Looking back at the airspeed should be instinctive

[pelmet]

One thing that I believe that is very fortunate for me is that when I change lanes while driving, I instinctively take a look over my shoulder in addition to using the side view mirror before changing lanes. I am not sure how this came to be and perhaps everybody does it but I suspect not. It has saved me on several occasions from having or creating a significant incident.

Another thing is looking both ways before crossing the street. Even if it is a one way, it just happens for me without thinking which is not only very useful in countries like the UK and Australia but after many years, probably saved me from an accident with a biker going the opposite way to traffic a few years back.

Standard stuff which I am sure that most of us do.

But, aside from in cruise and descent(where it is a good idea to prevent an overspeed), are pilots instinctively looking at their airspeed every few seconds. One of the top reasons for GA crashes is loss of control. Why is control being lost. I suspect in most cases, the aircraft is stalling. Why? Because these are not paying attention to the airspeed, likely due to distraction.

This past spring, after having not flown a small airplane for a while I took a C172 up and flew to a nearby airport. On a wide base leg, I selected 40° of flap and reduced power. Then I got distracted looking for another aircraft. At some later point I looked back very briefly by instinct at the ASI and saw that I was at final approach speed or slightly less. Power added and that was it. But it made me realize how important it is for one to have that instinctive desire to look back at your airspeed. 999 times out of a thousand, all will be normal. Once in a rare while, it will be extremely useful.

For those in training, it is something you want to learn to do as soon as possible so that it becomes habit. Always going back to the airspeed indication then back to what you were doing. It doesn't have to be done too much but after a few seconds, it should be a momentary glance.

I wonder if these loss of control accidents happen more on base leg. On final approach we have a target speed and are definitely keeping a close eye on it. But on the turn from downwind until established on final, perhaps we are just sort of accepting whatever speed we get and not paying as much attention.

[photofly]

Power doesn't control airspeed. Pitch does. Pay attention to your pitch, and you don't need an airspeed indicator. An airspeed indicator will not save you from stalling, nor from loss of control. The more you watch it, the worse your aircraft control will be. Pelmet - please please go and fly a dozen circuits in your 172 with the airspeed indicator covered up, and then you won't have a problem. Please don't try to advise people in training, unless they're your students.

[Big Pistons Forever]

later in my instructing career I got all my students do do a takeoff, circuit, and landing with the ASI covered. I did this to demonstrate that losing the ASI was not a big deal but also as a very powerful demonstration that paying attention to the attitude + power = performance is the primary method of effective control.

As I got more experienced as an instructor I realized how important it was that students developed an instinctive understanding of the pitch and power couple and so ideally looking at the airspeed was simply confirming the expected performance, in the case of this example, the desired airspeed

I would suggest that this is one area that is consistently weak in flight training.

[PilotDAR]

I agree, I rely little on airspeed information from base in. Sure, I may glance, but I do not rely. I've had enough either ASI blocks or errors, that I consider it a reference instrument, not a prime instrument in a GA plane. When landing a Caravan into my home runway (2100 x 50'), I was paying really close attention to what I was doing, and did include ASI in my scan. After I was down and stopped, the Chief pilot who'd been checking me out said to me: "Nice landing, but I was getting a little concerned when I saw that your approach speed (on her ASI) was 50 knots!". "What?!?", I replied! 'Turns out that the right side ASI had partly failed during our one hour flight. She had the good sense to recognize the failure on here side, check that mine seemed okay, and the approach was decent, and say nothing, though an overshoot would have been an option if needed. It wasn't long after I was doing a maintenance check flight on a Tiger Moth. The three different airspeed indicators all disagreed by more than 10MPH, I ignored them all, and flew by feel. It seems that the vane out on the wing was likely the most accurate.

ASI's are nice to have, and should work, but they are more prone to system failures (something blocked) than other indicators, and they are more likely to give you wrong information, than [obviously] no information (it's rare that they fail to zero). Use it if you've got it, but don't overlook the need to be able to recognize an error, and then make a decent approach without it.

[pelmet]

Power doesn't control airspeed. Pitch does. Pay attention to your pitch, and you don't need an airspeed indicator. An airspeed indicator will not save you from stalling, nor from loss of control. The more you watch it, the worse your aircraft control will be. Pelmet - please please go and fly a dozen circuits in your 172 with the airspeed indicator covered up, and then you won't have a problem. Please don't try to advise people in training, unless they're your students.

One thing I forgot to mention is that when the incident happened(6 months ago now) while I was distracted, I had been pulling back on the control column at the time without really thinking about it as I looked for traffic. You reminded me of that. Why was I pulling back a bit with the power reduced....probably because I was fairly wide in the pattern or had just selected full flaps too early or something like that. In the end, it really doesn't matter.

Now, some will say that my flying was not particularly good at that point and I would agree. None of us fly perfectly every day, real world things happen to all of us. In the event that I mentioned, I do remember at least reducing the back pressure and adding some power. Bottom line, whatever you end up doing, make sure to instinctively look at your airspeed once in a while. It will save you when you get distracted.

Nothing wrong with the idea of being able to fly with pitch and power, but my post is more for what happens when one gets distracted for a while. I guarantee you those who lost control were not thinking of pitch and power at the time even if they should have been.

Check your airspeed on a regular basis in the pattern....and climbout. I bet we would be surprised how often it doesn't happen for a long while.

[photofly]

Sounds like you weren’t using your trim properly... I recommend a couple of circuits with an instructor, if you’re rusty

[pelmet]

Sounds like you weren’t using your trim properly... I recommend a couple of circuits with an instructor, if you’re rusty

Whatever it was, the flying could have been better. We have all been there.

Monitor your airspeed on a regular basis when maneuvering. Something every new pilot reading the Flight Training forum should remember. Sounds basic but a lot of planes crash each year due to 'Failure to maintain Proper Airspeed'

[Bede]

Or get used to how the plane feels, sounds, and the horizon looks at various airspeeds.

I have instructed quite a bit from the back seat of a Citabria. With a broad shouldered guy up front the ASI is a luxury. Everything is by feel.

[pelmet]

Or get used to how the plane feels, sounds, and the horizon looks at various airspeeds.

I have instructed quite a bit from the back seat of a Citabria. With a broad shouldered guy up front the ASI is a luxury. Everything is by feel.

There is a big difference between an experienced guy who is an instructor(or flying a lot) and a student pilot or newly licensed pilot, weak pilot, or a pilot who rarely flies(unless they are fairly experienced and reasonably talented). I would suggest to all those pilots that you ignore the high time current pilots who run around saying to fly by feel. They can do it easily. When you get to their level an a particular aircraft, you will have no problem flying like them.

One need only look at accident statistics for confirmation.

[photofly]

Whatever it was, the flying could have been better. We have all been there.

No arguments from me on this. We have all been there.

I'm more concerned that anyone who detects an attitude that's too high (and therefore an airspeed that's too low) in the circuit thinks the correct response is to add power. You're not driving a car.

There is a big difference between an experienced guy who is an instructor(or flying a lot) and a student pilot or newly licensed pilot, weak pilot, or a pilot who rarely flies(unless they are fairly experienced and reasonably talented).

The inexperienced pilot doesn't become the experienced pilot by ignoring what the experienced pilots say. The inexperienced pilot becomes an experienced pilot by flying more. Watching the airspeed indicator more isn't an alternative to flying more.

[pelmet]

I'm more concerned that anyone who detects an attitude that's too high (and therefore an airspeed that's too low) in the circuit thinks the correct response is to add power.

There is a big difference between an experienced guy who is an instructor(or flying a lot) and a student pilot or newly licensed pilot, weak pilot, or a pilot who rarely flies(unless they are fairly experienced and reasonably talented).

The inexperienced pilot doesn't become the experienced pilot by ignoring what the experienced pilots say. The inexperienced pilot becomes an experienced pilot by flying more. Watching the airspeed indicator isn't an alternative to flying more.

Folks...most of you in training should ignore these people here suggesting I am wrong. I suspect that because some of them have been proven wrong by me multiple times and seem to be more interested in somehow doing the same thing instead of using reasonable arguments. The subject is too important. To make my point more clear to you in training, I suggest you read this article.....

NTSB Recaps Loss of Control Roundtable
More than 1,500 people have died in Loss of Control accidents in the past 10 years.

Loss of control occurs when an airplane unintentionally departs from normal flight, usually with fatal consequences. LOC remains, in fact, the largest single source of fatalities in aviation. LOC remains at the top of the NTSB's 10 Most Wanted List of problems in search of solutions.

In an effort to mitigate LOC accidents the National Transportation Safety Board’s Chairman Robert L. Sumwalt recently convened a roundtable in Washington D.C. The NTSB’s Director of the Office of Aviation Safety John DeLisi kicked off the discussion with 18 industry experts by reminding them that more than 1,500 people have died in the last 10 years from loss of control accidents. Sumwalt said in a statement about the event, “We achieved what we aimed to do, bring together leading experts in government, industry and academia to identify training and cockpit technology solutions that could make a difference, as well as dig into the challenges of implementing these solutions.” The NTSB reports about 1,000 pilots and GA enthusiasts watched the day-long session online, with many receiving FAA WINGS credit.

Sumwalt added. “the statistics are trending in a good direction, thanks to the FAA’s and industry’s efforts to address LOC. However, from NTSB accident investigations, we know that much more can and should be done to accelerate the improvements in training and technology, because one death for what is largely a preventable problem is one too many.”

After the event, Sumwalt organized the group’s findings into three main categories of future focus.

Training . . .

• Address pilot weaknesses and skills requirements; pilots should always continue to improve their skills. • Reward pilots for additional training taken and ratings achieved, and incentivize new instructors to make sure pilots are taught correctly. • Teach students the importance of maintaining situational awareness during their initial training. The first 10 hours that new pilots spend with instructors can be some of the most important. • Recognize that technology is not a substitute for basic stick and rudder skills, nor can it compensate for poor training. • Incorporate more realistic scenarios into flight training regarding stalls. Ensure pilots have the confidence to complete a stall recovery. • Train for the startle factor so it doesn’t happen at low altitudes. The stall warning might be too late to recover.

Technology . . .

• Find a responsible role for cockpit technology; it can make a big impact on safety. • Continue to responsibly innovate. • Reduce angle of attack (AOA); this is the key to recovery. AOA indicators can help. • Continue to quickly certify new technologies in a variety of aircraft types.

Other ideas . . .

• Use data to improve GA safety; data monitoring programs can help us standardize safety. • Establish mechanisms where industry and government can continue to collaborate to collectively find solutions. • Recognize that regulation and mandates aren’t always the answer; education and outreach may be a better approach. • Utilize pilot social networks and type clubs to learn and grow. • Get involved in working groups; study best practices and incorporate outcomes. • Be aware of the limits of the airplane; pilots should not fear the capabilities of their planes. • Change the way we handle outreach by unifying around a single topic, like LOC."

https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-recaps-l ... oundtable/

1500 people died in loss of control accident in ten years, most from inadvertent stalls. And that is just in the US. I doubt very many of those cases were from looking at the airspeed indicator too much.

[photofly]

There's little to argue about in the report you quote.

• Teach students the importance of maintaining situational awareness during their initial training. The first 10 hours that new pilots spend with instructors can be some of the most important.
• Recognize that technology is not a substitute for basic stick and rudder skills, nor can it compensate for poor training.
• Reduce angle of attack (AOA); this is the key to recovery.

I don't think loss of control accidents are fixed by telling people to look at their airspeed more. That's hardly different from trying to fix loss of control accidents by telling people not to lose control. A properly trained pilot (of any experience level) can watch the pitch of the aircraft and accurately predict the airspeed and how it's going to change over the next five seconds, before the airspeed indicator even moves. If you think that's too advanced for new pilots, you should up both your game and your expectations. If you're worried about loss of control from stalling on approach, the fix is better appreciation of the importance of and connection between pitch, power, and angle of attack.You can argue that's the preserve of experienced pilots; I disagree: I think that's the preserve of all pilots.

[pelmet]

If you think that's too advanced for new pilots, you should up both your game and your expectations.

My expectation is that another 1500 people will die in the next ten years. However, of those pilots whoever they may be, that are in that doomed category follow the advice of my original post, it will be much less, near zero. If they plan on your advice, my expectation would be a decrease in accidents but not nearly as much. No way to ever prove it though.

Check the airspeed on a regular basis, as habit.

[photofly]

Like I said, all pilots need to do is not lose control. Don't lose control, on a regular basis, as habit. It's the same, useless, stupid, thoughtless brain-dead advice as "look at the airspeed indicator more". It's the same thought process (or lack of it) that says everything can be fixed with another checklist. In fact, why don't we have a "look at the airspeed indicator" checklist, that has exactly one item on it:

1. AIRSPEED INDICATOR -- look at
(checklist complete)

Then when anyone stalls when they shouldn't, we can all wring our hands and say it's because they didn't use their checklist properly, and write threads about how important checklists are, and how proper use of them saves lives, and we should all use checklists more.

Did you read in your article about the importance of teaching pilots to look more at their airspeed indicators? No, you didn't.

1500 pilots will die in the next ten years, and NONE - not a single one - will be saved by hearing from you to look at the airspeed indicator more. If they were capable of following that advice, they'd not be in danger of losing control. Some of them may be saved, if they learn the connection between pitch, power, and angle of attack better.

[rookiepilot]

New, old, every, pilot, would benefit by focusing on understanding their aircraft's Angle of attack in different phases of flight, and how this might be affected by their inputs in different parts of the circuit, with different wind conditions.

Not airspeed, certainly in isolation, anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=141693

Great deal of (VFR) approach accidents, stem from the base to final turn, and it isn't just random, on why this is.

[pelmet]

New, old, every, pilot, would benefit by focusing on understanding their aircraft's Angle of attack in different phases of flight, and how this might be affected by their inputs in different parts of the circuit, with different wind conditions.

Not airspeed, certainly in isolation, anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=141693

Great deal of (VFR) approach accidents, stem from the base to final turn, and it isn't just random, on why this is.

Thanks,

Unless there is any significant amount of g away from 1g, your airspeed indicator is close enough to an AOA to be considered as one, in my opinion. Even in a 30°bank, the stall speed only increases by about 15%. I have flown a couple of aircraft with AOA indicators. They were of little use to me and ignored. I might use it for some sort of max performance landing after some practice(where one is intentionally close to the stall), but not a normal procedure for a standard landing. One can certainly choose a pitch attitude for their flying, but I would suggest backing it up with the ASI. Unfortunately, hundreds have died, well probably many thousands over the years not doing so.

In the base to final accidents, they didn't maintain a proper airspeed and got too slow for the maneuver they were executing.

[pelmet]

1500 pilots will die in the next ten years, and NONE - not a single one - will be saved by hearing from you to look at the airspeed indicator more.

Ridiculous statement. Please ignore. If you honestly believe that, you have no credibility.

[digits_]

Folks...most of you in training should ignore these people here suggesting I am wrong. I suspect that because some of them have been proven wrong by me multiple times and seem to be more interested in somehow doing the same thing instead of using reasonable arguments.

Really?

A lot of your topics follow the same structure.

You post a safety hazard. You focus on one factor that was present in the incident you use as an example. You then claim that solving that factor will prevent the incident.

People then point out that preventing that factor will not necessarily prevent the incident, and might even create other incidents. You disagree and post more examples of where that one factor was part of an incident. You consider that as proof others are wrong.

What you are really doing is interpreting correlation as causation.

Discussing alternative causes and solutions to common safety issues is usually a good thing. But putting too much emphasis on alternative solutions, and reocmmending that new students follow your solutions, or worse, ignore advice from other pilots -which is more likely to be the advice their instructors would give them- goes a little bit too far in my opinion.

[pelmet]

People then point out that preventing that factor will not necessarily prevent the incident, and might even create other incidents. You disagree and post more examples of where that one factor was part of an incident. You consider that as proof others are wrong.

What you are really doing is interpreting correlation as causation.

Discussing alternative causes and solutions to common safety issues is usually a good thing. But putting too much emphasis on alternative solutions, and reocmmending that new students follow your solutions, or worse, ignore advice from other pilots -which is more likely to be the advice their instructors would give them- goes a little bit too far in my opinion.

Thanks,

I understand your point. I am not aware of too many accidents that could be created by looking at the ASI on regular intervals. I suppose one could blame that for forgetting the gear or have a midair if certain factors came together.

The new students should know that while some people here don't think that monitoring your airspeed at regular intervals while maneuvering would prevent any future loss of control accidents(yes, somebody actually feels that way), even airliners can be crashed due to not monitoring airspeed. Sure, there are reasons why they didn't monitor and other issues as in all accidents, but they still didn't monitor for a long time and guess what happened......Asiana 777 crash in SFO.....I wonder what would have happened if the pilot flying had looked at his airspeed ten seconds earlier.

https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/lasting-impact/

"As to the inadequate monitoring of airspeed, and the lack of corrective action by the flight crew until the airplane descended to 58 ft above San Francisco Bay, the NTSB assessed the primary factor as the mistaken beliefs about automation. “Why did it take the crew so long to detect decaying airspeed and correct it?” Bramble asked. “The pilot monitoring did not detect low airspeed for about 17 seconds, and the pilot flying for at least 24 seconds. … Decades of human factors research indicate that monitoring of automated parameters decreases as workload increases on manual tasks. This pervasive phenomenon is known as automation overreliance, and it is difficult to eliminate through practice and training. … The crew believed the autothrottle was controlling airspeed, and the pilot flying thought A/T always ensured a minimum airspeed. This influenced their allocation of attention. Expectancy drives visual scanning in a selective-attention context.”

Monitor the airspeed at regular intervals.

[TeePeeCreeper]

New, old, every, pilot, would benefit by focusing on understanding their aircraft's Angle of attack in different phases of flight, and how this might be affected by their inputs in different parts of the circuit, with different wind conditions.

Not airspeed, certainly in isolation, anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=141693

Great deal of (VFR) approach accidents, stem from the base to final turn, and it isn't just random, on why this is.

I have flown a couple of aircraft with AOA indicators. They were of little use to me and ignored.

Wow just wow.

Credibility lost not that I thought you had any to begin with!