So the NTSB released their most wanted list, and two aviation topics were part of the list this year. The one I would like to focus on is identify and communicate hazardous weather. Its no secret that GA aviation has the highest rate of accidents, as its the branch of aviation with the most pilots and the ones with the lowest flight times. It's a fact however, that two thirds of these accidents happen in metrological conditions (IMC) http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl7_2014.html.
IMC conditions, at least from a textbook sense are probably the most dangerous flying a pilot can do. Its not the fact that the weather is a hazard, as pilots can be taught how to fly in IMC conditions, more so the fact that its hard to teach pilots when to recognize that something is out of their skillset to fly through. One aspect that I found interesting about the report is that it lacked VFR pilots flying into IFR conditions. This is something that certainly needs to be attended to as much as IFR pilots flying into conditions they can't fly out of.
Concerning both of these making the list, I do believe both are some of the biggest problems in aviation. Helicopters in terms of accidents tend to be higher then even GA aircraft, or at least have the perception that they are not as safe. Helicopter pilots are held to the same standard as other GA pilots, but their area of operation is inherently more dangerous, due to their proximity to the ground, or buildings. Because of this, a better focus is required. GA pilots crashing in IMC conditions is just as big an issue, for both loss of life and materials. This high figure also leads to an unnecessary focus on aviation crashes.
Lastly, I see many more jobs being created by the helicopter accident focus then I do the GA problem. The GA problem may be addressed by a simple program, or addition of new training for CFI-II pilots to both recognize when these pilots make poor decisions. The helicopter issue however, is going to require a more in depth look, to both identify how the hazards effect the pilots and what sort of training is going to have to be added to the license process of helicopter pilots.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Hard to believe pilots land at the wrong airport, but are they not only human?
As of last week, we have all seen the Southwest 737 land at the wrong airport, and this past year we have seen a few more incidents like this happen, but this is nothing that is new to the aviation world. Back in 2011, a Continental Connection flight 3222 landed at a small private airport. The aircraft was able to safely stop and nobody was injured. Continental Connection operated under Colgan air at the time, which was itself under the microscope due to the Buffalo crash that had highlighted many issues with regional airlines. Both the pilots were suspended because of the incident. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/15/flight-crew-relieved-from-duty-following-landing-at-wrong-airport/
The hazards of landing at a wrong airport are many. There is the chance that runway isn't long enough that the aircraft can run off of it and there is an even bigger problem with landing at GA airports, which often seems to be the norm in these types of incidents. While most commercial airports have hazards such as trees removed, most GA airports tend to have many hazards at the ends of their runways, that while are easily avoided by light aircraft, can be a much bigger problem if a plane were to run off the runway. Additionally, most GA airports while up to FAA code with their runways, are not maintained to the same standard as an large commercial airport, which could cause damage a large aircraft that accidently lands on it. Lastly, if too large an aircraft lands on too small an airport, and assuming it survives the incident intact, if it cannot take off, it will cost a company possibly millions just to remove it. While landing at the wrong runway already costs a company a loss of profits, the possibility that an aircraft would have to be disassembled would be disastrous, both in profits and PR.
I believe that both this is a correctible mistake, and that the media inflates this issue far too much. While being just a GA pilot myself, and only having to deal with a 100 kt top speed, it's hard to phantom landing at the wrong airport because its hard to get lost (or lost for long) at that slow of a speed. With an increase of speed, there has to be much more planning involved, and the pilot has to be ahead of his aircraft. This however, shouldn't be an issue for a pilot with hundreds of hours and somebody who flies faster aircraft. As for the media, they seem ready to pounce on an issue such as this when it comes up, even when nobody is hurt. It is a mistake when an aircraft lands on the wrong airport, but in light of what could have happened, when at the end of the day all passengers and crew are not hurt, and the aircraft isn't damaged, it shouldn't dominate the news as this past incident has. The media just loves anything aviation related that can make a good story.
Lastly, I do believe Southwest is right in their action to suspend the pilots. The pilot has a reasonability to land his passengers at the correct airport. They have many tools at their disposal, from GPS, to VOR's, to basic maps on the MDFs as well as ATC and themselves. To land a plane at the wrong airport is a big issue, and if a pilot were to do so, they need to be evaluated to make sure they are up to the standards that are necessary to fly commercial aircraft. To lose their job would be too far (unless they are truly not up to standard), but to have additional training must be an option if the pilot is up to the job.
The hazards of landing at a wrong airport are many. There is the chance that runway isn't long enough that the aircraft can run off of it and there is an even bigger problem with landing at GA airports, which often seems to be the norm in these types of incidents. While most commercial airports have hazards such as trees removed, most GA airports tend to have many hazards at the ends of their runways, that while are easily avoided by light aircraft, can be a much bigger problem if a plane were to run off the runway. Additionally, most GA airports while up to FAA code with their runways, are not maintained to the same standard as an large commercial airport, which could cause damage a large aircraft that accidently lands on it. Lastly, if too large an aircraft lands on too small an airport, and assuming it survives the incident intact, if it cannot take off, it will cost a company possibly millions just to remove it. While landing at the wrong runway already costs a company a loss of profits, the possibility that an aircraft would have to be disassembled would be disastrous, both in profits and PR.
I believe that both this is a correctible mistake, and that the media inflates this issue far too much. While being just a GA pilot myself, and only having to deal with a 100 kt top speed, it's hard to phantom landing at the wrong airport because its hard to get lost (or lost for long) at that slow of a speed. With an increase of speed, there has to be much more planning involved, and the pilot has to be ahead of his aircraft. This however, shouldn't be an issue for a pilot with hundreds of hours and somebody who flies faster aircraft. As for the media, they seem ready to pounce on an issue such as this when it comes up, even when nobody is hurt. It is a mistake when an aircraft lands on the wrong airport, but in light of what could have happened, when at the end of the day all passengers and crew are not hurt, and the aircraft isn't damaged, it shouldn't dominate the news as this past incident has. The media just loves anything aviation related that can make a good story.
Lastly, I do believe Southwest is right in their action to suspend the pilots. The pilot has a reasonability to land his passengers at the correct airport. They have many tools at their disposal, from GPS, to VOR's, to basic maps on the MDFs as well as ATC and themselves. To land a plane at the wrong airport is a big issue, and if a pilot were to do so, they need to be evaluated to make sure they are up to the standards that are necessary to fly commercial aircraft. To lose their job would be too far (unless they are truly not up to standard), but to have additional training must be an option if the pilot is up to the job.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Introduction
Hello and welcome to my blog,
So first the basics. My names Tom Barlow, I'm from the small town of South Lyon, about 20 minutes north of Ypsilanti. It's where I've lived for most of my entire life, and naturally I work in the town as well.
My interest in aviation started as a little kid. As any guy, I was interested in anything mechanical growing up, mostly trains to start out with but I gradually got attached to aviation as I got older. The New Hudson airport is located right next to my house basically, and the runway is lined up so that planes take off or land over my house, so its nearly guaranteed I'll see at least one plane a day. I also have an interest in American history, so its only natural for me to run into aviation. Add Thunder over Michigan in and well aviation is the most interesting thing I could think of.
Right now in aviation I'm looking at starting Instrument training here, as soon as I can, so I'm going to just focus on that right now. If I had any sort of plans, it would be to work towards business jets at some point, but that's a little far in the future right now.
So far as current topics go, I've taken an interest in cars. My current job deals with them on a daily basis, and it has always been an interest as well, although never to the extent of aviation. It does go hand in hand however, knowing that a 1992 Chevy K1500 has a 5.7L 350 cubic inch is almost the same as saying a B-17G has 4 Wright Cyclones R-1820 radials rated at 1,300hp,almost. Because of this interest, I've gotten into repairing my own vehicle and a couple of friends, so anytime I can learn a new repair I've jumped at it in order to know what I'm doing when the time comes to fix the same problem on my own car.
Looking forward to another year of aviation oriented college at EMU
So first the basics. My names Tom Barlow, I'm from the small town of South Lyon, about 20 minutes north of Ypsilanti. It's where I've lived for most of my entire life, and naturally I work in the town as well.
My interest in aviation started as a little kid. As any guy, I was interested in anything mechanical growing up, mostly trains to start out with but I gradually got attached to aviation as I got older. The New Hudson airport is located right next to my house basically, and the runway is lined up so that planes take off or land over my house, so its nearly guaranteed I'll see at least one plane a day. I also have an interest in American history, so its only natural for me to run into aviation. Add Thunder over Michigan in and well aviation is the most interesting thing I could think of.
Right now in aviation I'm looking at starting Instrument training here, as soon as I can, so I'm going to just focus on that right now. If I had any sort of plans, it would be to work towards business jets at some point, but that's a little far in the future right now.
So far as current topics go, I've taken an interest in cars. My current job deals with them on a daily basis, and it has always been an interest as well, although never to the extent of aviation. It does go hand in hand however, knowing that a 1992 Chevy K1500 has a 5.7L 350 cubic inch is almost the same as saying a B-17G has 4 Wright Cyclones R-1820 radials rated at 1,300hp,almost. Because of this interest, I've gotten into repairing my own vehicle and a couple of friends, so anytime I can learn a new repair I've jumped at it in order to know what I'm doing when the time comes to fix the same problem on my own car.
Looking forward to another year of aviation oriented college at EMU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)