FROM THE DESK OF THE CHIEF
WVFC Chief Pilot chiefpilot@wvfc.org

ZERO/ZERO

I’m sitting in my office at Palo Alto writing this article on the remaining battery on my laptop. It’s Wednesday February 17, 2010 and we haven’t had any power all day. A Cessna 310 departed here this morning in basically zero/zero conditions and proceeded to crash into power lines in East Palo Alto and then on into some houses and cars. Sadly, all three people on board perished. Thankfully, no one on the ground was hurt – that has to be a miracle.

I’m not going to spend any time in this article speculating about what happened – that’s the job for the NTSB over the next few weeks and months. What I do want to discuss is how events like this could and should make us reconsider our own risk management policies and look carefully at what makes sense for our own operations. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with a zero/zero takeoff. It can be done, and has been done thousands of times without incident. But there are clearly higher risks associated with a zero/zero takeoff than a regular takeoff. Do you understand what the increased risks are for a particular operation, and are you skilled enough to deal with any and all of the possible outcomes if something goes wrong during a higher risk operation?

Let me describe a couple of my own practices that I apply in circumstances like this. First is IFR departures when the ceilings are low. My personal rule of thumb is to never depart an airport where the ceilings and/or visibilities are below those prescribed in the best approach back to the airport. For Palo Alto, the approach minimums are typically 460 feet so I would prescribe myself a 500 minimum ceiling for an IFR departure. So on a day like today, I wouldn’t be departing at all. They shut down San Jose International for this weather. They’re part 121 operations who have the equipment, total experience, and recent experience. There’s a reason for this – it’s a risky operation that the FAA has determined isn’t worth the risk of a bad outcome.

Recently I’ve changed another procedure that I’ve used over the years. I often take students out on instrument flights to places like Stockton or Modesto when there’s plenty of fog in the valley. It might be possible to shoot an ILS into somewhere like Stockton or Modesto, but when shooting the approach into, say, Byron, one knows before starting the approach that a landing can’t be made because the ceiling is below the minimums for the approach. But it’s perfectly legal for a part 91 operation to shoot the approach down to the minimums and then go missed approach. It’s a good experience for the student to see and feel what it’s like to get to the minimums in actual conditions and then have to go missed. But is it really safe and is it good risk management? I’ve recently changed my position on this, and have concluded the benefits do not outweigh the risks of something going wrong at the worst possible moment i.e. at the minimums with only a few hundred feet between the plane and ground. So these days, even though we’re still part 91, I won’t start an approach unless the ceilings are above the minimums. Some people would say this is just obvious common sense, but one has to be careful not to confuse common sense with risk management because they’re not the same thing.

Please take some time and reflect on the events of today and consider your risk management profile, and whether it’s time for a tune-up.

Safe Flying.

I’m kind of into classics, and one that was on the radio the other day got me to thinking (although I admit this wasn’t my first thought) about how it applied to flying.

The Pointer Sisters classic “Slow Hand” includes the line, “I want a man with a slow hand.” Without getting into the merits of the next line (“I want a lover with an easy touch”), or speculating about where the hand is when it’s slow, let’s just go with the slow part.

When you have the good fortune to fly something fast and complicated, it’s pretty much a truism that in decreasing order of desirability you have the following:

Solo flight means you are the sole occupant of your airplane: no instructor, no safety pilot, and no passengers. There are at least three times during your aviation career when you may be required to fly solo. The first is your “first solo” flight when your instructor pushes you out of the nest and tells you to fly around the pattern by yourself.

No minimum flight time is required before first solo, but 10 hours of solo time are required before one can be eligible for a private pilot certificate. Your first solo flight is a major achievement; it is the time when you prove to yourself that “I can do this!”

The second time that solo flight is required is during cross-country flight training. You have to make solo flights to other airports and complete a 150-mile trip by yourself. Many pilots find this one of the most enjoyable parts of private pilot training.

Finally, insurance companies often require an owner-pilot to fly a certain number of solo hours in a new airplane type before carrying passengers.

Why all the emphasis on solo flight? Perhaps it is derived from FAR 91.3 which says, in part, “The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” During solo flight, no one can help you. Solo is a chance to practice being the “final authority.”

Solo is also a time that no one can distract you. Sometimes student pilots on solo cross-country flights think there is something wrong because they start hearing their airplane better once there is no “constant flight interrupter” (CFI) chattering at them.

Solo is a good time to try at your own pace all the things your CFI has been teaching you. If you want to do twenty steep turns in a row, go for it! At least you won’t be making anyone else sick. It’s a good time to notice subtleties of airplane operation and practice flying perfectly on altitude, heading and speed.

Solo is important immediately after earning one’s instrument rating as there is no opportunity for solo flight during instrument training. Fly solo in the clouds on a day when ceilings are low enough to require an approach, yet still well above personal minimums.

Your solo flight experience will make you a better passenger-carrying pilot. If you have had time to absorb and try to master the full experience of flight without distraction, then you will do a better job separating flying responsibilities from taking care of passengers. You will know your airplane better and therefore may be able to devote more attention to playing tour guide.

Unfortunately, I have noticed that some pilots log little solo time after earning their private certificates. They don’t know what they’re missing! As one person put it, “It’s cheaper than going to the shrink!”

Hello everyone - it has been a very mixed month. Let's examine what happened:

The really bad news: A terrible airplane crash occurred near PAO in late February. A Cessna 310 departed PAO in heavy fog. It didn't get far; instead it crashed into a power tower and then into a nearby residential neighborhood. The three Tesla engineers on the plane did not survive. Fortunately, no one on the ground was seriously injured, but several homes were severely damaged. A recovery fund for these homes has been set up by the Philanthropic Ventures Foundation. You can donate to this worthy cause by clicking here.

The bad news: Poor flying weather has been with us since January. Flying hours are down and operations are slow. The slow hours adversely affect both the Club and CFIs who provide our training.

The better news: The weather is improving and we have figured out a way to manage the Club even with the reduced revenues; we can ensure that the club remains on a solid financial footing.

The good news: The new By-Laws are nearly ready for prime time; at the March 17th Board Meeting, we expect a proposal to adopt a revised By-Laws set. They have been prepared with the participation of a wide range of members that included CFIs, Owners, Regular Members and Board Members.

More good news: The Grievance and Squawk processes have made good headway too. A resolution to adopt each of these proposals will also be made at the next Board meeting.

The really good news: We’re going to have an election in June. I hope you will consider joining us in this experience. Three (or four) board seats are up for election. Qualifications are simple: Be a member, be current in a WVFC aircraft and be able to make good decisions. We need candidates who are willing to donate some of their time to this rewarding experience. Some of our board members are not seeking re-election (including me - instead, I am a candidate for the Los Altos Hills Town Council). Please contact the GM or any of the board members for more information.

Last, the BEST news: We’re coming up on that season where we can really show our stuff. That’s right, the Hayward Air Rally is scheduled for June 11, 2010; we're headed for Bend, OR (BDN). The Air Rally is a fairly simple but challenging proficiency exercise. You are given four spots to fly over on each of two legs. You only need to do three things: