A Flight Not Taken

Most pilots can’t resist reading reports of accidents and near-accidents. Features like “I Learned About Flying From That” and “Never Again” in Flying Magazine and AOPA Pilot are, as AOPA puts it, “one of the most widely read sections in the magazine…presented to allow pilots to learn from the experiences of others.”

Sometimes, however, stories about flights not taken are just as valuable, if less dramatic. A case in point: a Pilots N Paws mission that I’d planned to undertake today.

The plan (still) is to fly from Boeing Field (KBFI) in Seattle to pick up a dog in Roseburg, OR (KRBG) and deliver it to a shelter near Bremerton, WA (KPWT). The typical route for the 280 nm trip south (view it at SkyVector.com here) is one I’ve flown countless times in a variety of aircraft. It’s not an especially challenging cross-country trip, especially in my A36 Bonanza, but winter weather in the Pacific Northwest is, to be charitable, changeable and fickle.

I watched the forecasts for several days, paying close attention to the forecast discussions from the National Weather Services offices in Seattle and Medford to get a sense of the overall trends. This time of year, I also keep an eye on the icing predictions and reports at the Aviation Digital Data Service website. The forecasts suggested high pressure and good VFR weather. No AIRMETs for icing marred the picture, and all of the airports I planned to use were forecast to remain in basic VMC all day. Some clouds were expected en route, so I filed IFR flight plans for the trips down and back.

When I updated my official weather briefing early in the morning, the big picture hadn’t changed. Reports showed a few more clouds than expected the night before, but the forecasts still looked good, and there were no warnings about ice. I collected my flying gear, loaded the car, checked in with the folks at both ends of the flight, and got ready for the drive to the airport.

Then my spidy-sense nagged me to check the weather again. I returned to ADDS, and the Supplementary Icing Information page confirmed my concern. It showed a high probability of significant ice, including the dreaded supercooled large droplet (SLD) variety, along the route, especially around and south of Portland. PIREPS from early-morning flights confirmed ice encounters at the altitudes I had planned to fly.

My airplane is not, as pilots say, FIKI-approved. That is, I can’t legally “fly in known icing” conditions. Forecasts of ice are notoriously inaccurate, but pilot reports of in-flight icing are definitive.

I canceled my flight plans, informed my Pilots N Paws contacts that the mission was off–again–and settled in at my desk to polish my presentations for this weekend’s Northwest Aviation Conference and Trade Show.

Later, when the mail arrived, I experienced one of those coincidences that people often attribute to some sort of cosmic “woo.” The day’s haul included the March 2012 issue of AOPA Pilot magazine. After looking at the pictures (yes, I do look at the pictures), I turned to my favorite running feature, “License to Learn,” by my friend Rod Machado. That installment is titled “Decide to decide again.” Rod describes how his intuition sometimes gives him pause, and he chooses not to begin (or continue) a flight–sometimes even after starting the airplane’s engine and when doing so means staying in less-than-five-star hotels.

Could I have made the flight uneventfully? Probably. But the mostly sunny skies promised in the forecasts never materialized. In the end, I’m glad to have taken a few minutes to write this blog post rather than a feature for “Never Again.” It’s not a great story to tell over a beer. Stories need conflict, tension, and a dramatic arc. “There I was” isn’t as compelling as “here I stayed.” But today I didn’t need to learn another lesson the hard way.

Interview about “Scenario-Based Training” on FlightTime Radio

I recently did an interview about my new book, Scenario-Based Training with X-Plane and Microsoft Flight Simulator, on FlightTime Radio. You can download the mp3 audio podcast of the interview here.

New Definitions for Icing PIREPs

The February 9, 2012 edition of the AIM includes an update to section 7-1-21: PIREPS Relating to Airframe Icing. According to the FAA:

This change addresses the change to the icing intensity definitions, quantifiable icing rates, and an updated replacement for current terminology. It would also help satisfy NTSB Safety recommendations A­96­51 and ­060.

The updated definitions are:

1. Light. The rate of ice accumulation requires occasional cycling of manual deicing systems** to minimize ice accumulations on the airframe. A representative accumulation rate for reference purposes is 1/4 inch to one inch (0.6 to 2.5 cm) per hour (See TBL 7-1-7)  on the unprotected part of the outer wing. The pilot should consider exiting the condition.

2. Moderate. The rate of ice accumulation requires frequent cycling of manual deicing systems** to minimize ice accumulations on the airframe. A representative accumulation rate for reference purposes is 1 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.5 cm) per hour (See TBL 7-1-7)  on the unprotected part of the outer wing. The pilot should consider exiting the condition as soon as possible.

3. Heavy.  The rate of ice accumulation requires maximum use of the ice protection systems to minimize ice accumulations on the airframe. A representative accumulation rate for reference purposes is more than 3 inches (7.5 cm) per hour (See TBL 7-1-7)  on the unprotected part of the outer wing. Immediate exit from the conditions should be considered.

4.  Severe. The rate of ice accumulation is such that ice protection systems fail to remove the accumulation of ice and ice accumulates in locations not normally prone to icing, such as areas aft of protected surfaces and any other areas identified by the manufacturer. Immediate exit from the condition is necessary.

Database Currency for IFR Operations

Most instrument-rated pilots now fly with GPS-based navigation equipment (according to AOPA, 78 percent of its members rely on GPS as their primary navigation tool). To use an IFR-approved GPS when operating IFR, the unit’s database must be current or you must verify the accuracy of the data (for more details, see note 4 in AIM 1-2-3: Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Procedures and Routes). Keeping a typical GPS unit up-to-date usually involves downloading fresh data to a card every 28 days.

Of course, the dates of those updates don’t always fall conveniently between trips, and FAA has outlined procedures to help pilots ensure that the data in GPS avionics matches the vital information on current charts, especially instrument approach plates.

Regarding instrument approaches, the key information for matching the database to the chart is the procedure amendment reference date, not necessarily the date printed at the top of the chart. On charts published by the FAA, the procedure amendment reference date appears in the lower-left corner, next to the amendment number.

The best description of the procedure amendment reference date and how to use it is in Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin JEP 09-C (PDF)–even if you use charts published by FAA AeroNav Products. The Jeppesen briefing bulletin includes a simple flow chart that helps you use the procedure reference date.

More About X-Plane Situations and “Scenario-Based Training”

To allay confusion about the “situation” with the Situations that I created to complement the scenarios in my latest book, Scenario-Based Training with X-Plane and Microsoft Flight Simulator, here’s a little more information. As I explained earlier, the developer of X-Plane frequently updates the code, and each time he does, the format of the .sit files changes, and you may not be able to load the provided Situation.

It’s not practical for me to recreate the Situations every time Austin updates X-Plane and to try to maintain an archive of the files for every version that folks may be using at any time. If he stabilizes the .sit format in future, I’ll create new Situations.

But the Situations I provided are just a convenience. You can use any recent version of X-Plane with the scenarios described in each lesson. In fact, you could use the scenarios/lessons effectively with any simulation (FTD, PC-based, etc.), provided that simulation has the required scenery, navaids, etc. Instructors can also use the scenarios and templates for lesson plans, as part of ground-school classes, flight planning exercises, challenges for practicing aeronautical decision making, and so forth.

I focused on X-Plane and FSX because they’re the most popular, cost-effective PC-based simulations that are widely available. I documented the core features of those simulations (again, not especially dependent on a specific version) that help instructors, students, and pilots use them effectively to complement formal training or just have more fun with the hobby of virtual aviation.

Again, the core of the book, the FITS-based scenarios, can be used with many simulations. If you use X-Plane, you just need to use the information provided for each lesson/scenario to place your aircraft at the starting location, adjust the weather, and then start “flying.”

For more information about the book, visit its pages at my Website and at Facebook.

More Details Emerge about Microsoft Flight

Microsoft Flight, the successor to Microsoft Flight Simulator, is in beta. Now more details about the new game (Microsoft dropped simulator from the title) are emerging. You can find a summary from one person who attended the unveiling at Microsoft here.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, the game will be offered as a free download. That initial release includes only a couple of aircraft and the scenery and activities are limited to Hawaii. Users eventually will be able to download additional scenery, aircraft, and activities from Microsoft, with each module coming at a price, as yet unannounced.

According to the account above, however, Microsoft will not publish information about how to create add-ons for Microsoft Flight, and, apparently, it will not allow others to host or distribute additional content for the game. Everything will come from Microsoft.

That latter point is telling, and it ends a decades-long practice that led to a worldwide community of developers and enthusiasts who created add-on aircraft, scenery, and features for the Flight Simulator franchise.

Aviation Movies

The arrival of Red Tails in theaters (and to the disappointment of most reviewers, pilots and non-aviators alike) suggests that it might be time to revive a discussion of favorite aviation movies.

This list, at Air & Space Smithsonian, is an excellent place to start, but it was published in 2006 and is therefore missing the latest flicks and some (corny) classics (e.g., Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines) and many serials that included aerial adventures. On the other hand, I can’t think of many recent films that deserve honorable mention, especially given the trend toward CGI, which although capable of stunning visuals, has yet to reproduce realistic flying scenes.

(You can see a list of movies [some 600] with an “aviation” theme at IMdb.)

Two Battle of Britain films and mini-series deserve mention:

• Dark Blue World
• A Piece of Cake

Of course, there’s a host of campy aviation-themed movies that support a variety of drinking games, including:

• Airport (and its increasingly ludicrous sequels, ending with Concorde…Airport ’79)
• Airplane! and its inspiration, Zero Hour

And classic dramas in which airplanes and aviation are important supporting characters, for example:

• No Highway in the Sky
• Breaking the Sound Barrier

Other movies that feature aircraft in supporting roles:

• Operation Crossbow
• The Aviator
• Amelia

In addition, some TV series focused on aviation or included episodes in which aircraft had prominent roles:

• Whirlybirds
• Sky King
• Columbo: Ransom for a Dead Man 
• Columbo: Swan Song
• Lost

I’m sure the collective wisdom of the web can name scores of other examples. Feel free to contribute via comments.

Changes in February 9 2012 Edition of the AIM

The FAA has released the basic version of the February 9 2012 edition of the Aeronautical Information Manual. (You can download the PDF version of the new edition here; the web version presumably will appear on the official publication date.)

According to the Explanation of Changes in the new edition, the key revisions include:

c. 4−1−20. Transponder Operation

This change explains that transponders should be turned on prior to moving on the airport surface – as opposed to “as soon as possible.”

d. 4−3−23. Use of Aircraft Lights

This change aligns the AIM guidance on the use of aircraft lights with AC 120-74A.

e. 4−4−3. Clearance Items

This change adds language to inform pilots of what to expect from controllers concerning clearance limits and associated phraseology.

h. 5−5−16. RNAV and RNP Operations

This change provides guidance for the definition of “established” for RNAV and RNP operations. [For a more detailed discussion of this update, see this post here at BruceAir.]

k. 7−1−21. PIREPS Relating to Airframe Icing

This change addresses the change to the icing intensity definitions, quantifiable icing rates, and an updated replacement for current terminology. It would also help satisfy NTSB Safety recommendations A-96-51 and -060.*

*(A-96-51)

Recommendation:
TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Revise the existing aircraft icing intensity reporting criteria (as defined in the Aeronautical Info Manual (AIM) and other FAA literature) by including nomenclature that is related to specific types of aircraft, and that is in logical agreement with existing Federal Aviation Regulation (FARs).

Flight Models and FAA Approval of Training Devices

Many pilots and flight instructors obsess about the fidelity of the “flight models” (the more formal term is “flight dynamics”) of PC-based simulations and flight training devices (FTDs). They equate detailed, accurate flight dynamics for specific aircraft with FAA approval, but the FAA actually imposes few specific requirements on the flight modeling for ATDs and BATDs [see AC 61-136 - FAA Approval of Basic Aviation Training Devices (BATD) and Advanced Aviation Training Devices (AATD)].

ATDs and BATDs often use Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane as the core of the software component of the training device. [The requirements for more sophisticated FTDs (which are approved at several levels) are spelled out in detail in Appendix B to Part 60—Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Flight Training Devices of the FARs.]

For example, Appendix 2 of AC 61-136 includes detailed requirements about the controls and displays required for FAA approval, but about flight dynamics it (in paragraph e) says only:

(1) Flight dynamics of the ATD should be comparable to the way the represented training aircraft performs and handles. However, there is no requirement for an ATD to have control loading to exactly replicate any particular aircraft. . .

(2) Aircraft performance parameters (such as maximum speed, cruise speed, stall speed, maximum climb rate, hovering/sideward/forward/rearward flight) should be comparable to the aircraft or family of aircraft being represented.

(3) Aircraft vertical lift component must change as a function of bank, comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft being represented performs and handles.

(4) Changes in flap setting, slat setting, gear position, collective control or cyclic control must be accompanied by changes in flight dynamics, comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft represented performs and handles.

(5) The presence and intensity of wind and turbulence must be reflected in the handling and performance qualities of the simulated aircraft and should be comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft represented performs and handles.

Note the language about “the aircraft or family of aircraft.” As long as the simulated airplane reacts to control inputs as a typical airplane of that category and class does, the FAA is satisfied. There’s no requirement that a BATD or ATD model a specific aircraft or even use a detailed aerodynamic model.

In fact, with regard to FTDs and all ATDs and BATDs, the FAA is most concerned with the controls, instruments, and switches in the cockpit and the visual displays than it is with the handling qualities of the simulation–provided the virtual aircraft, in general, behaves, for example, like a generic single-engine or multiengine airplane.

Now, this isn’t to suggest that flight dynamics aren’t important, or that flight simulations shouldn’t strive for high fidelity. But implicit in the FAA approval standards is the idea that FTDs, ATDs, and BATDs can play many roles in aviation training without having to replicate a specific make, model, or type of aircraft.

That’s a central theme of my two books about using PC-based simulations in flight training, Scenario-Based Training with X-Plane and Microsoft Flight Simulator: Using PC-Based Flight Simulations based on FAA and Industry Training Standards (published January 2012) and Microsoft Flight Simulator as a Training Aid (published in January 2007).

If you’re considering using a simulation to complement your training, focus on what PC-based simulations, including BATD and ATD, do best–help you learn and master important skills and procedures–how to think like a pilot. Don’t dismiss a simulation just because it doesn’t exactly reproduce the aircraft you fly.

Updated Definition of “Established” On Course

The next edition of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), scheduled for February 2012*, will include an expanded definition of “established” to help pilots and controllers understand, for example, when it’s OK to descend after joining a leg of an instrument approach.

The best current operational definition of “established” is in Appendix B — Staying Within Protected Airspace in the Instrument Procedures Handbook. That text cites the ICAO language:

…an aircraft is considered established when it is “within half full scale deflection for the ILS and VOR; or within ±5 degrees of the required bearing for the NDB

Several tables in that appendix provide additional information and guidance about different phases of flight and various types of navigation equipment.

The new text for the AIM (see below) focuses on RNAV and RNP operations. (For most general aviation pilots, that means GPS/WAAS procedures.) It’s the result of a long discussion among members of the FAA Aeronautical Charting Forum–Instrument Procedures Group. The topic (item 96-01-166) began as a discussion of “on course” but eventually narrowed its focus to “Determining Descent Point of Flyby Waypoints,” which is another way of stating the primary issue: When is it OK to descend (consistent, of course, with your last clearance from ATC) as you join the next segment of an approach or transition?

New AIM paragraph (either 5-5-16a,11 or 5-5-16b):

11. Definition of “established” for RNAV and RNP operations.
An aircraft is considered to be established on-course during RNAV and RNP operations anytime it is within 1 times the required accuracy for the segment being flown. For example, while operating on a Q-Route (RNAV 2), the aircraft is considered to be established on-course when it is within 2 nm of the course centerline.

NOTE: Pilots must be aware of how their navigation system operates, along with any AFM limitations, and confirm that the aircraft’s lateral deviation display (or map display if being used as an allowed alternate means) is suitable for the accuracy of the segment being flown. Automatic scaling and alerting changes are appropriate for some operations. For example, TSO-C129 systems change within 30 miles of destination and within 2 miles of FAF to support approach operations. For some navigation systems and operations, manual selection of scaling will be necessary.

(a) Pilots flying FMS equipped aircraft with barometric vertical navigation (Baro-VNAV) may descend when the aircraft is established on-course following FMS leg transition to the next segment. Leg transition normally occurs at the turn bisector for a fly-by waypoint (reference paragraph 1-2-1 for more on waypoints). When using full automation, pilots should monitor the aircraft to ensure the aircraft is turning at appropriate lead times and descending once established on-course.

(b) Pilots flying TSO-C129 navigation system equipped aircraft [i.e., non-WAAS GPS] without full automation should use normal lead points to begin the turn. Pilots may descend when established on-course on the next segment of the approach.

The key phrase is “within 1 times the required accuracy for the segment being flown.” To know that, you must understand how your GPS box works. For example, the  Pilot’s Guide and Reference, Rev. G, Apr, 2010 for the Garmin GNS530W notes that:

…The [default] CDI scale is set to 2.0 NM during the “en route” phase of flight. Within 31 NM of your destination airport, the CDI scale gradually ramps down to 1.0 NM (terminal area). Likewise, when leaving your departure airport the CDI scale is set to 1.0 NM and gradually ramps up to 2 NM beyond 30 NM (from the departure airport). During approach operations the CDI scale gradually transitions down to an angular CDI scale. At 2.0 NM of the final approach fix (FAF), CDI scaling is tightened from 1.0 to the angular full scale deflection (typically the angular full-scale deflection is 2.0°, but will be as defined for the approach). (p. 182)

Those scales are consistent with TSO C146a standards for WAAS-based avionics, which, for example, tighten the default CDI scale for en route operations from 5 nm (1 nm/dot) to 2.0 nm. On units like the Garmin GNS530/430 series that show 5 dots either side of the center of the built-in CDI, that scale equates to 0.4 nm/dot. (For a good discussion of this topic, see “Changing CDI Course Sensitivity” and “Enroute CDI Sensitivity with WAAS” in Chapter 13 of Rod Machado’s Instrument Pilot’s Handbook.)

If you’re curious about the various RNAV levels associated with different phases of flight and types of procedures, and the capabilities of various avionics (subject to any limitations in your AFM), see:

• AIM 1-2-3. Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Procedures and Routes
• AC 90-100A, U.S. Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations
• AC 90-100A Compliance Table (MS Excel)

*To keep up with substantive changes to the AIM in each new edition, see the Explanation of Changes sections published at the AIM home page. You can find PDF versions of the AIM and updates here.