AOPA Pilot Magazine - June 2011 - 30

SAFETYPILOT
BY BRUCE LANDSBERG
PRESIDENT, AOPA FOUNDATION
Flying to standard
D
o the current FAA Practical
Test Standards (PTS) mea-
sure what’s needed in today’s
flight environment? I have a
standing wager that no one
has yet taken: If all pilots merely flew to the current
private pilot PTS just as they are written today, the
number of accidents would plummet—no need for
further “tinkering.” See if you agree.
Let’s take an easy one first—takeoffs. The PTS, in
summary, says the pilot has to position the flight
controls for existing wind conditions, clear the area,
and line up in the center of the runway. Next, lift
off at the recommended airspeed and accelerate to VY
Bruce
Landsberg was
named president
of the AOPA
Foundation in
2010.
holding
plus-10/minus-5 knots at takeoff power until reaching a safe
maneuvering altitude. Maintain directional control and proper
wind drift correction throughout. None of this seems too difficult,
and yet according to the 2010 Joseph T. Nall Report (www.
airsafetyinstitute.org/nall) that tallies 2009 accidents, 153 light
fixed-wing GA aircraft crashed in this phase of flight. Twentyseven
percent stalled or settled after takeoff, five percent didn’t
understand the nuances of density altitude, and a whopping 44
percent lost control, usually directional.
Moving on to normal approaches and landings, the require-
ments are to consider wind, runway surface, and obstructions
before becoming committed; establish the appropriate configuration,
including pitch, power, and attitude; then maintain
a stabilized approach at plus-10/minus-5 knots with gust corrections,
and touch down within 400 feet of a specified point at
approximately stalling speed, in the center of the runway, with
no sideways drift.
Granted, all of that is a mouthful—but if you’re going to fly,
this comes with the territory. The Nall Report’s count of 348
fixed-wing landing accidents (six of them fatal) shows that 5
percent landed long, 7 percent landed hard, 17 percent decided
to drop in (stall), and about 56 percent just lost it. Wind was
cited as a factor in 20 percent of those cases, but wind is part of
the planet’s temperature-regulating mechanism and we haven’t
figured out how to stop it yet, at least long enough to allow a
landing. So, on almost any given day, one of us will be making
an unhappy call to his/her insurance company.
Based on what the PTS requires us to be able to do as a
brand-new sport pilot or private pilot, it would seem that if
everyone flew just that well, and no better, a lot fewer replacement
parts would be needed. The other task areas are suitably
basic and not the least unreasonable. That accident pilots frequently
don’t quite measure up to the level of the most basic
AOPA PILOT • 30 • JUNE 2011
certificate requirements reflects poorly on the individuals—not
so much on the certification process. It
seems to be more of a “maintenance” problem. We
see much the same problem on the highways—in
many accidents, drivers would not pass a driving
test based on daily driving behavior. Should we have
more rules? I think not. The rules are there, and it’s
up to us to adhere to them.
The question of judgment or “critical” thinking
always comes up. The lack-of-skill accidents usually
don’t result in fatalities or even serious injuries. It’s
poor judgment or decision making that causes the
bad ones. FAR Part 61 discusses the need to recognize
“critical weather situations on the ground and
in flight” and there is a task in the PTS that requires
the pilot to make a competent go/no-go decision
based on the available information. This is artificial;
how many sport, recreational, or private test
applicants will recommend to the examiner that launching in
marginal VFR or IMC is a good idea?
Pilots can often be very good at stick-and-rudder skills as
measured by the PTS. They can be knowledgeable about the
aircraft systems, performance, avionics, and navigation skills,
yet make fatally flawed decisions despite years of success—or
luck. Testing someone’s everyday judgment on a checkride just
isn’t realistic.
GA could give up much freedom by emulating the airline
model of mandatory training, eliminating the even slightly weak
performers, requiring a dispatch system and IFR on every flight.
It would improve the safety record quickly and GA flight activity
would decline equally quickly—more than it already is. Or, we
could continue to accept gradual improvement and tolerate
individual lapses as a cost of doing business. This approach is
used in every other personal transportation/recreation activity:
cars, motorcycles, boats, et cetera, despite the fact that these
modes kill many more innocent bystanders than GA.
It’s been noted that some of us who are attracted to flying
also have a high risk tolerance—otherwise we might not have
decided to become pilots in the first place. How to identify those
individuals and, more important, how to “manage” someone
who is already certificated and owns his or her own aircraft is
a complex question. This is not to say that CFIs, schools, and
training providers can’t do better, but the simple, obvious solutions
aren’t that simple.
Teaching critical thinking so that it results in a consistent
change in behavior without a lot of external oversight and
expense is difficult. In spite of this, the Air Safety Institute
has produced a number of programs on decision making. We
offer a free DVD or online course to every new private pilot
and instrument pilot, to help them learn the process. There is
anecdotal evidence that it helps, but nothing in this business
is 100 percent.
http://www.airsafetyinstitute.org/nall http://www.airsafetyinstitute.org/nall
AOPA Pilot Magazine - June 2011

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - June 2011
