Just Flight Schools
Flight School Blog

Posts Tagged ‘accident’

Gusty winds, soft field bad combination

Monday, May 14th, 2012

This May 2010 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others. Aircraft: Cessna 172. Injuries: None. Location: Blue Hill, Maine. Aircraft damage: Substantial.
What reportedly happened: The flight instructor was attempting to demonstrate a soft-field landing to a grass runway. According to the CFI, during the landing roll, a “strong wind gust from the right” lifted the right wing, href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/14/gusty-winds-soft-field-bad-combination/">Continue Reading »

===> Posted on May 14th, 2012 by Meg Godlewski. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/14/gusty-winds-soft-field-bad-combination/#comments">No comments. © GAN 2012.

Heavy rain leads to over-run

Sunday, May 13th, 2012

This May 2010 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others. Aircraft: Cessna 180. Injuries: None. Location: Kettle Falls, Wash. Aircraft damage: Substantial.
What reportedly happened: The pilot stated that during the flight he encountered frequent isolated rain storms. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/13/heavy-rain-leads-to-over-run/">Continue Reading »

===> Posted on May 13th, 2012 by Janice Wood. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/13/heavy-rain-leads-to-over-run/#comments">No comments. © GAN 2012.

Carb ice blamed for Cub crash

Tuesday, May 8th, 2012

This May 2010 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others. Aircraft: Piper J-3 Cub. Injuries: None. Location: Sandwich, Illinois. Aircraft damage: Substantial.
What reportedly happened: According to the pilot, approximately 15 minutes after takeoff and while maneuvering approximately 100 feet above ground, the engine lost power. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/08/carb-ice-blamed-for-cub-crash/">Continue Reading »

===> Posted on May 8th, 2012 by Meg Godlewski. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/08/carb-ice-blamed-for-cub-crash/#comments">1 comment. © GAN 2012.

Low altitude stall fatal for two

Monday, May 7th, 2012

This May 2010 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others. Aircraft: Cirrus SR22. Injuries: 2 Fatal. Location: Tuscaloosa, Ala. Aircraft damage: Destroyed.
What reportedly happened: This was the first time the private pilot, who had logged about 815 hours, had landed at the accident airport. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/07/low-altitude-stall-fatal-for-two/">Continue Reading »

===> Posted on May 7th, 2012 by Meg Godlewski. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/07/low-altitude-stall-fatal-for-two/#comments">1 comment. © GAN 2012.

Insurance checkout ends in mishap

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

This May 2010 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others. Aircraft: Piper Comanche. Injuries: None. Location: Carrollton, Ga. Aircraft damage: Substantial.
What reportedly happened: The pilot had just purchased a share in the low-wing airplane and was receiving a checkout from a CFI for insurance purposes. The pilot was attempting to land the Piper with a simulated engine failure, but he misjudged href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/03/insurance-checkout-ends-in-mishap/">Continue Reading »

===> Posted on May 3rd, 2012 by Meg Godlewski. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/03/insurance-checkout-ends-in-mishap/#comments">No comments. © GAN 2012.

Insurance checkout ends in mishap

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

This May 2010 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others. Aircraft: Piper Comanche. Injuries: None. Location: Carrollton, Ga. Aircraft damage: Substantial.
What reportedly happened: The pilot had just purchased a share in the low-wing airplane and was receiving a checkout from a CFI for insurance purposes. The pilot was attempting to land the Piper with a simulated engine failure, but he misjudged href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/03/insurance-checkout-ends-in-mishap/">Continue Reading »

===> Posted on May 3rd, 2012 by Meg Godlewski. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/03/insurance-checkout-ends-in-mishap/#comments">No comments. © GAN 2012.

Student Falls From Hang Glider

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012

Canadian authorities are investigating the death of a Vancouver woman who somehow fell from a hang glider on Saturday. The woman, a Mexican who had lived in Canada for nine years, was on her first flight and was with an experienced instructor. Jason Warner, safety officer for the Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association of Canada, said it’s the first time this kind of accident has occurred in Canada. He told the Vancouver Sun that right after launching from a mountain top about 80 miles east of Vancouver, the instructor realized his passenger had come loose from her harness and he tried to hang on to her. She slipped from his grasp and tried to hang on to his feet before one of his shoes came off and she fell about 1,000 feet to a logged-out area below. Her boyfriend was shooting a video of the flight from below.

Pilot suffers in-flight incapacitation

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012

This May 2010 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others. Aircraft: Cessna T206. Injuries: 1 Fatal. Location: Borrego Springs, Calif. Aircraft damage: Destroyed
What reportedly happened: The pilot was a member of the California Highway Patrol and was flying as part of a traffic surveillance detail. About 40 minutes after the mission was to be finished, the pilot had not checked in. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/02/pilot-suffers-in-flight-incapacitation/">Continue Reading »

===> Posted on May 2nd, 2012 by Meg Godlewski. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/02/pilot-suffers-in-flight-incapacitation/#comments">No comments. © GAN 2012.

Bad bounce for Cessna

Tuesday, May 1st, 2012

This May 2010 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others. Aircraft: Cessna 182. Injuries: None. Location: Parkersburg, W.Va. Aircraft damage: Substantial.
What reportedly happened: The pilot was attempting to land in gusty winds. The airplane bounced several times href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/01/bad-bounce-for-cessna-3/">Continue Reading »

===> Posted on May 1st, 2012 by Meg Godlewski. href="http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/01/bad-bounce-for-cessna-3/#comments">No comments. © GAN 2012.

FOQA

Monday, April 30th, 2012

In a previous post, I discussed the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) that is used at some airlines to create a new kind of safety environment. In addition to ASAP, there is a program called the Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA, pronounced “Foe-KWA”). Whereas ASAP relies on self-disclosure for its success, it is limited to those reports that are turned in, as well as by the information that is actually provided in the narratives, thus limiting its scope and effectiveness.

FOQA, like ASAP, requires a joint approach among the airline, the FAA, and the pilot unions. Where FOQA differs is in the fact that the information is gleaned from the flight data recorders (FDRs) on board the airplanes. The data from the FDR is downloaded by the designated personnel, and the information that identifies flight numbers, crews, et cetera, is immediately separated.

Using some pretty sophisticated and slick computer software, it is possible to choose which parameters to study. Say, for instance, you want to check out all flights that exceeded a certain rate of descent in the terminal area, and did so for more than 10 seconds. You can find that.

Or, if you want to flnd flights that landed more than so many pounds over the max landing weight, you can. There are hundreds of parameters that can be searched individually, or thousands of combinations can be created. There are usually certain trends that the airline wants to track at a given time, so they will search those, as well as any other trigger points that have their interest.

The information can be viewed numerically or graphically, and it can also be viewed as a video playback, which allows it to be seen in real time and in context. It’s all very slick, but it’s also very time consuming to produce the videos, so only a select few are made.

Even if the folks in the FOQA office find that certain performance parameters are being exceeded by a certain amount, they can’t just call the crew or ground them—remember, they don’t know who the crew is, and nor does the FAA. Further, cockpit voice recorder (CVR) downloads are not used. However, they can reach out to the designated representative(s) from the union, who can then “open the envelope” to see who the crew is. Only the designated contact persons can actually contact the crew, and the crew does not have to share any information at all—or they can share whatever information they want to, without fear of retribution or discipline.

The reason that the program works this way is that it is against the law to use FDRs for discipline; CVRs are not used because voices are too easy to identify. In fact, the FDR and CVR can only be used when there is an accident. For some pilots, the very thought that the FDR information can be viewed outside of an accident is unsettling. FOQA works because the respect for the privacy of the crew is not only paramount, but also it is the fundamental basis on which the program is designed.

In fact, no crew will ever know that one of its flights or actions is being scrutinized unless the designated contact person calls. More importantly, the company and the FAA will never know. The tradeoff is that the airline—and the FAA—are able to extract extremely useful information that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to get. As an example, a major airline was able to find out from FOQA that crews on one of its fleet types was unable to meet certain visual approach criteria at a particular airport. Thanks to the FOQA data, changes were made.

The U.S. airline industry is in the midst of an incredible run with regards to safety and accident prevention–which is proof that, done correctly, ASAP and FOQA, along with other safety and training programs, work. Industry and government have both embraced each program, and we have all embraced the results…even if we didn’t know it.—Chip Wright