Emergency: Revelation

This particular note is directed at fellow GA pilots. I am assuming the reader has read my previous footprints in the "Emergency:" from this trip. Contemplating my recent unpleasantness plus a couple of other recent events produced a eureka moment to a question that has bothered me for a very long time,"Why are there still so many serious accidents after an engine failure?".

The first event was a recent article from avweb.com stating airline safety, while excellent, keeps getting better. On the other hand, GA safety has remained essentially unchanged at a much lower value for the last 20 years.

The second event was my botched circuit during my forced landing. At one time good circuit planing and execution was thoroughly ingrained in me. I thought I could not do a bad circuit if I tried. I even spent time to wallow over my current ineptness as soon as I realized what I had done... before I had landed!

The third event happened in Prince Edward Island. It was a mundane forced landing after an engine out. The pilot said he was simply doing what he was trained to do.

Then it all fit. Training. He was right. When I was flying gliders 30 years ago, I got forced landing training every time I flew. But no matter how ingrained something might have been long ago, it will be 'degrained' if not practiced.

What about other GA pilots. Most GA pilots have no glider training. Most never practice forced approaches after they get their license. And how useful was that training? There are two training practices I would like to see banished.

The first is the 360 degree circular pattern. This is in the Transport Canada Flight Training Manual. I had to get an exemption to do a 'standard' circuit. The 360 degree requires a descending 360 degree turn to flare. By definition that is an unstable approach where you have to hit a point in space. In a conventional circuit your goal is to hit the final glide path at some point. From then on your landing is like any other.

The circular pattern leaves no opportunity to compensate for winds or any lift or sink encountered on the way to touchdown. These might be of less importance when flying a jet that with an approach speed speed of 130 knots. Typical GA planes will be less than half that.

The second practice is that of the 'power off 180'. It is used frequently at the local commercial airport. On late downwind engine throttle is pulled to idle. The student is expected to continue on his downwind (to the usual point?) then turn. There is not enough height for a normal base so there is typically a Pythagoran attempt at a solution where a diagonal approach is made to the threshold with a very low altitude turn at the end to line up on the runway. If it does not work out they just add some power. How is any of this representative of what a real power failure would or should look like! These poor people will associate a power failure with cruise along for a bit then do a 180 degree or some weird diagonal path to meet their destiny on the ground.

But I said I had a eureka event. Yup. I believe the solution is regular training. Relevant training that simulates realistic engine failure situations. Dual training can get expensive fast, especially if you have to rent the plane too. True. There are some ways to reduce the costs and still get some effective training. I will discuss those after discussing training in general.

Maintaining IFR currency is hard. Practice is needed to meet the standards. Many certified activities require regular retraining to remain certified. For example CPR. Professional athletes have training camps and permanent coaches.

There is no reason to think flying is fundamentally different than every other activity in the universe. If you do not try to get better, you will get worse

There are three kinds of training, dual instruction, practice, and mental training. Dual instruction and practice involve skills development, scenario simulation and muscle memory. Mental training is stocking your brain with good ideas that can be explicitly called upon during decision making in the planning phase of the emergency response. Imprinted thoughts may also appear, unbidden, during the emergency when some part if the mind determines makes a connection between what is happening and a particular thought. An example of that would be the "Don't turn away from the airfield" line that popped in my head while executing the S turn on final. In that case I just accepted it immediately... with less than an ideal consequences.

Look for examples and ideas on how to handle particular emergencies. Listen to hangar flying and other pilots relating their own experiences. Many of these are free or have very low cost to access. Read accident reports or their summaries.

Regardless, think about what you read or hear before accepting. Beware of obviously bad advice. One of the worst I recall being published was the recommendation of doing a rate 1 turn if you have an engine failure after takeoff if you decide to turn back to the field. That's 1 minute to do a 180 degree turn. That shallow a turn would also cover a lot of landscape.

Being comfortable with power off circuits and landings is a critical practice. I had an advantage with my Pipistrel. Its standard technique was to be on idle from late downwind. Glidepath control was with spoilers acting as a negative throttle. Few other GA aircraft use spoilers. For the remainder, I recommend getting comfortable with side (forward) slips and slipping turns. When doing power off landings, give yourself a chance by picking an aiming point down the runway instead of at the threshold.

On the other hand, the style my mind works put me at a disadvantage. There are two extremes of mind functioning style. Regimented functioning has the mind following steps in a specific order every time. Think of a drill sergeant. Free style thinkers are always open to new ideas whatever the source. Being sidetracked from the task at hand is easy. Think absent minded professor. My mind functions closer to that end of the spectrum.

How I tried to compensate was to set aside two pieces of my mind: one was to check I was not going to panic; the other was to observe and note the what was happening. I see now that was insufficient to prevent being sidetracked. What would have been better is to replace the observer 'task' a with check_ok task. Its job would be to do a quick validity check that I was still doing the right thing. Anything resembling gazing, or fascination would be confirmation that I was sidetracked. Perhaps it could be considered a dumbass alert.

I used to glibly say, "As long as you don't panic you will probably at least limp away from a crash". I no longer think that is adequate. I think there are two requirements for a high probability of survival: don't panic; prevent zombie mode.

Two things are necessary to prevent zombie mode: relevant current training; prevent being sidetracked. If you are appropriately trained, it will take say 10% of your brain to perform the procedure. The rest of you brain is available for dealing with everything else such as crosswinds, wind shear, obstacles, powerlines and avoiding zombie mode. If you are unprepared, easily 90 or perhaps as much as 110% of your brain is needed to perform the procedure. Oops.

I may have some details off but I feel strongly that the main points covered here are correct. But I could still be wrong. I would like these thoughts to be widely discussed and argued for or against with other concepts out there.Read more