Pilot suicides

Yesterday’s revelation that the recent crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 was caused by an apparent pilot suicide shocked the world. First Officer Andreus Lubitz reportedly locked the captain out of the cockpit and calmly flew the airplane with its 150 passengers into the side of a French mountain, killing everyone on board.

The act of suicide by an airline pilot while flying is not common, but has happened more than most people think. The most well-known suicide pilots, the Japanese kamikazes of World War II, carried no passengers, although the September 11 suicide hijackers did. The Aviation Safety Network lists nine crashes dating back to 1976 that were confirmed to be suicides. Additionally, ABC News notes that a Japan Air Lines pilot crashed his DC-8 in 1982, killing 24 people, but surviving the crash himself. Last year’s disappearance of Malaysia Flight 370 is widely believed to have been due to a pilot suicide as well.

Airline suicide crashes are usually not well known because they have primarily occurred in the third world. The sole suicide crash before Germanwings that affected a Western country was EgyptAir 990, which crashed off the island of Nantucket, Mass. in 1999. The American NTSB determined that a relief first officer crashed the plane into the ocean, killing all 217 people on board, but Egypt disputed the conclusion.

For most people, there are strong psychological barriers against killing oneself or others. A pilot who intentionally crashes his plane has obviously overcome these strong taboos against killing and suicide. While pilots are normal people with normal problems, few people who commit suicide do so while taking hundreds of other lives at the same time. Nevertheless, one study cited by Air & Space Magazine found that suicide was suspected in .33 percent of fatal crashes over 20 years. This is slightly more than one crash per year, mostly involving small airplanes.

Flying is a high stress occupation. Being an airline pilot involves long periods of time away from home and family, which leads to a high divorce rate. The airline industry is often unstable and furloughs (layoffs) or demotions can come suddenly and last years, leading to financial problems. Add to that a grueling schedule with irregular work hours, regular flight tests and medical exams that can quickly end a career, and the knowledge that a momentary lapse can kill or lead to a violation by regulatory authorities and it is easy to understand how a pilot could suffer from depression or substance abuse. In spite of the stress, suicide is not demonstrably higher for pilots according to most studies.

“It's a special job. You are working at irregular times; if you have a family, you are often not there [or] may be at home when everyone is at work,” said Dr. Andre Droog, president of the European Association for Aviation Psychology on Voice of America. “If you are flying intercontinental flights, you may build up jet lag and fatigue and of course you have to manage your life very well.”

In spite of policies at many airlines that encourage pilots to self-report addiction or mental health issues, many pilots are fearful that doing so will cost them their jobs. In 2010, the FAA changed its policy to allow pilots to take antidepressants for mild to moderate depression, but the current policy stipulates that approval is on a case-by-case basis and requires successful treatment for six months, during which time they would not be legal to fly. This effectively means that pilots have to either forgo treatment, fly illegally, or take a six month leave of absence.

In Asia, where several suicide crashes have taken place, many airlines now subject their pilots to psychological testing. “They ask about your mental health, about events that could affect you psychologically,” one captain from an Asian airline told CNBC. “But who willingly admits to anything that could lead to a suspension of their license? I won't. I need my job.”

Since airline crewmembers know each other best, flight crews are encouraged to report any potential problems that they observe. In the United States, many pilot unions have professional standards committees to help resolve interpersonal conflicts. Concerned crewmembers can talk to representatives on these committees without involving company representatives and threatening jobs.

“Never leave a person alone - that's probably the most effective suicide prevention technique there is," said Tony Catanese, a clinical psychologist at Glen Iris Psychology in Melbourne on CNBC.

Federal aviation regulations already require that both pilots remain in the cockpit, but contains an exception for “physiological needs.” For flights lasting from six to eight hours, it is unrealistic to assume that neither pilot would ever have to visit the lavatory. On most flights, there are no relief crews to fill the empty seat for a few minutes. Cockpit doors have been strengthened since the September 11 attacks to resist forcible entry, making it difficult for the second pilot to break back in.

One solution might be for a flight attendant enter the cockpit when one pilot leaves. The Flight Attendant would probably not be able to wrestle the controls from a suicidal pilot, but might be able to at least prevent him from locking the other pilot out.

Ultimately, there is no way to effectively prevent any possibility of future airline pilot suicides. At present, even though the shock of the Germanwings crash is still fresh, the problem of suicides by pilots is a tiny statistical blip. The vast majority of airline pilots around the world are professionals who have learned to cope with life’s problems and keep them out of the cockpit.

 

Read the full article on Aviation Examiner

Flying the Lear 45

The Lear 45 is a light business jet that first flew in 1995. A follow-up to the popular Lear 35 series, the Lear 45 was the first airplane produced after Bombardier purchased Learjet in 1990. At corporate airports around the country and all over the world, the Lear 45 is a common sight.

The Lear 45 is a capable performer. Normally configured, it can seat eight passengers plus two pilots. A belted lav seat can bring the total passenger count to nine. Red line speed is 330 knots or .81 mach. Service ceiling is 51,000 feet.

Sitting on the ramp, the Lear 45 looks fast. Standout features are the large, tinted windscreen, swept wings and turned up winglets. The airplane sits low to the ground, which makes loading passengers and bags easy.

Early 45s configured with –AR engines are somewhat limited when it comes to hot and high operations from short fields. One summer flight from Albuquerque (KABQ) with temperatures approaching 80 degrees Fahrenheit (26 degrees Celsius) required a field length of almost 7,000 feet, compared to a typical required runway length of around 4,000 feet. Newer Lear 45 XRs with –BR engines perform much better under hot and high conditions. The difference is very noticeable on almost any flight that goes into the flight levels with –BR airplanes encountering a shorter time-to-climb and having the ability to maintain higher airspeeds in the climb. An upgrade to –BR engines is available for older aircraft.

One of the most daunting things about the Lear 45 for new pilots is the door. The main cabin door is a clamshell door in two pieces. The lower half descends to become a stair, while the top the half lifts up. Opening or securing the door requires manipulating two separate handles and a latch. While the process seems confusing at first, it quickly becomes second nature.

From a pilot’s perspective, the Lear 45 is a joy to fly. Controls are somewhat heavy without a hydraulic boost, but the airplane is solid. On takeoff, acceleration is normally quick both on the ground and in the early stages of the climb. There is no tiller for control on the ground. Taxi steering is accomplished by rudder pedals as in a light Cessna or Piper.

Avionics are primarily Honeywell Primus Epic with a four screen setup. There are two primary flight displays (PFDs), an EICAS (engine instrument and crew alerting system) screen, and a multifunction display (MFD). The PFDs place the information of the traditional “six pack” instruments, as well as some navigation information, on one screen for each pilot. The EICAS gives a digital representation of engine and system instruments. The MFD normally shows a map screen, but can be used to show PFD or EICAS information in the event of a screen failure. Additionally, both the MFD and the EICAS can show individual pages with information on specific systems such as fuel, pressurization or hydraulics.

Typical for a 20 year old airplane, the avionics suite looks somewhat primitive when compared to the Garmin display in a Cirrus. The newer Lear 75, which has replaced the Lear 45 in production, has replaced the Primus system with Garmin G5000 displays and FMS.

An experienced pilot will quickly notice a peculiar thing about the Lear 45 panel. Even though the EICAS includes the ability to receive CAS messages about system abnormalities, the panel also includes an older-style panel of warning lights. This panel, located in the center of the cockpit above the MFD, duplicates red warning CAS messages. While not readily apparent to the new pilot, the function of this crew warning panel (CWP) is to provide the crew with warning notifications in the event of a total electrical failure in which the display screens are turned off to save battery power.

The real chink in the armor of the avionics system is the Universal UNS-1Ew FMS. The UNS-1 is vastly different from other FMS’s in logic, which can make the transition difficult. The introduction of more and more RNAV arrivals and departures shows the weakness of the Universal. The RNAV arrivals that I frequently fly into Houston contain numerous crossing restrictions where the airplane has to be within a window of about 3,000 feet. Most FMS’s compute a flight path that will put the airplane through the middle of the window and smooth out the descent. In contrast, the Universal defaults to the lowest allowable altitude at each fix. This often translates into steep descents over a short distance. Descending earlier often means using more fuel and a rougher ride for passengers.

Two other quirks of the Lear 45 are repeated in the new Lear 75. First, the APU is limited to ground operation only in both aircraft, which means that it is unusable inflight in a generator or engine failure or for pressurization or climate control. Some early Lear 45s were actually delivered without APUs at all. Second, the spoilers cannot be used with flaps extended. This requires extra planning for some descents and “slam dunk” approaches.

Landing the Lear 45 is a breeze. The airplane handles well, even in a crosswind. The short wingspan and tail-mounted engines mean that pilots can use the same wing-low crosswind technique that is common in light piston airplanes. Trailing link landing gear makes for soft touchdowns. The Lear 45’s reference speed (Vref) for approaches is in the 120 knot range, but its excellent brakes and thrust reversers make stopping easy.

Total fuel capacity is 6,062 pounds (904 gallons). There are two wing tanks and a fuselage tank, the “trunk,” which is located aft of the cabin. Fuel planning can estimated at 1,800 pounds for the first hour, 1,200 pounds for each hour at normal cruise and 1,000 pounds for the last hour with the descent. This would place normal endurance at about four hours with reserves. Maximum range, depending on winds, is approximately 1,500 nautical miles with reserves.

Except for the shortest flights, the Lear 45 is normally operated at 40-41,000 feet. This altitude put the airplane above most airline traffic and allows frequent direct routings. It also gives efficient fuel flows, typically around 600-650 pounds per side per hour. Operating in the low 40s also allows the airplane to maintain a fast cruise, often bumping against the redline of 0.81 mach.

The Lear 40 is a shorter variant of the Lear 45. The Lear 40 is two feet shorter and carries about 700 pounds less fuel, which leads to a somewhat shorter range. The Lear 40, and the follow on Lear 70, are intended as short-range business jets for a small number of passengers.

With the collapse in business jet prices since the onset of the Great Recession, there are many good deals on used Lear 45s. The airplane’s performance and comfort will make sure that the 45 is a staple of corporate flight departments for years to come.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Windshear!

The copilot accepted the approach clearance and I turned the Lear 45 toward the initial fix for the approach.

We were flying into Victoria, Texas to pick up two members of the family that owned the airplane for a trip to sunny Florida. Sunny was something Victoria was not today. The ATIS, the recorded weather broadcast for the airport, reported low ceilings, heavy rain, gusty winds and limited visibility. Our airborne weather radar indicated a band of rain just south of the airport. We had been enveloped in clouds for the entire short flight from Houston.

We descended to 2,000 feet to start the instrument approach, a GPS-based approach to runway 31 right. We configured the airplane for landing and began the descent along the electronic glide path toward the runway.

We had only descended about 200 feet when the airspeed went crazy. First, the speed increased by 30 knots, almost reaching the maximum speed for the flaps. Then, just as quickly, it reversed and dropped rapidly into the red, low-speed tape on the primary flight display.

“STALL… STALL,” the electronic voice of the Learjet’s warning system called out.

I advanced the throttles to maximum thrust and called out, “windshear, flaps eight,” to begin the missed approach procedure. We “cleaned up” the airplane from landing configuration, retracted the flaps and landing gear, and climbed to the missed approach altitude. Or rather, we climbed through the missed approach altitude. With the airspeed in safe territory but still fluctuating, we ballooned several hundred feet high. Even with reduced power and pointing the nose down, the Learjet did not want to descend.

Shortly after, the controller assigned us a climb and vectored us around for another try. With the weather rapidly moving through the area, we were able to fly behind the squall and land successfully and without experiencing anything abnormal other than rain so heavy that it partially obscured the view through the windshield.

What we had experienced was the worst windshear of my career. Windshear is any sudden change in wind speed or direction over a short distance. It can occur either horizontally or vertically. While windshear can occur at any altitude, it is more dangerous when the aircraft is close to the ground.

In 1985, Delta Air Lines Flight 191 crashed when it encountered windshear on approach at Dallas - Fort Worth International Airport (KDFW). The Lockheed L1011 was flying through the rain shaft of a thunderstorm while on an ILS approach when the headwind suddenly decreased by 25 knots and ultimately increased to a 30 knot tailwind while the downdraft increased from 18 to more than 30 feet per second according to an FAA analysis. In spite of applying full power to all three engines, the aircraft hit an open field just short of the runway then became airborne again to strike a light pole and car on a road near the approach end. The airplane ultimately hit two water towers on the airport property and exploded. The accident killed 136 of the 163 passengers and crew plus the driver of the car.

An analysis of the accident showed that the plane likely flew through a microburst, a very intense downdraft that is localized to an area about two miles in radius. The airplane first encountered increasing performance as it flew through the updraft at the periphery of the microburst, causing it to go high on the glideslope. Then, as the airplane entered the downdraft, the airspeed slowed dramatically and the airplane went below the glideslope, triggering an alert from the plane’s ground proximity warning system (GPWS). In spite of going to full power, it was too late for the airplane to successfully fly out of the windshear.

Although windshear was known in 1985, it wasn’t well understood. According to the FAA, the Delta 191 crash resulted in changes to training to help pilots better recognize the danger of windshear and make a decision to use an escape maneuver early rather than continuing the approach. New technology, such as airport low level windshear alert systems (LLWSAS), better radar, and enhanced GPWS with a windshear protection mode have contributed to safety as well. There are limitations though. In my windshear incident, the GPWS windshear alert was not triggered because the airplane was above 1,500 feet, outside the danger zone for takeoff and landing.

The windshear escape maneuver can vary from airplane to airplane, but is typically similar. The flying pilot should advance the throttles to maximum power and pitch the airplane nose up sharply. It should go without saying that the autopilot should be disconnected for this. No configuration changes, such as retracting or extending flaps and landing gear, should be made while the airplane is in windshear. Once the airplane has gained the safety of altitude and airspeed, flaps and gear should be retracted.

If windshear is likely on takeoff, the pilot can choose to delay rotation. Delayed rotation means extra airspeed in the early stages of the climb that can be very helpful if the airplane encounters windshear shortly after takeoff. Rotation speed (Vr) can generally be increased by 10 percent to a maximum of 20 knots (check your aircraft guidelines and limitations). This speed should be briefed, but should not be set with an airspeed bug. Consider the extra runway that will be needed due to the longer acceleration time as well.

Similarly, the landing reference speed (Vref) can be increased as well. An old rule of thumb is that landing speeds can be increased by half the gust factor. If the wind speed is reported as “10, gusting to 20 knots,” Vref can be increased by five knots. Stable approaches typically require that the airspeed on approach be no more than 20 knots faster than Vref, so this should be considered a limit for increasing the landing speed. Again, consider the runway since a higher landing speed means that more stopping distance is required.

Ultimately, avoidance is the best tool for surviving windshear. The Flight Safety Foundation identifies several warning signs for windshear. These include thunderstorms, gusty frontal passages, blowing dust, rings of dust, whirlwinds, mountain waves, and, of course, warnings from airport windshear alert systems or pilot reports. If conditions are ripe for windshear, be prepared to go around. In some cases, a delay or diversion might be the best course of action. Microbursts often only last for about 15 minutes so a short delay can make a big difference in safety.

Read the rest on Aviation Examiner

Chilling video shows plane crash in Taiwan

The crash of a TransAsia ATR-72 today in Taiwan was captured in a dramatic video from a dashboard camera in a taxi. The 25 second video, along with another longer but more distant video, can be seen on Uproxx.com.

The video shows the turboprop airliner descending rapidly across a bridge in front of the taxi. As it descends, the airplane rolls approximately 90 degrees onto its left wing. As the plane passes in front of the taxi, its left wingtip and tail strike the road in front of the car before it disappears from view.

According to a report from BBC, TransAsia Airways Flight 235, also referred to as GE235, crashed shortly after takeoff from Taipei Shongshan Airport. Pilots radioed that there was an “engine flameout” according a New York Times report. After passing in front of the taxi’s camera, the airplane came to rest in the Keelung River, a short distance from the airport. The flight was enroute to Kinmen and carried 53 passengers and five crew. At least 19 people are reported dead.

The New York Times reported that both pilots were very experienced. The 42-year-old captain had 4,914 hours including 3,400 in the ATR. The first officer was 45-years-old and had 6,922 hours with 6,500 in ATRs. Nevertheless, preliminary information appears to indicate that the airplane suffered an engine failure on takeoff and that the crew was not able to maintain control.

This is the second fatal crash for TransAsia in six months. Last July, another ATR crashed while landing in a monsoon. That crash killed 48 people.

The ATR 72 is built by the French and Italian company, ATR. The type first flew in 1988, but the New Times reports that the accident aircraft, an ATR 72-600, was only a year old. Although the ATR was once flown by American airlines, it is now principally operated in the US as a cargo freighter by FedEx. In 1994, an American Eagle ATR crashed in Roselawn, Ind. That crash was attributed to airframe icing.

Recovery efforts are still underway in the TransAsia crash. Several of the plane’s passengers are still missing.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Air Asia pilots did not scream ‘Allahuakhbar’

A popular story going around the internet today is that the cockpit voice recorder, one of the “black boxes,” from Air Asia Flight 8501 revealed the chilling last words of the pilots. In the story, typically attributed to Yahoo News Singapore, claims that a National Transportation Safety Committee investigator revealed the last words of the pilots to be “Allahuakhbar, Allahuakhbar.” The implication from American news outlets that have picked up the Yahoo story is that the Air Asia crash was the result of Islamic terrorism. Investigation by Examiner reveals that this is not true. At the very least, the claim is premature.

The Yahoo article is an almost word-for-word copy of an earlier article from the New Straits Times, an English language newspaper published in Malaysia. A pundit from The Right Scoop noted that Yahoo had omitted a crucial detail from their version of the story.

In the NST story, the investigator, Nurcahyo Utomo, says, “It is as if we can feel them... Allahuakhbar, Allahuakhbar were the last words said before they died.” Yahoo repeats this quote in its entirety.

The NST description of the quote was “he said referring to his experience analising [sic] black boxes from past crashes.” The Yahoo article omitted this entire phrase, leaving readers with the impression that the quote came from the Air Asia pilots rather than pilots of crashes that Utomo had previously investigated.

When viewed in the context of the entire article, it is clear that Utomo has not yet analyzed the cockpit voice recorder from the Air Asia crash. The lead sentence of the story says that analyzing the data will – note the future tense – be difficult for Utomo because he knew the pilot personally.

The last sentence quotes Utomo as saying, “I could not imagine how I am going to listen to his last words.” Again, the article and Utomo himself use future tense, implying that he has not yet heard the recording of the last words.

In its entirety, the article discusses Utomo’s past experiences with crash investigations and listening to cockpit voice recordings. “Listening to the playback of a black box involved in a crash is not like listening to music or a discussion,” he said. “We are listening to a recording that represents the last moments before the crash and it is disturbing. There are times where the investigators would get unnerved listening to the recording.”

The NST article goes on to say, “analysing [sic] the recording while listening to their final words like ‘Allahuakhbar’ repeatedly, give the investigators goose bumps” according to Utomo.

While it is possible that the Air Asia pilots said “Allahuakhbar” before they died, there is no indication that the cockpit voice recorder and other black boxes have already been examined. The absence of this story from the mainstream American media and its presence only on blog-type sites should be an indication of its lack of credibility.

Read the full article on Aviation Examiner

How to annoy your First Officer

My career as a pilot involved spending more than a decade as a First Officer, a copilot to those not initiated into the terms of aviation. After more than ten years and 4,000 hours of flying as an FO at four different companies, I am uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of FOs everywhere and explain to captains what rubs their second-in-command the wrong way. Read on and discover how to annoy your FO.

1. Keep your hand on the flap handle on an approach. This is a common move for both experienced and inexperienced captains. While flying an approach, when the captain feels that it is time to lower the flaps, I would often notice the captain place his hand on the flap handle, just waiting for the second when I, as the flying pilot, would call for the flaps.

I don’t know whether they thought I would forget to call for the flaps, wanted to give me a subtle reminder, or just wanted to keep themselves from forgetting. Regardless, I found it annoying and would often delay calling for the flaps just make them keep their hand in an uncomfortable position.

If the landing checklist is completed properly, the flaps will not be forgotten. As long as flying pilot complies with aircraft limitations and company standard operating procedures, the flying pilot has discretion on when to call for the flaps. If the nonflying pilot believes that the flaps have been forgotten, a better way to remind them is verbally, stating, for example, “We are still at flaps 20.”

2. Never let him fly. FOs are qualified pilots. Often, since aviation new hires typically go to the bottom of the seniority list, the FO might even be more qualified than the captain. The vast majority of FOs are more than capable of safely flying the airplane.

FOs are supposed to be able to land the airplane successfully, not just lower the landing gear and work the radios. Nevertheless, flying is a perishable skill. How can an FO improve and stay current if he never touches the controls? Your life may one day depend upon your FO’s ability to fly an approach to minimums or land in a strong crosswind.

As an instructor, I saw a number of pilots who had logged hundreds of hours in an aircraft type, but who had very little actual experience flying it. This caused difficulty and more than a few problems in simulator training when a First Officer upgraded to captain.

The captain who never lets his FO fly or only rarely throws them a bone with a short leg does his fellow pilots a disservice. The fairest way to divide legs is the way that most airlines do it, by alternating each leg. This helps both pilots to maintain proficiency and interest.

3. Don’t keep him in the loop. CRM (cockpit resource management) is not just three random letters from the alphabet. If your FO going to effectively back you up, he needs to know what’s going on. This includes planning items like changes to flight plans and weather forecasts as well as more basic things like announcing what switches you are flipping. Particularly if the captain is the nonflying pilot, it matters if you do something like switch the anti-ice on or off. Don’t just do things and expect your FO to automatically know what you’re doing and thinking.

Most FOs can’t read their wife’s mind; they certainly can’t read yours.

4. Don’t start a radio conversation and expect him to finish it. Many times, even though the FO is the pilot monitoring, the captain will initiate a radio conversation with ATC. This in itself is not a problem. Sometimes it is simply more expedient to say something yourself than relay it through your fellow pilot.

The problem comes when the captain initiates an exchange and then fails to follow through. Often the initial exchange is followed immediately by an altitude or frequency change, leaving the FO to wonder “will he respond or not?” Usually there is a pregnant pause while neither pilot answers and the FO scrambles to acknowledge the instruction. It would be much easier for the captain to respond since he was already talking to the controller.

5. Don’t share the paperwork. Typically programming the flight plan is an FO duty, but how can he put in an “as filed” route if you squirrel away the flight plan in an undisclosed location on the left side of the cockpit? Further, as mentioned earlier, the FO cannot cross check the captain if he doesn’t know what the captain’s plan is. For example, without the flight plan or dispatch release showing the amount of fuel required for the flight, the FO cannot verify that the aircraft is properly fueled.

A good captain puts the paperwork in the middle where both pilots can check it as needed. A great captain makes the FO his own copy. Captains who don’t print out flight plans make FOs want to pull their hair out.

6. Act like a check airman. The captain and FO may not be equals, but it is not the captain’s job to test my knowledge. The FO not required to let you quiz him on memory items and aircraft limitations. I have learned a lot from some great captains, but they didn’t act like instructors, let alone check airmen. If every flight feels like a checkride, the crew is going to have a miserable time together. Unless you are a check airman, don’t act like one.

7. Try to do his job. A competent FOs knows his flows. He can run a checklist. He is trained to program the FMS and work the radios. Let him do his job. Don’t try to do it for him. CRM teaches that both pilots have their role and should stick to it.

When you try to do the FO’s job as well as yours, you break his routine and increase the chance of errors and mistakes. Do you really want the FO to try to race you to retract the flaps after landing? There are very few things that need to be done quickly in an airplane and having both pilots competing to reach the same control first is a recipe for disaster.

The other extreme is the FO who will let the captain take his duties. This may work well until the first time the captain misses and item and the FO, who is now simply along for the ride, doesn’t catch it either.

8. Use nonstandard procedures. You will be captain on the next trip, but odds are that your FO will be flying with a different captain. Make it easy for him. Use standard procedures. If he spend several days getting used to your nonstandard way of doing things, he’s going to have to relearn the right way to do things next week or next month.

The whole idea of standardization is that everyone does things the same way and that any two crew members can be comfortable together without a long period of adaptation. Keep it standard. He’s an FO, not a chameleon.

9. Shut him down. Your FO your backup. His job is to question you when something seems amiss. This requires open lines of communication. Countless airplanes and lives have been lost because First Officers didn’t speak up. In some cases, captains intimidated their First Officers into silence. CRM has been around for nearly half a century, but there are still captains with this sort of god complex.

It is in your interest for your FO to speak up. It requires teamwork to safely and efficiently fly a turbine airplane. If you intimidate your crew into silence, you may both pay the ultimate price.

10. Lose his trust. Both crewmembers are professionals. Our wellbeing and careers depend upon a certain level of competence. Everyone makes mistakes, but if you repeatedly get your FO into trouble he will spend more time crosschecking you than doing his own job. This is just as bad as when the captain tries to do both jobs.

To be an effective captain, the captain must be familiar with basic knowledge items such as aircraft limitations and FARs. NOTAMs should be closely checked before each flight in addition to the weather. Before flying an arrival or departure procedure, check the plate closely and be sure to look for notes, crossing restrictions and speeds. The captain should also possess basic airmanship skills. This may seem basic, but it is the cause for many mistakes and violations.

If the crew is to be an effective team, both pilots need to be able to depend on each other. If you and your FO have a long history of filing NASA or ASAP reports, you probably need to evaluate our performance as a team.

When considering how to treat your FO, it is important to ask yourself how your actions affect safety and CRM (for more information on CRM, consult GlobalAir.com’s Aviation Directory for courses on cockpit resource management). While safety is paramount on any flight, it will normally be enhanced by making FO more involved in the decision making process and showing that your value and respect his opinion and skills.

Read the full article on Aviation Examiner

Details of the Malaysia airline shootdown

For the second time in less than a year, the previously little known Malaysia Airlines is the subject of intense scrutiny after a mysterious crash. In March, Malaysia Flight 370 disappeared and has never been found. On July 17, Malaysia Flight 17 was shot down over a disputed area of the Ukraine. At this point, who shot the airliner down and why is not known.

According to Flight Aware, MH 17, another Boeing 777, departed from Amsterdam at 12:19 p.m. local time and was bound for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The 11.5 hour flight was estimated to arrive at 6:00 a.m. Malaysia time. Instead, Flight Aware’s tracking map shows the flight abruptly terminating over eastern Ukraine near the Black Sea.

According to early reports from NBC News, the plane, which was carrying 298 people, was cruising at 33,000 when it was attacked. Many of the passengers were Dutch nationals since the flight was operated under a code share with Royal Dutch Airlines. Malaysia was originally colonized by Holland in the 1600s. The International Business Times reports that the victims include 23 Americans.

The wreckage from the plane came to rest in several fields about 31 miles from the Russian border. Photos posted online show that the plane broke into a large number of small pieces. Yahoo reported that debris fields were reported to be at least six miles apart, indicating that the plane broke up in flight. There were no reports of survivors.

A miner who witnessed the crash told NBC that he saw a surface-to-air-missile strike the plane. Andrey Tarasenko said, “You know how you see a trail from a plane — it was the same, but it was a missile launched from the ground.” Tarasenko said he heard an explosion in the air seconds after he saw the missile’s smoke trail and then heard a larger explosion on the ground several seconds later.

Ukraine has been at war since February when Russian soldiers invaded the Crimea region in support of ethnic Russian separatists. On national television, Ukraine’s president, Petro Poroshenko, said, “I would like to draw your attention that we do not call it an incident, not a disaster, but we call it a terrorist act” according to NBC.

Russian president Vladimir Putin blamed Ukraine for the tragedy saying that it “would not have happened if there were peace on this land, if the military actions had not been renewed in southeast Ukraine. And, certainly, the state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy” according to Yahoo.

Mounting evidence points to either Russia or the separatist militants supported by Russia being responsible for the attack. Ukraine released audio clips of intercepted communications between Russian and rebel commanders in which the rebels tell their Russian allies that “We have just shot down a plane.” Over the course of several calls, the rebels report that the airplane was civilian and unarmed.

Two days earlier, there were reports of another aircraft being shot down. According to Al Jazeera, on July 15, a Ukrainian Antonov 26 cargo plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine. All eight people on board survived. The An-26 was flying at about 20,000 feet when it was shot down by either a missile or a Russian fighter plane according to a Ukraine Security Council spokesman.

Two more Ukrainian attack jets were also attacked by missiles from Russia on Wednesday according to the Ukraine. One Sukhoi Su-25 was shot down and another was damaged, but both pilots survived according to ABC News.

According to Defense Tech, the most likely weapon to be used in the attack was the M-2 Buck surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. Called the SA-11”Gadfly” by NATO, the Buk was developed in 1979 by the Soviet Union. The Buk has a range of up to 19 miles and can engage targets at altitudes up to 46,000 feet. It is not known for certain whether the Russians have supplied the rebels with Buk missile systems, which are mounted on tracked vehicles, but the Voice of Russia claimed in June that the Donetsk militia had taken control of Ukraine air defense base equipped with the missiles.

Several of the plane’s “black boxes” have already been recovered. Yahoo reports that most of the black boxes had been found by the rebels. Indications were that at least some of the boxes had been turned over to Russia.

Following the shootdown, Business Insider noted that Ukrainian airspace was largely empty. Much of the air traffic between Europe and Asia normally flies over the country, but most civilian traffic seemed to be staying clear of the disputed area.

Read the full article on Aviation Examiner

Pilot’s rules of thumb

Aviation is as much art as science. In many aspects of aviation, math is needed to precisely fly the airplane. Few pilots want to constantly do calculations with an E-6B flight computer or handheld calculator. Fortunately there is an easier way. Over the years, many rules of thumb have been developed to help pilots fly with more precision, but without the hassle. Here are a few that I frequently use flying jets. Many can be used in piston airplanes as well.

One simple rule of thumb is how to smoothly level off from a climb or descent. When changing altitudes, lead the level off by 10 percent of the vertical speed. If the airplane is climbing at 500 feet per minute, start the level off 50 feet before the altitude is reached to avoid an overshoot or undershoot. If the thought of percentages is daunting, just drop the last zero from the rate of climb.

Similarly, a good rule of thumb for planning a cruising altitude is to use 10 percent of the trip length, multiplied by a thousand. If the flight is 200 miles, an efficient cruising altitude would be 20,000 feet. Obviously, the service ceiling of the airplane becomes a limiting factor as well. No matter how long the trip, a Cessna 172 is not likely to climb into the flight levels (18,000-60,000 feet).

It can be helpful to know how fast your airplane is traveling in nautical miles per minute to determine how quickly you will arrive at a fix. To determine your speed in miles per minute, simply divide the speed in knots by 60 minutes per hour. Some commonly used speeds in jets are 200 knots (3.3 nautical miles per minute) and 250 knots (4.1 miles per minute). A piston single that flies at 120 knots is also traveling at two miles per minute.

The figure above can be used in the formula, distance = rate x time, to determine the time to a fix. Time would be equivalent to distance divided by rate so the piston airplane traveling at 120 knots would take 50 minutes to fly to a fix 100 miles away (100 miles / 2 miles per minute). A jet flying at 250 knots would cover the same ground in about 25 minutes. (To make the calculation even simpler, round 4.1 miles per minute to four. The answer using 4.1 is 24.39 minutes. Twenty-five is close enough for government – or pilot – work.)

Descent planning is a common math problem in airplanes. In modern airplanes, the flight computer (FMS) can be programmed to initiate a descent, but it never hurts to double-check the computer. The first step in the process is to determine how much altitude the airplane will need to lose. In my Lear 45, we commonly cruise at FL400 (40,000 feet). If we were planning to descend into a sea level airport such as our home base at Houston Hobby, we would need to lose 40,000 feet. For airports at higher elevations, (such as Aspen, Colorado, field elevation 7,820 feet), we would need to plan on losing about 32,000 feet (40,000 – 8,000). Airport elevations are recorded in heights above mean sea level (MSL) and can be found on charts or websites such as Globalair.com’s airport directory.

One you have determined how much altitude to lose, divide that number by 300 to determine how far out to begin a descent in order to maintain a typical three degree glide path. This means that the airplane would be descending about 300 feet per nautical mile. To descend into Aspen, we would want to start 106 miles from our destination (32,000/300). To make the calculation easier, you can drop the last two zeros from both numbers (320/3). The longer descent into Houston would require 133 miles.

Now that we know how far out to start the descent, we need to know what rate of descent will yield a three degree glide path. This number varies with groundspeed, which in turn is affected by the winds aloft. The simple way to determine a three degree rate of descent is to multiply the groundspeed (typically read directly from cockpit instruments) in knots by 5. For example, if the airplane has a groundspeed of 450 knots, the descent rate must be 2,250 feet per minute (FPM) to maintain a three degree glide path.

Because ILS (instrument landing system) approaches are also based on a three degree glide path, this rule of thumb can also be used to determine what rate of descent will keep the airplane on the ILS glideslope. If you plan to fly the approach at 100 knots, you should plan to descend at about 500 FPM.

Since official weather reports and ATIS broadcasts give temperatures in Celsius, another useful rule of thumb helps to convert Celsius temperatures to the more familiar Fahrenheit temperatures for briefing passengers. Start with the Celsius temperature from the ATIS, 34 degrees today in Midland, Texas where I am writing this, and double it (34 x 2 = 68). Next, subtract 10 percent of the result (68 – 7 = 61). The final step is to add 32 to the result of the second step (61 + 32 = 93 degrees Fahrenheit). With a little practice, this conversion can be done easily in your head.

When considering fuel performance, jet pilots generally think in terms of weight rather than gallons. This can be confusing because most airport fuel trucks pump fuel by the gallon. There is a rule of thumb to help pilots quickly determine how much fuel to order so that they don’t buy too much or – worse yet – not enough.

To start the planning, two pieces of information are needed: the fuel required for the trip and how much is already on board the airplane. A one hour flight in the Lear 45 can be expected to require approximately 1,700 pounds of jet fuel. (This number is obtained from aircraft performance data and flight planning sources available online). If the airplane already has 1,000 pounds on board, we need to buy at least 700 pounds of fuel to complete the flight.

 

Don’t stop there though. We don’t want to land with no fuel left in the tanks!

The FARs (federal aviation regulations) and company procedures specify that pilots must carry reserve fuel. A typical fuel reserve for the Lear 45 is 1,500 to 2,000 pounds. We should also plan for APU (auxiliary power unit) fuel usage of about 100 pounds. Therefore, the total fuel needed is 3,800 pounds (1,700 + 2,000 + 100). We would need to purchase 2,800 pounds since we already have 1,000 on board.

 

To convert jet fuel weight to gallons, divide by 6.7 pounds per gallon. This means that we would need to order 418 gallons from the fuel truck. A quick and dirty rule of thumb is that 150 gallons of jet fuel is approximately 1,000 pounds. This method can be used to check your math or for a quick estimate.

One last rule of thumb is that no rule of thumb that goes unused will be remembered. Practice using rules of thumbs to crosscheck the automation on every flight in order to keep yourself sharp.

Read the full article on Aviation Examiner

Malaysia 370 may have been hundreds of miles off course

Speculation about Malaysia 370, the Malaysian Airlines flight that has been missing since March 8, has reached a fever pitch. The disappearance of the jumbo jet has fueled the imagination of the world as people try to understand how a 775,000 pound airliner with 239 people could seemingly vanish into thin air. New information released on March 11 now indicates that the searchers may have been looking 350 miles from the actual crash site. As reported by Reuters, an anonymous Malaysian military official now says that military radars tracked the plane long after civilian air traffic control lost contact. When the plane’s transponder disappeared from civilian air traffic radar, the plane apparently turned west and descended several thousand feet below its cruise altitude.

When contact was lost about an hour into the flight, MH 370 was flying at 35,000 feet (10,668 meters) and nearing the southern coast of Vietnam. According to the Reuters report, the plane then turned west and lost 1,000 meters (3,280 feet in altitude). The flight then traveled west for about an hour, crossing the Malay Peninsula. Head of the Malay air force, Gen. Rodzali Daud, told the Malay newspaper Berita Harian, that the plane was last detected at 2:40 a.m., approximately two hours after takeoff, near the island of Pulau Perak, located at the northern end of the Strait of Malacca.

The new information may explain why four days of searching have not yielded any trace of the missing plane, but it prompts new questions as well. It appears that the airplane did not suffer an abrupt structural failure or catastrophic bomb attack that caused an immediate crash, but no one can be certain what caused the airplane to fly under control for hundreds of miles before it presumably plunged into the sea. A timeline of the flight in International Business Times reported that weather along the route was good so loss of control due to storms or lightning strikes can be ruled out.

There are several possible scenarios. One possibility is a rapid decompression combined with an electrical failure. If the airplane’s pressurization failed at 35,000 feet the time of useful consciousness for the pilots would have been about 30 seconds (possibly less since at least one of the pilots was a known smoker, which inhibits the ability of the blood to carry oxygen). Normally, this is plenty of time for a pilot to don his oxygen mask and initiate an emergency descent to the thicker air at lower altitudes.

This theory also does not explain the fact that the plane’s transponder stopped responding to radar queries. One possibility is that that some sort of catastrophic failure caused the pressurization problem as well as a total electrical failure. If trimmed properly, the plane could have flown for hundreds of miles until its fuel was exhausted or something disturbed its equilibrium. It is possible that a bomb that did not immediately destroy the airplane may have caused it to depressurize and lose electrical power.

There are additional problems with this scenario. The airplane had fuel to fly well beyond the two hours when it was last in radar contact. The plane was fueled for a flight to Beijing that would have landed at 6:30 a.m. (Beijing is in the same time zone as Kuala Lumpur). It is possible that the plane flew even further into the Indian Ocean before running out of fuel and crashing.

Further, airliners have more than one source of electricity. Multiple generators and batteries make an instantaneous electrical failure unlikely. Using battery power, the crew should have been able to at least report their situation to ATC. An electrical failure without some sort of crew incapacitation would require a series of serious pilot errors to wander 300 miles off course without any radio contact.

Another possibility is a hijacking, although this is unlikely due to the scrutiny given to the plane’s passengers since its disappearance. Two passengers from Iran were revealed to be traveling on stolen passports, but authorities report having found no links to terrorist groups with these men or the other passengers. Yahoo News Australia reported that several Chinese journalists had received an untraceable email from an encrypted service that claimed responsibility for the attack and referenced last week’s knife attack by Uyghur separatists in China that killed 29.

The Malaysia Airlines website notes that the 777-200 is equipped with satellite phones. In the event of a hijacking or other nonelectrical emergency, it is likely that passengers would have attempted to use these phones to contact authorities or their loved ones as many passengers did during the September 11 attacks. A hijacker in the cockpit might have been able to disable the phones by pulling the cabin circuit breaker, however. They would also likely have been unavailable in a catastrophic electrical failure.

There are problems with the hijacking scenario as well. The biggest is that the plane likely crashed into the sea. Terrorists would have probably chosen a high value target for maximum destruction or landed and presented demands to authorities. It would probably have taken more than the two identified Iranians to control the 239 passengers and crew on MH 370. Yahoo Australian News did report on March 10 that Malaysia’s transport ministry was looking at four suspect passengers.

Perhaps the most likely theory is that one of the pilots committed suicide, taking the rest of the passengers and crew with him. In this scenario, one of the pilots would have left the cockpit, perhaps for a trip to the lav, and the other pilot would have locked him out of the cockpit and disabled the satellite phones in the cabin. At that point, the flying pilot would have turned off the transponder and flown the airplane until either its fuel ran out or until he decided to deliberately crash.

There have been a number of pilots who committed suicide by crashing their airliners. Suicide is suspected in the November 2013 crash of a Mozambique Airlines Embraer 190 according to the International Business Times. The most famous case of pilot suicide was the 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990 enroute from New York to Cairo. Two more crashes in the 1990s, one in Indonesia and the other in Morocco, were also attributed to suicide. A Japan Air Lines DC-8 crashed in 1982 during the captain’s unsuccessful suicide attempt.

It may be days before the wreckage of Malaysia 370 is located. In 2009, it took five days to locate the remains of Air France 447. Even without full radar coverage, the South China Morning Post reported that Rolls Royce, the manufacturer of the plane’s engines, tracks all its engines from its control center in England. It is believed that Boeing has a similar capability for tracking its airplanes.

With Air France 447, it took years to retrieve the flight data recorder and determine the cause of the accident, the answer was finally found. In the case of MH 370, due to the long elapsed time between the loss of contact and the ultimate crash, many of the answers may never be found. Engine parameters will be recorded by the flight data recorder, but cockpit voice recorders are only required to record 30 minutes. They typically delete earlier recordings as they record in a loop. This may mean that the crew’s reaction to whatever happened near the coast of Vietnam is forever lost.

Read the full article on National Aviation Examiner

My first trip to the world's busiest airport... in a small propeller plane

In June 1995, I was a flight instructor at the Ben Epps Airport (KAHN) in Athens, Ga. I had just graduated from the University of Georgia and was about to leave my part-time job flight instructing for a job in the claims department of the now defunct Fortune Insurance Company in Jacksonville, Fla.

Even though airline hiring was going on at the time, I hadn’t really thought about an airline career. The mid-1990s were at the height of the pay-for-training years in which airlines would hire pilots as long as the pilots agreed to pay for their own initial simulator training. This could cost tens of thousands of dollars and, with several student loans already, I didn’t want to add to my debt load.

As I got ready to depart Athens for a new insurance career, Ken, one of my star students, was trying to meet the requirements for a commercial license. Ken was professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Georgia and had been bitten by the flying bug. He had already earned his private license, his instrument rating, and now had his sights set on becoming a commercial pilot.

About this time, one of the flying magazines ran an article about a general aviation pilot who had been flying around Atlanta at night and, on a lark, asked the approach controller for touch and go landings at Hartsfield International (KATL). To most people, Hartsfield is THE Atlanta airport. It is the hub and headquarters of Delta Air Lines and, until its merger with Southwest is complete, Airtran. According to CNN, ATL is the busiest passenger airport in the world with more than 95 million passengers passing through its terminals in 2012. The airport’s website reports that there are almost 2,500 departures and arrivals each day.

Ken read the article about the touch and goes at the world’s busiest airport and hatched an idea. He wanted to make a cross-country trip from Athens to Hartsfield. Even though he was a licensed pilot, Ken did not feel comfortable making the trip by himself so he asked me to join him. Flying the trip under instrument flight rules would make it easier to get in and out of Hartsfield, we hoped. Pilots must have a clearance to enter the busy Class B airspace around Atlanta and it comes automatically when you fly IFR. As an added bonus, Ken could log the trip as a cross-country flight to meet commercial pilot license requirements.

On the day of the trip, June 26, 1995, we rented a Piper Warrior from Sonny’s Air Service, the small flight school at the Athens airport where I worked. The low-wing single-engine airplane seated four and was the fastest rental plane in Sonny’s fleet. Ken flew while I sat in the right seat, my usual perch while instructing. We also brought along Brooks, one of my friends who wasn’t a pilot but who loved airplanes and flying.

After almost 20 years the details of the trip are a little hazy in my memory. I remember the controller (who probably wasn’t very pleased to have us disrupting the flow of his traffic) making us do 360 degree turns while we waited for a gap in the never-ending line of airline jets approaching for landing. We finally found a gap between Delta and ValueJet, the forerunner of AirTran, and made our landing on runway 9 right, up to that point in my flying career, was the largest piece of pavement I had ever seen.  We made the approach and landing at about 120 knots, about as fast as a Warrior can fly and about as slow as an airliner can fly.

I remember taxiing to the FBO (fixed base operator), the terminal for private airplanes on the north side of Hartsfield. Ken paid the landing fee which was about $25 for our Warrior as I recall. We explored the FBO and filled our tanks with free cookies in the pilot lounge.

When we got ready to leave, we started the engine and got our clearance. The ground controller, rather than having us taxi to the end of the nearest runway, directed us to a runway intersection directly in front of the FBO on taxiway “Dixie.” (Normally taxiways are named for letters of the phonetic alphabet. In Atlanta, where Delta Air Lines is based, taxiway “Delta” is renamed taxiway “Dixie” to avoid confusion.) I had always been taught to never accept an intersection takeoff and had given my students the same advice. In this case, however, the runway in front of us was 9,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. The Piper could almost take off going across it. A glance at the airport chart showed that we had approximately 5,000 feet remaining from the intersection, nearly a mile and about as long as the runway at Athens. Judging that to be a sufficient distance, we accepted the takeoff clearance and were soon on our way.

The trip back to Athens was uneventful. We returned home, our exploratory mission successful, and now had the bragging rights that came from flying into Hartsfield and mixing with the kerosene burners who props were invisible inside their jet engine nacelles. The entire round trip had taken just under two hours.

Soon after that trip, I left Athens to start work at an insurance company. Office work didn’t take, however. I never quit flying and a few years later I went back to full-time instructing, this time in Florida at the FlightSafety Academy. A few years after that, I returned to Hartsfield, this time as the First Officer of a Delta Connection Canadair Regional Jet. Since then I have returned there flying corporate jets back to the same FBO (although it is now under new management). My current job has taken me back to Hartsfield as a simulator instructor.

Ken’s love of flying eventually led him to become a Certified Flight Instructor in addition to his teaching duties at the University. While Brooks never became a pilot, he fulfilled his love of aviation through building and flying remote control airplanes.

Originally published on Aviation Examiner

How to land at the wrong airport

Twice in recent memory a large jet airliner has landed at the wrong airport. The Kansas City Star reported on January 14 that a Southwest Airlines 747 landed at the M. Graham Clark Taney County airport in Hollister, Mo. instead of the larger airport in Branson. Several months earlier, in November 2013, a Boeing 747 freighter operated by the Boeing Company itself, accidentally landed at Wichita’s Col. James Jabara airport instead of McConnell Air Force Base.

The Dallas News reports that the Southwest jet landed at Hollister at 3:40 p.m. Archived weather reports on jesseweather.com show that the weather was partly cloudy with the clouds at about 5,000 feet. Similarly, in the case of the Boeing in Wichita, the preliminary NTSB report notes that “visual meteorological conditions prevailed,” meaning that cloud ceilings were at least 1,000 feet and visibility was at least three miles. The 747 landed at 9:20 p.m.

The two recent episodes were not the first airliners to land at the wrong field. In one famous incident in 1967, a TWA pilot mistakenly landed his Boeing 707 at the Ohio State University airport instead of the intended Port Columbus. The story is recounted in the Columbus Dispatch.

Paradoxically, it can be easier to locate an airport when the weather is bad than when it is good. In cloudy weather, instrument approaches lead the airplane directly to the landing runway with great precision. When the weather is good, air traffic control vectors the pilot toward the airport, but often the aircraft is cleared for a visual approach. According to the Pilot Controller Glossary, to accept a visual approach, the pilot must have “either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight.”

In many cases, landing at the wrong airport is a case of mistaken identity. The pilot sees an airport and misidentifies it as his destination. This can be easy to do because urban areas often have many airports. Since runways are usually aligned with the prevailing winds, many airports in the same area can have a similar configuration.

In Missouri, GlobalAir.com’s airport database shows that Clark airport (KPLK) has runways numbered 12 and 30, consistent with the magnetic courses of 120 and 300 degrees. Branson (KBBG) is similarly configured with runways 14 and 32. A telltale difference is that Branson’s runway is 7,140 feet long where Clark is only 3,738 feet. McConnell AFB (KIAB) has paired runways that are numbered 1 and 19 left and right. These runways are each 12,000 feet long. The smaller Jabara airport (KAAO) has a 6,101 foot runway numbered 18 and 36.

The airport pairs are also close together. Jabara is eight miles from McConnell. Clark is only six miles from Branson.

It is likely that the pilots were cleared for a visual approach and simply mistook the smaller airports for their larger neighbors due to the similar runway configurations and proximity.

The problem could have been exacerbated for the Boeing 747 pilots because their approach took place at night. There are numerous potential pitfalls with night landings, including the difficulty in picking urban airport lights out from the surrounding city lights. Often brighter city lights can make airports nearly impossible to spot. In addition, night landings are subject to a number of visual illusions that could have made it difficult for the crew to detect the short length of the Jabara airport.

To avoid making this sort of mistake, pilots should verify the runway before they land. This can be done by using the same instrument systems that help the airplane find the runway in bad weather. A good procedure is to tune in the instrument landing system (ILS) frequency for the runway that is being used. If the needles don’t center on short final, the airplane is not approaching the right runway.

For runways without an ILS, most modern jets are equipped with GPS. Over the past few years, many smaller airports have added RNAV/GPS approaches. These can also be used as a backup. If the runway does not have a GPS approach, the pilot can still select the runway waypoint and create his own visual approach with a user waypoint about three miles in front of the landing runway.

Landing at the wrong airport is not a common mistake, but it is a serious one. The pilots in question may lose their licenses and find their careers at a premature end. Using navigation systems as a backup on a visual approach can prevent an embarrassing and potentially career-ending error.

Originally published on Aviation Examiner

TSA Pre-check eases burden on frequent fliers

 

Just in time for the holiday travel season, the Transportation Security Administration has rolled out new security measures that are less intrusive and faster for travelers. The program is called “Pre-check” and I had the chance to try it first hand on an airline trip from Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (airport details on GlobalAir.com). The program expanded to several new airports on Dec. 16.

To participate in the Pre-check program, travelers must be U.S. citizens and members of frequent flyer programs who meet certain TSA criteria, the Pre-check application program, or the Trusted Traveler program. Members of the U.S. military also qualify for Pre-check. U.S. citizens who do not fall into one of these categories can apply for Pre-check status on the TSA website. If you are a member of a frequent flyer program, you may already be approved for Pre-check.

Pre-check is not available at all airports. A list of approved airports and airlines is also available on the TSA website. The list includes hours of operation for Pre-check lanes, but times are subject to change.

Once approved, taking part in the Pre-check is easy. Boarding passes will be printed with the “TSA Pre✓™ ” logo. When the traveler goes to the TSA security checkpoint, a TSA officer will direct them to the Pre-check lane if your trip is eligible. This lane will allow travelers to go through security screening without removing their shoes, belts or lightweight jackets, which greatly speeds the process of clearing security. Laptops and 3-1-1 compliant liquids may be kept in their bags and children under 12 can accompany their adult travel companions.

On my trip, I arrived at the checkpoint after a brief wait and was referred to the Pre-check line by the TSA officer who pre-screened my boarding pass and identification. I carried my roller bag to the Pre-check line which was shorter and moved quicker than the traditional screening lines.

At the head of the line, another TSA officer verified the Pre-check logo on my boarding pass and crosschecked it with my ID again. As we moved toward the checkpoint, TSA officers reminded us that we did not have to remove our shoes, belts or lightweight jackets. On this cold day in Atlanta, most travelers had heavy overcoats that did have to go through the x-ray machines with our bags, however. They did not offer reminders that laptops or 3-1-1 bags did not have to be removed.

My travel documents were examined a third time as I approached the screening area. The screening process was also made quicker by the fact that the Pre-check travelers were screened by a traditional metal detector rather than one of the controversial body scanners. A scanner was present at the checkpoint so presumably it could be used if conditions warranted. Travelers who set off the metal detector were still singled out for a pat-down by TSA officers, but this seemed to happen infrequently.

The TSA Pre-check program is definitely something that the TSA got right. The agency has taken much criticism in recent years for excesses such as pat-downs of children and the elderly who posed no threat. Many videos of TSA pat-downs went viral and outraged the public. The Pre-check program is an attempt to restore sanity and convenience to the traveling public.

Although TSA Pre-check is not available on a national basis, it does hold promise. For frequent flyers, the program should take some of the stress and frustration out of going to the airport. For less frequent travelers, relief will hopefully come soon.

 

Originally published on Aviation Examiner

Pilots face increased risk of skin cancer

“I’m referring you to a dermatologist,” the doctor said. “It’s probably nothing, but I don’t like the looks of this mole on your back.”

My employer’s insurance company was requiring employees to get preventive physicals. After the revelation of my mother’s sudden diagnosis with colon cancer a few months earlier, the idea of a physical to get a clean bill of health actually sounded like a good idea. With no health complaints, I didn’t expect any problems to arise. After all, I was seeing an AME twice a year for my first class physical and if there were any serious problems, he would have found them. Right?

I didn’t hurry to the dermatologist. I had a few moles, but didn’t really worry. They weren’t irregular and they didn’t get larger. A couple of months later, I found time to make the appointment.

When the doctor looked at the mole on my back, a mole that my AME had seen at least 12 times, he promptly announced, “We’re going to take that off right now.” He said that the small, black mole could be an early stage of melanoma. Literally before I knew that he had removed it, the mole was gone and I was going home to wait on a biopsy.

As I waited, I learned that there is a strong link between pilots and skin cancer. In 2000, Yahoo News reported on an Occupational and Environmental Medicine study that found that airline pilots have up to 25 times the normal rate of skin cancer. The most common type of cancer among pilots was malignant melanoma. Melanoma represents about ten percent of skin cancers, but accounts for 75-85 percent of skin cancer deaths. The scientists at the University of Reykjavik in Iceland who authored the study found that Iceland Air pilots flying international routes had skin cancer rates 15 times higher than expected. For pilots who typically flew across more than five time zones, such as flying from Iceland to the United States, the rate was 25 times higher than expected.

There have been a number of similar studies, the most recent published in 2009 in Occupational Medicine surveyed members of the Air Line Pilots Association in the United States. Many of these other studies also show an elevated skin cancer risk for pilots, but not as high as the University of Reykjavik study.

It seems to be common sense that pilots would be at an increased risk for skin cancer. Pilots spend a lot of their working lives in the sun. Airports are almost devoid of shade and the sun can beat down mercilessly on a pilot performing a preflight inspection. When pilots are flying, they are above much of the atmosphere that protects surface dwellers from harmful solar rays. Few, if any, airline pilots slather on sunscreen before climbing into the cockpit.

As with the general population, there are other factors that lead to an increased risk of skin cancer. These risks apply to pilots as well. The Skin Cancer Foundation lists five factors that increase the risk of melanoma. First, both blistering sunburns as a child and cumulative exposure to the sun can increase risk. The more moles a person has, the greater the risk of melanoma. Dysplastic nevi, atypical moles, can be precursors to skin cancer. People with fair skin are more prone to skin cancer. A personal or family history of skin cancer also means an increased risk for future cancers. People with weakened immune systems, from chemotherapy or HIV/AIDS for example, also have an increased risk. As with other types of cancer and heart disease, smoking also dramatically increases the risk of skin cancer.

Among pilots, flying at higher altitudes and the higher latitudes near the poles presents the greatest risk. According to the Health Physics Society, the amount of cosmic radiation at the poles can be two to three times greater than the radiation at the equator. This is because the Earth’s electromagnetic field helps to block this radiation. The field is strongest at the equator and gets progressively weaker towards the poles. Science Daily notes that the radiation is on par with an x-ray or CT scan, but frequent exposure by flight crews that fly hundreds of hours each year can lead to increased effects. Solar storms, like the one that diverted flights in 2012, also mean increased dosages of radiation. The ionizing radiation of solar flares cannot be avoided by flying at night or wearing sunscreen.

Robert Barish, a physicist and author of “The Invisible Passenger: Radiation Risks for People Who Fly,” told Science Daily that professional flight crewmembers are exposed to more radiation than any other occupation, even nuclear plant workers. “People who work in the nuclear power industry on an average basis are getting 1.6” [milliSieverts of radiation per year], he said. “There are people who fly in airplanes who are getting 2 or 3 or 4 milliSieverts per year. So they are truly radiation workers.”

The fact that the University of Reykjavik study examined Iceland Air pilots who customarily fly in far northern latitudes may explain the extremely high incidence of cancer among these pilots. Flying at high altitudes near the North Pole for the long time periods associated with oceanic flights, Iceland Air pilots would be subject to all of the highest risk factors associated with skin cancer.

Other factors might be at work as well. Several of the studies indicate that some of the increased risk for pilots may be due in part to disturbed sleep patterns. “The excess of malignant melanoma among those flying over five time zones suggests that the importance of disturbance of the circadian rhythm should be taken into consideration in future studies,'' Dr Vilhjalmur Rafnsson said on Yahoo News. Rafnsson speculated that the disturbance of circadian rhythms could affect the production of melatonin by the body.

The American Cancer Society notes that recent studies have shown that low melatonin is linked to higher risks of some cancers, but that some studies have shown that melatonin supplements were beneficial to cancer patients while others show that it made no difference. Melatonin is available over the counter as a natural sleep aid. According to the FAA website, melatonin “appears to be beneficial in alleviating jet lag” and its use “is not proscribed” but “care should be taken to avoid entering duty status with any residual effects.”

Pilots are not the only people at risk from high altitude radiation. Flight attendants and frequent flyers share the same risk factors. Travelers who fly more than once or twice per week are at the greatest risk according to Science Daily. Occasional airline passengers or general aviation pilots who typically fly at altitudes of less than 6,000 feet do not have an elevated risk.

The risk of radiation is not limited to skin cancer. As far back as 1992, the FAA published a report, “Radiation Exposure of Air Carrier Crewmembers,” that addressed the possibility of genetic defects to a child whose parent had been exposed to high altitude ionizing radiation. The unborn child of a pregnant woman who is part of a flight crew is at the greatest risk of severe health problems ranging from mental retardation to childhood cancers. Women are also at high risk for breast cancer according to WebMD.

To minimize their risk of skin cancer or other radiation-induced problems, pilots should follow the prevention guidelines of the Skin Cancer Foundation. Avoid sunburns by wearing hats and sunglasses and seeking the shade, especially between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. (Indoor tanning booths are also bad.) Use sunscreen with an SPF of 15 for everyday use. For extended outdoor activity, SPF of 30 or higher should be used. Sunscreen should be applied 30 minutes before going outside and reapplied every two hours (or immediately after swimming or sweating). Self inspections of your skin on a monthly basis and yearly medical checkup are also recommended.

Pilots can also avoid taking heavy doses of solar radiation by flying at lower altitudes or taking more southerly routes (in the northern hemisphere) to remain at lower latitudes. An FAA report, “What Aircrews Should Know About Their Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation,” sets a recommended maximum level of radiation and gives estimated dosages for a number of typical flights.

My dermatologist also recommended Heliocare, an oral over-the-counter sun protection supplement available on BetterSkinByMail.com. Used with sunscreen, Heliocare helps to prevent sunburns and repairs previous sun damage to skin.

In the end, my skin story has a happy ending. The biopsy revealed that the mole was not a melanoma, but an atypical mole. Nevertheless, I will have several smaller moles removed as well and will incorporate routine visits to the dermatologist into my health care routine.

 

Originally published on Aviation Examiner

Canada to the rescue at Salute America Air Show

As the 2013 air show season draws to a close, it was set to go out with a bang at the Salute America Air Show near Atlanta. The show, held on Oct. 5-6 at the Paulding Northwest Atlanta airport in Dallas, Ga. (airport details can be found on GlobalAir.com) featured a variety of aviation acts. Saturday night’s show included rare twilight aerobatic acts.

Many 2013 air shows were canceled due to the sequester budget cuts enacted earlier this year. The military jets and helicopters often featured at local air shows were in short supply due to the cuts in the defense budget. For the first half of the summer, the Air Force Thunderbirds and the Navy Blue Angels were grounded, prompting the cancellation of many air shows. The Thunderbirds resumed flying in July when the Air Force found money to fund the unit. At Wisconsin’s Oshkosh air show, the FAA charged the Experimental Aircraft Association to operate a temporary control tower at the field.

It is ironic then that the only active duty military aircraft featured at the Salute America Air Show were a pair of Canadian Air Force CF-18 Hornets. A star attraction was the Royal Canadian Air Force Hornet Demonstration Team which performed daylight and twilight routines. A second CF-18 was on hand as a static display.

Although no U.S. military aircraft were present at the Salute America Air Show, the pilot of the Canadian CF-18 unfurled an American flag from his cockpit in a show of friendship as he taxied in from his first performance on Saturday. In a return salute, a Lucas Oil skydiver in an American flag parachute streamed a Canadian Maple Leaf flag from his back later in the day.

Aficionados of World War II aircraft thrilled to a North American P-51 Mustang and Chance Vought F4U Corsair. Both warbirds performed separately and then joined for a formation flight in front of the crowd. The P-51, flown by Stan Musak, is a veteran of both WWII and Korea. Although Corsairs are also famous for their service in WWII, this particular airplane was built in 1945 and served primarily in Korea. The Corsair was flown by Jim Tobul.

The Aeroshell Aerobatic Team also performed in both the daylight and twilight shows. The team, sponsored by Aeroshell, a division of the Shell oil company that produces aviation lubricants and fuels, flies vintage North American T-6 Texans that were used to train military pilots in WWII. The four airplanes wowed the crowd with their coordinated formation aerobatics.

A second aerobatic team to perform was Team Aerostar. The team uses Yakovlev Yak-52s, Soviet-era Russian military trainers. After watching the three Russian airplanes perform, airshow fans could go to the vendor area to get a firsthand look at what it is like to fly formation aerobatics at the AOPA/Redbird Simulator trailer.

There were several solo performers as well. Lucas Oil sponsored Mike Wiskus and his Pitts biplane as well as a team of skydivers. “Skipper” Hyle performed in another AT-6 Harvard, the British version of the Texan trainer. Chuck Coleman flew an Extra 300L and Gary Rower demonstrated another WWII trainer, the Super Stearman biplane. Gary Ward performed in the ultramodern, carbon fiber MX-2.

Another popular performer was Bill Braack in the Smoke-n-Thunder jet car. The car is powered by a Westinghouse J34-48 jet engine that was originally used to power a North American T-2 Buckeye trainer jet used by the U.S. Navy. The 26 foot long car can be driven to almost 400 miles per hour by the engine’s 6,000 pounds of thrust.

During the day show, Braack in the jet car raced Mike Wiskus in the Lucas Oil Pitts. In the evening show, Braack thrilled the crowd with bursts of afterburner in a nighttime speed run down the runway.

The final act of the show was aerobatic pilot and musician Elgin Wells flying his one-of-kind Starjammer. The Starjammer is an aerobatic airplane that is equipped with lights and speakers for a unique after-dark performance that must be seen to be appreciated. A fireworks display followed Saturday’s show.

There were also many static displays for airshow patrons to enjoy. In addition to the Canadian Air Force CF-18, there were two vintage DC-3s. One was in the livery of a classic airliner while the other was a restored U.S. Air Force AC-47 gunship owned by the American Flight Museum. Phoenix Air, a local Georgia company that contracts with the military, also had one of its Learjets on display. Civil Air Patrol recruiters were on hand and a variety of general aviation aircraft that included a Pilatus PC-12, a classic Stinson 108, and Hughes 600N helicopter.

In a normal year, airshows are one of the largest spectator sports in the United States with tens of millions in attendance. Airshow fans can only hope that by next year, the federal budget crisis will have been averted and the 2014 season will see a return of the U.S. military demonstration teams and aircraft that are so popular.

If you would like to see more pictures as well as videos from both the day and night performances at the Salute America Air Show, please visit and like the Aviation Examiner Facebook page.

 

Originally published on Aviation Examiner