety wire, restraints, wire ties, small plastic bags for capturing small pieces, etc. Once you have all the general resources at hand, review the task and identify any additional special resources needed to complete the work. Not having all your resources available wastes time, and it also introduces risk when you have to stop a process for lack of proper resources. Using the Maintenance “Personal Minimums” Checklist will help you to more confidently answer the question, “Are you ready or not?”

Be safe, and have fun!!

Martin Bailey is an Aviation Safety Inspector with Flight Standards Service’s General Aviation and Avionics Branch.

    I recently had the honor and privilege of being able to interview both the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, Deborah Hersman, and the only professional pilot of the National Transportation Safety Board, Robert Sumwalt. Between the results of these interviews and recent public announcements made by the NTSB, it is pretty clear that a number of issues will become “hot button” issues in aviation safety issues, and probably regulations and enforcement issues, in the immediate future. Most of these issues have been lumped under the buzzword of “professionalism.”

    Perhaps the most immediate area of concern has to do with the intrusion of modern technology into the cockpits of aircraft (as well as the cabs of locomotives, the bridge of vessels, and tractors of 18-wheelers). In air carrier aircraft, the cockpit is supposed to be “sterile” during key phases of flight including taxi, takeoff, climb, descent and landing. Yet it is apparent that many crewmembers have been using cell phones, pda’s, and laptops during some of these phases of flight, as have long-haul truckers, railroad engineers, and the captains of vessels. A number of recent fatal accidents in all of these modalities have caused this issue to rise to the top of the pile for government agencies charged with insuring the safety of the public. The introduction of applications “apps” for PDA’s that are useful in flying has made the use of these devices a double-edged sword. On the one hand, these apps provide incredibly-useful information, in real time, at a cost significantly lower than the panel-mounted units that provide the same information, just prior to takeoff. On the other hand, they divert the attention of the crew from the view outside the cockpit, the checklists, and the instrument panel.

    Even worse, I have personally witnessed helicopter pilots speaking on cell phones in flight, telling their loved ones what time they would be landing, checking with restaurants for reservations, etc. Ignoring for a moment that such actions violate FCC regulations, to a fixed-wing pilot like me, trying to dial a cell phone, and holding it in one hand, while using another hand on the collective and a third hand (I guess) on the cyclic, seems a little like juggling at 110 knots. It is clearly unsafe. The fact that people get away with it regularly does not make it “safe”; and it sure as heck doesn’t make it “professional”.

    The other day, the NTSB made a public pronouncement that it was investigating the issue of glass cockpits in general aviation aircraft. In addition to issues about different “switchology” and operating procedures, the NTSB also noted that it seems that pilots upgrading to these systems often fail to obtain the training that they need to fully understand and utilize the features of the new technology. In larger aircraft, insurance companies, airlines, and regulators require initial training and regular recurrent training on complex systems.

    In smaller GA aircraft, we tend not to insist on such training. But to not understand the inner workings and total capabilities of the primary instrumentation in the aircraft you are flying is not only “unsafe”, it is most-certainly “unprofessional”. Even if we don’t fly for a living, if we want to keep living as we fly and afterward, we had better act in a professional manner when it comes to training. At a minimum, we need to know how to utilize the systems in an emergency. And we need to be able to take the initial steps from memory. We also need to be able to look up information, tune frequencies, identify named intersections and airports, and obtain our current position while in actual instrument conditions, in turbulence, during a busy radio procedure phase of flight, without losing situational awareness. We need to know if we can move information from one screen to another in case of a failure of the primary screen. We need to know what we can do in the event that all of the screens go black, and what we will not be able to do in such a situation.

    A third issue that has come up lately is fatigue. This tends to be much more of a problem in scheduled carriers than in personal aviation, but it is just as important that the operators of smaller aircraft are aware of the problem. Fatigue is insidious. As we travel across time zones at high speed, in a reduced-oxygen environment, punctuating routine boring cruise flight with high-intensity operations like shooting an instrument approach to a landing at the end of a long day, we, who don’t do this for a living, may not realize how tired we really are. And that may only be day one of a multi-day trip. The next day, after sleeping on an unfamiliar mattress, waking up at a different time than usual, and flying over an area that is not well known to us, we will be even more tired and more-likely to make mistakes. What do the pros do? They pay attention to the subtle signs. They make sure that they are well rested and that they understand the subtle symptoms of fatigue. They plan their flights meticulously when they are rested. They switch off “legs” if there are several pilots in the cockpit. They use their checklists religiously – reading them out loud and requiring the proper responses. They challenge one another if one thinks the other is not doing what is supposed to be done. They brief their takeoffs. They brief their landings.

    Just because flying may not be our profession does not give us license to be unprofessional about our flying.