Tell it like it is…

We learn from reading about incidents and accidents, so as PCS Head of Coaching David Cockburn suggests, it makes good sense to use the reporting channels available, if and when something goes wrong…

People have been flying powered aircraft for well over a century, and during that time there have been a considerable number of aircraft accidents, many of them causing serious injury or death to the occupants. Although we can be grateful that the accident rate is a lot lower nowadays than it was when the pioneers took to the skies, we are frequently reminded that they still occur. The AAIB and investigators in other countries publish the results of their investigations and recommend actions to try to avoid similar accidents in the future.

Where a strengthened part, or improved connection, can reduce the risk of a similar accident happening in the future, those recommendations may well have an effect.

However, nearly all accidents involve human factors, and human reactions cannot be improved by increasing the torque on critical nuts. It is rather pointless to suggest that more regulations will improve a pilot’s capabilities when under stress; we know how unwilling humans are to follow regulations forced upon them. Even offering good advice does not always achieve the desired effect, perhaps because of the rapidly increasing growth of internet information, most of us humans prefer to make up our own minds from the facts available.

There is nothing wrong with that, although there is so much info available on the internet it is often difficult to determine what ‘facts’ are correct. At least the info and advice published by the AAIB, Airprox, CAA, GASCo and CHIRP is reliable, as of course is that from the LAA.

Unfortunately, investigations seldom, if ever, discover any new basic causes of aviation accidents. Certainly when it comes to human factors these basic causes have remained unchanged for many years, as in most cases has been the advice. Our basic pilot training courses were developed to make us aware of likely hazards and minimise the likelihood and effects of these known risks. That part of the syllabus is what is now referred to as ‘Threat and Error Management’ or TEM.

However, even though we may have been made aware of hazards in the past, it is human nature to forget things about which we have not been reminded about recently.

Studying reports of incidents, even if there was no resulting injury or major damage, can jog our memories about the existing accident causes. I strongly recommend getting hold of whatever safety publications you can, reading the incidents, and considering how you might, and should have, reacted in a similar situation.

Unfortunately, the official publications can only remind us of hazards which they know have affected flight. If something happens to us which might have caused an accident but didn’t, we are very grateful for that fact. We are also thankful if we ‘get away with’ perhaps minor damage which we can sort out. However, if we keep these things to ourselves, they cannot serve as that important reminder to others. If and / or when it happens to someone else the consequences might well be more serious, and if the pilot had been reminded of the hazard he or she may have avoided it, either as we did or in another fashion.

It may feel like a chore to tell the world what happened to you, especially if you feel you may have made a mistake.

Nevertheless, your report may well provide a timely reminder of a potential accident cause before it results in a fatality. The CAA’s Occurrence Reporting Scheme is easy to use. Despite the reputation it may have received as a vehicle for chasing airspace infringements, its primary aim is to receive and consider reports of things which might have caused an accident but didn’t. That consideration might result in the CAA producing a Permit Directive or offering advice to pilots or owners, but even if nothing else, the published report can remind us that it could happen to us. It is possible for pilots to receive the CAA’s monthly list of GA occurrence reports by joining the CAA’s subscription service, then submitting a form (SRG 1604) to certify you are a pilot requesting the information for safety purposes.

So what should we do to help others if we experience an ‘incident’? In simple terms, if it was an accident resulting in someone going to hospital or a seriously damaged aircraft

(I don’t want to repeat the exact definitions), we must inform the AAIB (and the police of course) within 24 hours. If it wasn’t an accident but we think the consequences only just avoided being very serious, we should again inform the AAIB, which will consider whether to investigate it as a ‘serious incident’.

If we don’t need to involve the AAIB but unexpectedly got really close to another aircraft, we should submit an ‘Airprox’ report, whether we are asked to or not. Otherwise, whether or not the aircraft suffered damage, we should submit an occurrence report to the CAA as above, or directly to the LAA. If the occurrence involves human factors, consider making a CHIRP report; if we feel we’d rather not tell the whole world we made a mistake, CHIRP reports are de-identified before publication.

However, the important thing is to report things which might cause accidents so that others can be reminded about them before they experience them. That way there is a good chance that information will help other pilots to avoid an accident from that or a similar cause.

• AAIB reports can be made and published ones are available through www.gov.uk/aaib

• Airprox reports can be made and published ones are available through www.airproxboard.org.uk

• Occurrence reports can be made to the CAA through the ECCAIRS website: https://aviationreporting.eu

• CHIRP reports can be made and published ones are available through www.chirp.co.uk

• GASCo advice is available through www.gasco.org.uk

Wind

Readers will know I encourage pilots to fly during the winter months if they can, and I have been fortunate in being able to do so myself quite often recently. On these days I have been interested to note that often, according to the Met Form 214 (the one showing the winds forecast at various pressure altitudes) the wind at 2,000ft has been very strong compared to the wind at the surface. I have flown in days with a 40kt wind at 2,000ft and a surface wind which never got above 12kt. Not only was the crosswind well within my limits for take-off and landing, but there didn’t seem to be much turbulence on departure and approach.

Meteorologists will no doubt tell me this was due to the ground being cold and the atmosphere being stable at low levels, preventing mixing between the surface and the gradient wind.

So why am I mentioning this now? Well as the Earth starts to warm up in the spring, it warms the lower layers of the atmosphere, creating unstable conditions close to the ground and allowing a lot of mixing between the surface wind and the gradient wind. In these conditions, the wind at 2,000ft (or even higher) can easily be dragged down to the surface in gusts, generating severe turbulence as well.

We have to expect a lot more turbulence and stronger surface winds during the month of March, even if the forecast doesn’t specifically warn of it. We have to remember that the forecaster will not change a TAF until he or she believes the wind strength to change by 10kt or more, which if it is across our runway can make quite a difference to our ability to cope.

We shouldn’t try to fight an excessive crosswind, especially if we’re a bit short of recent practice, so it’s always worth knowing where we can find a runway into wind with enough fuel to reach it. Even if we can take-off and land into wind (oh, the luxury!), taxying can be particularly hazardous. If we are fortunate enough to have friends nearby, wing-walkers can help reduce the risks, but we also need to beware of tipping over when taxying downwind. It should also go without saying that our aircraft and their controls have to be well secured when parked.

I’m told that the crews of old square-rigged sailing ships believed that the spring equinox, which falls around 22 March, was a sure sign that gales were on their way, if they hadn’t already appeared… Let’s not get caught out by the wind.

Rating revalidation

Many of you will by now have seen the CAA’s message that it is changing the forms required for GA licensing. However, these are only needed if we are applying for something new. It shouldn’t affect NPPL holders, but those of us with UK PPLs or Part-FCL PPLs used to tell the CAA our examiner had revalidated our Part-FCL licence rating on the form ‘SRG 1119E’, which has now gone. We now have to use pages one and two of the form ‘SRG 1157’.

We fill our details in section one, and sign. The examiner completes the sentence in the middle of section two to say he or she has revalidated our rating and when it runs out. The examiner signs in section four on page two, and we have to sign as well.

It doesn’t matter which of you sends a copy to the CAA but make sure that’s done (either by post or emailed to licenceapplications@caa.co.uk), and both you and the examiner keep a copy in case there is a glitch. ■

The latest LAA Engineering topics and investigations. Compiled by

Jerry Parr