Plane Conversations

This post first appeared on 4.26.11 in CS&A Insurance blog – Clear on Top

How do we determine is something is dangerous?  Is there a universally known definition or just a matter of opinion?  Webster defines the term as follows:

dan·ger·ous – adj – able or likely to inflict injury or harm

If we stop and think about the literal definition of dangerous, we realize that it applies to most things in our life.  We start off each day with dangerous acts…shaving, taking a shower, cooking breakfast, driving to work…all of which have the ability to inflict injury or harm.   How many of us have cut ourselves when shaving?  How about burned yourself while cooking?  And what about having an accident in a car?   The generally accepted odds are that 1 in 4 people will be involved in a serious car accident in their lifetime.  Let’s take that a step further, based on the average number of automobile trips made by Americans in their lifetime the odds of being killed in an accident are 1 in 140.  Driving is the most dangerous activity undertaken by most Americans on a daily basis and very little thought is given to the dangers encountered because it is just a routine part of life.

Why does the general public view flying as being dangerous?  Any time we cheat the laws of gravity we are entering into a “dangerous” scenario by definition; but is it really dangerous, or is it just different?  According to the National Safety Council, the odds of being killed in a plane crash are about 1 in 250,000.  In comparing these statistics you are 1,786 times more likely to die in a car than in a plane…in other words you are more likely to die on the way to the airport than in flight to your destination.

So what is it that is driving this dangerous view of flying?  In short, lack of education and the media.  This is a funny combination in my mind because the media is supposed to educate, but often times they are just as uneducated as the masses to which they are pontificating.  How does a blind man know what color the sky is?  He trusts the person describing it to him, even if that person is colorblind.  In absence of knowledge we tend to believe whatever sounds the most accurate.  So without further ado I give you some media quotes concerning recent flying scenarios making headlines.

“The Monday night close call, left Obama’s jet 2.94 miles away from slamming into the 200-ton C-17 plane…” – New York Post

This is what is known in the aviation world as a “go around”.  It happens on a daily basis and exists for just such an occasion.  When the required separation cannot be maintained or does not exist, the controllers direct the pilots to break off the approach and send them around to try it again.  Let’s put this in perspective just to give you an idea how far 2.94 miles is…try 15,500 feet.  This is a greater distance than all those aircraft that pass over your house on approach to landing if you live within 30 miles of a major airport.   If their landing lights are on when they fly over your house at night, they are probably below 10,000 feet and only 1.89 miles away from slamming into your house.

“The pilots landed their planes safely but without help from the airport tower.”  – ABC News

“Planes forced to land without help from tower at Reagan Natl” – America’s Newsroom     

News flash…the tower does not and cannot help a pilot land an airplane.  The tower can only give direction and recommendation just like the traffic cop at an intersection.  Pilots land without help from the tower thousands of times every day…it’s how we were trained from Day 1.

Let’s face it, flying is still a widely misunderstood activity and as long as there are reporters there will be inaccurate news reports.  As pilots, we are a relative minority and the understanding of flight is still a wondrous mystery to most.  The how’s, why’s, and what if’s are the stuff of Hollywood legend.  Entire movies have been made around the fear of flying and the perceived dangers that they instill are numerous.  Aviation activities still draw front page news, from the airshow to the accident and the engine failure to the ATC actions.  Is flying dangerous?  Yes.  Is it more so than other daily activities?  No.  It is up to us as pilots, air traffic controllers, and all other aviation support personnel to do all we can to operate as safely as possible and calm the fears of the general public.

Be professional, train appropriately, and be personable.  Just because we can fly does not mean we are above anyone else.

Click on pen to

During training at the American Airlines Learning Center in Dallas, new agents were given a specific protocol for checking passengers and their bags in at the ticket counter.  We were to greet the customer by name as it was printed on the ticket.  Ask them what their final destination was – just to make sure the ticket was right - and ask them how many bags they would be checking.  This was long before that silly question of “have your bags been out of your possession since you packed them,” like anyone would actually admit to that.

I once had a woman tell me that her final destination was her mother’s house.  While I agreed that a visit to her mother was surely a wonderful thing, I could not check her bags to her mother’s house.  She gave me her final airport, I checked her bags through and all was right with the world.

This woman’s trip raises a question in my mind.  I know the city-pair on her ticket; however, that citypair didn’t really  match her real travel intentions.  She might have departed from Columbus, Mississippi, but might actually have lived Macon, Mississippi.  She might have traveled to Charleston, West Virginia, but might actually have needed to go to Parkersburg, West Virginia.  Because of limited choices in scheduled airline service, she ended up with a drive on both ends of her trip.  Now, until we have personal jet packs, we’re not going to be able to leave our homes and fly to exactly where we want to go.  Can you imagine the air traffic nightmares that personal plane a la George Jetson would bring?  Yikes! 

Still, we know that general aviation can reduce our drives simply by virtue of the fact that there are more general aviation airports.  Put new and better technology with new and better aircraft and you have a few people with similar intentions sharing flights.  Vancouver has over 60,000 fans on two Facebook pages and a population of over a half million people in the city, not taking suburbs into account.  Surely a few of those people could agree on a time to go from the Abbortsford airport to the Blatchford Field in a Cessna Mustang.  Wouldn’t you think?

Click on pen to

Knowledge is power.  It’s not what you know, but what you do with what you know that matters. 

Enter social media, web 2.0, wikinomics, the digital age, the Google era-whatever you would like to call it.  The power of this enormous infrastructure and way of life, the power of social media is the sharing of knowledge by wise leaders. 

Let me briefly explain–Google shares information, but it certainly isn’t wisdom.  On the other hand, your friend, who has been listening to a podcast about a certain subject for a year now, knows you are looking for a new job in a related industry.  He knows that the host of the podcast is great friends with a guy in that industry.  A tweet is sent with a link to the podcast… Knowledge has been applied.  Wisdom has been shared.  Now connections have been made.

Enter video.  YouTube is probably the most widely known video social media channel, but there are many.  Here is an example:

What did you see? Probably a lot of things.  Did you see an acrobatic flight from the “bird’s eye” view of the pilot? A pilot getting his first lesson could learn a lot about the cross check…looking outside at the wingtips to maintain attitude, back and forth, now forward at airspeed.  These are the kinds of things that can only be learned in real time.  It’s challenging, even for an experienced flight instructor to explain this inverted.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is video worth?

Did you see Johnny’s house in the early frames of the video, just to the far side of the brown field off the nose? How cool would it be for Johnny to see his house from that angle?! Even more exciting would be real time streaming video integrated into the flying video game on his HD TV.

Imagine a student pilot getting ready to go on his first cross-country flight.  The weather between here and the destination is forecasted to be VFR, but there is a slight chance it could deteriorate.  So he types in the web address for a new, video-based “Sky Maps” website, and sees that another pilot has just flown along that route.  By clicking on the airplane symbol on the “Sky Map,” a video is cued.  Student Pilot can now see the weather for himself, adding some knowledge to his decision-making process, painting a picture to supplement the weather forecast.

Did you see the weather off to the east in the video? Scientists could tap into a wealth of data to update meteorological models, validate predictions, understand these complex (and still quite mysterious) phenomena even better.

Did you see the turbulent airflow off of the upper wing? I didn’t either, but it won’t be long until a high-tech lens attachment the size of a dime gives Schleren photography capability to this portable video cameras.  In fact, the future holds a camera that looks wherever the pilot points it and captures images at any bandwidth in the spectrum of light.

One last application for the test pilots among us - the pilot was moving his head, large movements, and a lot of them, in other words, high frequency and high amplitude.  This data would certainly contribute to an understanding of the workload during this phase of flight.  At this point in the evolution of the technology, we don’t need six sigma certainty that it’s high workload.  We have a definitive qualitative understanding that it is.  The technology will mature, and the way we use it to collect quantitative measures of what has been previously subjectively evaluated should mature as well.

That’s what the future looks like…in HD.

Click on pen to

There is an MU-2 outside my window right now and those Garrett engines are so loud that, in the words of my first grade teacher Sister Paula, I can’t hear myself think. 

Airplanes are noisy.  No kidding, right?  That’s hardly news and it’s certainly no surprise.  Since airplanes are noisy, it follows then, that places they frequent – airports – are noisy, as well.  Again, no surprise there.  What continues to be a surprise to me are noise complaints made by people who live near airports.

What would you say if I told you that I bought a terrific little house next to a railroad track and that I got it at a steal?  You’d probably question my sanity since there are sure to be really noisy trains barreling along the tracks at all hours, right?  Now what would you say if I told you that I was planning on petitioning or even suing the railroad company to make their trains quieter and to run them only during daylight hours?  Does that even make sense?  I bought a house next to a pre-existing railroad track, the existence of which I unquestionably knew, and now I demand that the railroad operate according to my preferences?  I would be laughed out of the courtroom.  Or would I?

This situation happens every day with airports all over the United States and Europe.

Developers buy undesirable land near noisy airports, build houses all over the land, and sell the houses at attractive prices.  The new homeowners, forgetting the reason they got such a good deal on the house, then demand that the airport conform to their preferences – and the city councils and courts support the homeowners.

Airports don’t exist in a vacuum - I know that - and we all need to “go along to get along.”  However, there must be some consideration for the airports which were in existence prior to development and the economic contributions of those airports.  For instance, Atlanta’s DeKalb-Peachtree airport started it’s life in 1941, operated as a Naval Air Station as well as a general aviation airport and is currently the second busiest airport in the state of Georgia with 246,002 operations recorded in 2009.  Housing development in the area saw massive increases in the 1950s, after the airport was established.  At this time, the airport has a “voluntary” curfew between the hours of 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM.  I emphasize voluntary because it is clear from the airport’s own literature that the county would make the curfew mandatory if only the FAA would let them.  Exemptions are made for medical flights but, any other flight operating at the airport during curfew hours will receive a letter inviting the operator “without compromising safety.. [to] review its operating practices and perhaps modify its procedures to keep this from happening again.”  Basically, they invite the operator not to come back during curfew, reserving the right to invite the the operator not to come back at all.

Perhaps the most aggressive noise abatement policies are in Santa Monica, California, and in Naples, Florida, which were among the first (if not the first) to prohibit certain types of aircraft from operating into their fields at any time of day.  Naples, which is a public airport operated by the City of Naples Airport Authority, has its hands full these days dealing with an anti-airport group.  The situation has become emotionally charged and really contentious there.  The airport receives federal funding, yet the neighbors want to dictate how and when the facilities may be used.   Try doing that with an interstate or railroad. 

The Mu-2 is gone, but my ears are still buzzing; so, I sympathize with people who live with the noise.  However, because I know that airplanes are  noisy, I didn’t buy a house right next to an airport.  And I don’t have sympathy for the people who did, then proceeded to complain about a situation they entered into voluntarily.

Click on pen to