To Brief or Not to Brief

One of the dirty little secrets about aviation is that you can spend as much time preparing for a flight as you do actually flying. This is not always the case, of course. It depends on many factors. What you’re flying, how far you’re going, and so on. But the point is, preflight activities are vital to safety in the skies.

The law — 14 CFR 91.103, specifically — requires pilots to obtain “all available information” about a flight before departure. That’s a pretty broad mandate, especially in the Information Age. But it makes sense, because while aviation may be a relatively safe activity, it’s not terribly forgiving of carelessness.

For a typical flight, “all available information” includes weather reports and forecasts, takeoff and landing distance requirements, alternates available along the route, ATC delays, fuel requirements, and a whole host of other things.

Prominent among these “other things” are what aviators refer to as NOTAMs, or Notices to Airmen. NOTAMs are the FAA’s method of disseminating information about runway or taxiway closures, airport construction, flight restrictions, unlighted obstacles, airport lighting issues, and so on.

Even if you’re not a pilot, those items probably sound kind of important. And they are. This point was reinforced recently when a high-ranking United States Senator, James Inhofe, landed his aircraft on a closed runway in Texas which was under construction, causing the construction workers on the runway to scatter.

The FAA has confirmed it is investigating the Oct 21 incident in which Inhofe landed a Cessna 340 on an occupied closed runway at Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport, Texas, He was reportedly carrying three others in the light twin when he made the landing on a runway bearing oversized painted Xs, a large red truck, other vehicles, and construction workers. The workers were using loud equipment at the time and didn’t hear the plane’s approach, so one person ran to warn them. A supervisor immediately reported the incident to the FAA and told TulsaWorld.com he was “still shaking” when he reached the hangar to confront the pilot. For his part, Inhofe said he didn’t see the Xs until late on final and was concerned he might not be able to abort safely. He said he landed “well off to the side” of the workers. There were no injuries.

Clearly, Inhofe made a big mistake. I wouldn’t hold him up as a negative example but for the fact that his response to the incident was to claim that not only did he not check for NOTAMs before departing on that flight, but that he never checks them. He went on to claim that “people who fly a lot just don’t do it”, and that he wouldn’t commit to checking them in the future.

Excuse me? People who fly a lot don’t check NOTAMs? I think the good Senator has spent too long living in the Biosphere isolation bubble which masquerades as our nation’s capital. I fly a lot, and I check NOTAMs every single time. If he wants to implicate himself in a public forum like a major newspaper, fine, but at least leave the rest of us out of it.

As if this wasn’t enough, a few days later Inhofe took off from the airport using a taxiway after advising an airport official of his intent to do so. While this was not necessarily illegal or unsafe, I question the wisdom of this action as well. As a politician, Inhofe is no stranger to public relations. When he needed a mea culpa, he gave the impression of a mea innocentia instead. I really hate to see this sort of thing from him. Inhofe is a pilot in a position of power in Washington, DC at a time when GA really needs an ally there to protect our right to fly. Like it or not, he represents everyone who holds a pilot certificate. All 613,000 of us.

As if this wasn’t enough, I read Paul Bertorelli’s blog entry on the subject with a bit of a raised eyebrow today. Bertorelli is the editor of AVweb, a major aviation news publication. In his missive, Bertorelli took Inhofe to task for not checking NOTAMs while in the same breath admitting that he doesn’t obtain a weather briefing before flying:

I was discussing this with a friend over the weekend who informed me that not only did he not check NOTAMs before every flight, he didn’t think he knew any pilots who did. What continues to amaze me about this pilot thing is how many different universes seem to exist. In the crowd I run in, I would say most pilots do check the NOTAMs file before departing, even for a local flight. Here in Florida, where a weather briefing is superfluous, NOTAMs are the only thing I check. I do that every time I fly.

Why would a weather briefing be superfluous? Because the weather if Florida is always good? Here in Southern California, the weather is always good as well, but that doesn’t stop me from obtaining all available information before a flight, including weather. It’s just a good habit to get into, even if you’re not going more than a few miles from the field.

I’m not sure if it’s laziness, complacency, or a lack of proper tools that’s keeping these guys from doing their due diligence before takeoff, but it’s 2010 folks, and unless you’re flying out of a place so remote that you can’t get phone or internet service, obtaining all available information for your flight isn’t difficult anymore. What is tough is explaining to the FAA, the police, CBP, the Secret Service, or your insurance company why you busted a TFR, landed on a runway under construction, hit a barrier while trying to enter a closed taxiway, or did something equally dumb.

Those who don’t obtain briefings before flight might feel like it takes forever to gather the needed information on those rare occasions when they do decide to get a briefing. Ironically, if they got the briefings more frequently, they’d be faster at collating and absorbing the material.

The tools one uses makes a difference, too. I’ll be the first to admit that I do not always use DUAT or a call to Flight Service to obtain my information. There’s nothing regulatory or common sense-wise which dictates that only those sources may be used (unless you’re operating under Part 121 or 135, where the General Operating Manual or other documents may specify where briefings may be obtained).

In fact, some of the information you may need is not even available via those FAA-sanctioned sources! One such example: FDC NOTAM 9/5151, better known as the “stadium TFR”. This NOTAM states that, unless authorized by air traffic control, pilots may not fly below 3,000′ AGL within 3 nautical miles of any stadium with a seating capacity over 30,000. The restriction applies from an hour before to an hour after any MLB, NFL, or NCAA Division 1 football game. It also applies to NASCAR Spring Cup, Indy Cup, and Champ series racing events. Believe me, there’s nothing in any QCIP weather source which will provide that information. Yet pilots are still legally responsible for it. You have to know where the stadiums are, what the capacities are, what the altitude of the stadium is, and when the events will be starting and ending!

My briefings come from Weathermeister.com. Things are color-coded, in plain English, and are formatted for my computer or my iPhone automatically. I have yet to miss any kind of NOTAM, TFR, etc. in more than 5,200 hours of flying. Briefings are logged and archived for at least 30 days, so if you have to prove to the FAA that yes, you did obtain a briefing before departure, you can do so.

As an instructor, I’ve come to think of this as a pivotal time for briefings. It reminds me of the days before full glass panels were available. You’d have a Frankenstein-like combination of round gauges and electronic multi-function displays. I recall one Columbia 300 where the altimeter had to be set in seven different places! Altimeter, autopilot, CNX80, MX20, standby altimeter, and a couple more I’m forgetting at the moment.

Preflight briefings are the same way. The technology exists to make the information easy to obtain, but the tools are not universally available yet. Sure, Weathermeister works great if you’ve got internet access. But in the air? You still have to be able to read things like this:

METAR KSNA 152353Z 23006KT 10SM CLR 23/09 A3000 RMK AO2 SLP157 T02330089 10261 20233 55005

At some point in the future, these coded briefings will probably fall by the wayside. For now, however, the ability to read the codes is still important. Many FBOs have weather computers which will only give you coded information. Likewise, due to space restrictions on glass panel screens, many XM receivers provide data in coded format. Learning the codes is time consuming for students, but I have to teach it. It’s one of the things I enjoy least about instructing. Teaching weather theory is one thing, but the codes are annoying, especially when working with students who are not computer saavy. It’s like trying to teach them to debug code.

The bottom line is this: however you get the information, just get it. It will save you a lot of headache. It might save your life. And for the love of Pete, if you’re a U.S. Senator who flies, recognize that your actions — good or bad — will reflect on us all.

1 Comment

Ron, November 15th 2010 | Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Aviation, Safety

The Long and Short of ATIS

ATIS, or Automatic Terminal Information Service, was originally conceived as a time-saving method of disseminating critical, predominately weather-related, information to aircraft interested in arriving or departing from a particular airport.

It’s basically a short recorded message which plays on an endless loop. Remember the days when you had to call a movie theater and listen to a recording to figure out the show times for each film? That’s what we’re talking about here. Pilots listen to the ATIS recording before departing or arriving at an airport in order to learn the wind direction, sky condition, altimeter setting (aka barometric pressure), and runway(s) in use.

ATIS is only available at airports which have an operating control tower. The recording is typically updated every hour and is labeled with a letter. The first ATIS of the day is called “Alpha”. The next hour, when they update it with the current information, it is referred to as “Bravo”. The following hour it becomes “Charlie”. If the weather changes significantly in less than an hour, it will receive a ‘special’ update. When the weather is poor or changing rapidly, updates can happen every few minutes.

In theory, ATIS makes sense. Why require a tower controller to report the weather to every aircraft which contacts them? It’s much easier to simply record that information, and allow the pilot to obtain it on their own time.

Sadly, as with most things in which the government is involved, over time the ATIS broadcasts tend to become bloated with more and more information. The worst example I’ve seen is my home field of John Wayne Airport. If you want to hear it yourself, call (714) 546-2279. I just transcribed the current recording:

John Wayne Airport information Juliet, 1626 Zulu special, wind calm, visibility one-zero, ceiling one thousand five hundred overcast, temperature one eight, dewpoint one three, altimeter two niner niner zero, ILS runway one nine right approach in use, landing and departing runways one niner right and one niner left, caution for a crane three hundred forty one feet MSL two thousand feet right of runway one niner right and a crane one hundred twenty seven feet MSL southwest runway one nine right adjacent to the tower, check Notice to Airmen for any impacts to instrument approach procedures, airport surface detection equipment in use, pilots should operate transponder including mode charlie on all runways and taxiways, all aircraft read back all taxi and hold short instructions, all departing general aviation aircraft contact clearance delivery prior to taxi, IFR aircraft use frequency one one eight point zero, VFR traffic use frequency one two one point eight five, advise on initial contact you have information Juliet.

I’m surprised there’s nothing on there about using caution for birds in the vicinity of the airport. That’s usually part of the ATIS as well.

Anyway, imagine a slow, computerized voice reading all that. Now imagine that it’s happening while you’re operating an aircraft like a spiffy new turbo-normalized Cirrus SR-22 which rents for $350 an hour. The ATIS at John Wayne is currently one minute and thirty seconds long, which means every time you listen to it, it costs $8.75 if the engine is idling.

Oh — did you miss part of it? Then listen to it again. Now the tab is up to $17.50. I’ve had students who had to listen to it three or four times in order to get all the information. And we wonder why flying is so expensive!

It’s even worse if you’re in the air. Sure, you’re already running the engine anyway so it’s not costing you any extra money. But when airborne, your other resources — namely time and attention — are heavily taxed. Your time and attention are critical because you need to be doing other things when you’re approaching an airport. Talking to controllers, running checklists, configuring the aircraft, descending, slowing down, watching for traffic, looking for the airport, and so on. If you’re an instructor, you need to be teaching — and this all happens at a critical transition phase where instruction is important. The length of the ATIS gets in the way of all that.

If you’re flying in instrument conditions, the ATIS is an even bigger obstacle. Not only is the information contained in the ATIS more important to you, but instrument approaches are very high workload environments for the pilot, especially near an airport like John Wayne. The communication frequencies are congested because everyone’s IFR, the controllers are busy, you can least afford to miss a traffic call, you’re being vectored, and are probably setting up radios, GPS, and briefing the approach. This is exactly the wrong time to take a minute and a half out of your day to listen to a pedantic recording with a lot of information you don’t need. If the TRACON controllers were smart, they’d petition to have ATIS broadcasts reduced to the absolute minimum. I guarantee they’d get better responses on the radio from pilots, especially low-time IFR guys and instrument students.

Speaking of controllers, at smaller airports the ATIS is often recorded by a human voice. The problem there is that the recording is made by the tower controller. Yeah, the same guy who’s controlling traffic. If he’s busy and/or there’s a lot of data to put on the recording, he will tend to talk very fast, because the longer they are occupied with making that recording, the longer that guy’s air traffic is not being dealt with. That makes the ATIS hard to understand. Around here, El Monte is well-known for suffering from this issue.

Over time, pilots have developed ways of mitigating the time- and money-sucking effects of a long ATIS:

  • listen via phone before engine start
  • listen via handheld radio before engine start
  • listen to only part of the ATIS
  • don’t listen to it at all
  • don’t listen to it, but tell the controller you did
  • ask the controller to read you the weather portion
  • listen to two frequencies at the same time

I have seen these and many other strategies used by pilots. Each of these shortcuts has a drawback. Some are safety issues, others are simply inconvenient. But the larger issue is that these shortcuts shouldn’t be needed at all. The ATIS is simply too long.

Heck, even if you listen to the ATIS, sometimes you haven’t listened to it. How is that possible? Let’s say you just dedicated 90 seconds to listening to the recording (although between asking for a frequency change, tuning radios, etc it’s probably closer to two minutes). You report that you have “information Alpha”. The controller says that information Bravo just came out, so report when you have information Bravo. Great. Now you have to listen to it again. Oh, probably only the weather portion changed and everything else is the same. But what if it’s not? Suppose a navaid is now out of commission, or runway lighting is affected, or there’s a disabled aircraft on a taxiway? I’ve seen all those things happen just at John Wayne.

Yeah, ATIS is a problem. The solution, however, is elegantly simple: shorten it. Not just a little, I mean cut that thing down to the bone. Absolutely vital information only. In most cases, that means weather. Take a look at the bolded portion of the ATIS transcription. If I were king of the world, that’s all you’d hear.

This is not an answer requiring a Ph.D, so you might wonder why someone at the FAA hasn’t seen the light and taken action. First of all, the FAA doesn’t care how much money or time you waste on the ground. If they did… well, let’s just say aviation would be a much different place. Second, as a large government agency, there is a fair bit of “CYA” thinking. If it’s on the ATIS, then the pilot as been advised of it and the FAA is not responsible for non-disclosure. You hit a bird on departure? “Hey we told you about the birds”. Third, the controllers don’t have to listen to the ATIS a dozen times a day, so they aren’t aware of the problem. Fourth, controllers are no longer pilots. In the old days, a high percentage of controllers were also pilots. That was a good thing, because they saw every aspect of air traffic from both sides of the coin. Today, very few controllers are active pilots, and it shows. I can readily identify a controller-pilot just by how they talk on the radio.

There is another reason that the ATIS stays as long as it is, and it’s called “D-ATIS”. Digital ATIS is a transcribed, digitally transmitted version of the ATIS audio broadcast, usually accessed on a computer screen in the cockpit. It’s mainly the airliners, business jets, and other big money operators which have access to D-ATIS. They are the ones with the deep pockets and political clout to have complaints about the ATIS addressed. The problem is they don’t have to listen to it! It’s transmitted to a screen and they simply read it at their leisure. The rest of us simply suffer in 90-second-long silence. Try sitting in silence for 90 seconds. It’s a long time. Now imagine you’re traveling three miles a minute over the ground.

I have campaigned to have the ATIS shortened at John Wayne to no avail. I feel strongly that most of the information should be published elsewhere in writing and obtained as part of a preflight briefing. All that junk about the cranes, approach minimums, ASDE, clearance delivery frequencies, birds in the vicinity, etc. belongs elsewhere. Even the portion about the runways in use should be removed. Pilots are already aware of the runway configuration, and once they have the wind direction they should know which runway is in use. Especially at a Class C airport, the TRACON controller is going to be routing pilots toward the runway in use, and they even tell you which runway it is. “Head to Signal Peak for left traffic, runway 19 left…”

Shortening the ATIS would increase efficiency, reduce costs, and improve safety. When something other than weather is added to the ATIS broadcast, it should be because a temporary situation has occurred where vital operational information needs to be disseminated to ALL pilots. Examples:

  • stuck mic on the tower frequency, so an alternate is in use
  • disabled aircraft on the runway
  • runway or taxiway closure (and even then, only until published in a NOTAM)

Reducing non-weather ATIS information to the absolute minimum ensures that the entire recording will be listened to and understood. Critical information will stand out rather than be lost in a stream of unimportant data. And when you miss a piece of the ATIS, you can take comfort in the fact that it will loop around again in 20 seconds, not 90.

So there it is. If you think ATIS is too long at your airport, do something about it. It’s a safety hazard. The longer we stay silent, the longer it’ll get and the longer we’ll stay silent while listening to it. Kind of a vicious circle, isn’t it?

8 Comments

Ron, June 29th 2010 | Posted in Safety

Long Beach Class C Airspace Proposal

Well, here it is: the long-awaited details of the FAA’s proposed addition of Class C airspace to Long Beach:

I’m not sure this airspace addition will reduce the risk of a midair collision. In fact, I think it might do just the opposite. While ostensibly protecting airplanes on the instrument approaches to runway 30, it will force non-participating aircraft into a smaller chunk of sky.

I’ve heard they are expecting to implement this change without much, if any, increase in staffing at Socal Approach. Considering the volume of traffic in and around Long Beach, I can only assume Socal will be unable to provide services to aircraft in local practice areas. This will force them down below 2400 feet over the harbor, and below 1500 feet off the Huntington Beach coast. At that altitude, they will be mixing it up with banner towers and helicopters. In addition, lower altitudes equate decreased glide distance for single engine airplanes. So they will stick closer to the coast, causing further congestion.

Transiting aircraft will be forced upward and having to live in the airspace between 3500 and 4900 feet. Should training aircraft elect to fly above the Class C airspace, that will add to the logjam as well.

It’s also worth noting that these are the aircraft which are most likely to be flying without traffic detection equipment.

There are a few other odd things about this proposal. The Los Alamitos class D airspace appears to be reduced to a pie-shaped slice. I’ve not seen that before. The west side of the field will be class C while the east side remains class D.

Speaking of Los Alamitos, I can’t help but wonder how this will affect the Medfly operations in and out of that airfield. Our operations probably contribute to the perceived need for this airspace. We routinely fly in and out of Los Al to the south at 1000′ MSL. We have north/south regions over that area which we fly at 1000′ and/or 2100′. These are standard procedures for us, all of which were designed with ATC’s input and which we fly while talking to them and with their full assent. It may give the airliners an occasional RA (resolution advisory) or two, but I’ve never felt it was in any way unsafe.

There are certainly times when adding airspace is necessary. For example, I wouldn’t mind seeing a class D tower added at Corona. But I’m not sure this Long Beach thing is such a good idea.

I’d be interested to hear from other Socal pilots. What’s your take on this proposal?

14 Comments

Ron, June 23rd 2010 | Tags: ,
Posted in Aviation

Best Paint Scheme Ever

Finally. An airline with a sense of humor!

When is an airline’s livery more than just a bunch of paint? When it makes a buzz on the internet which goes far beyond the likes of aviation geeks like me.

I’d never heard of South African carrier Kulula Airlines until today. And odds are, you hadn’t either. Given the chance, though, I’d fly with them in a heartbeat just based on what’s in these pictures. Typical male response, eh? Only concerned with exterior appearances!

Seriously though, it speaks volumes about Kulula that they set aside the laws of corporate branding long enough to acknowledge the oddity of the aviation lexicon. To the average passenger, it’s undoubtedly an off-putting jumble of terms, acronyms, and abbreviations. They acknowledge this, and do it with a sense of humor which will bring a smile to neophytes and veterans alike.

Most American carriers wouldn’t have the chutzpah to green light this sort of thing. They tend see the exterior spaces of an airliner fuselage as a place to sell advertising to the highest bidder. I’ve seen theme parks, NBA basketball franchises, states, magazines, and other entities advertised. Perhaps it’s part of the financial equation and simply a necessity to keep the airline profitable.

Whatever the reason, I salute Kulula. Perhaps there’s a moral here: putting the fun and enjoyment back into aviation can help the bottom line, too. Here’s hoping “Flying 101″ is viral enough to bring some of that thinking up to our hemisphere.

Flying 101, indeed!

Look, it's a flying aviation dictionary...

2 Comments

Ron, February 9th 2010 | Tags: , ,
Posted in Aviation, Humor

Junk In, Junk Out

The introduction of computerized displays (also known as “glass panels”, or in the FAA’s parlance, Technologically Advanced Aircraft or “TAA”) into general aviation cockpits can mean serious consequences for those unprepared to deal with the complexities involved.

Sure, there’s a lot of power and capability present in those computers. They can provide you with wind speed and direction, beautiful color moving maps, an entire continent worth of aeronautical data, and so much more. Terrain databases, traffic alerts, sophisticated autopilots, GPS roll steering, highway-in-the-sky, and so much more. Things we probably haven’t even though of yet.

Amazing stuff. Of course, it can be a bit daunting for those who haven’t reached a particular skill level with the glass. Information overload is common, even in experienced pilots. I see this a lot in the latest generation of G1000 panels; there is so much information on the Primary Flight Display that it can get overwhelming.

As always, the weakest link in the cockpit is usually the guy flying the plane. One thing pilots of all experience levels have to watch for is what I call the “junk in, junk out” syndrome. The computers will do exactly what you tell them to do. If, for example, you input SLI as a waypoint and aren’t careful, you can end up going to South American instead of Seal Beach, because there is an identically named navaid on that continent. All it takes is a wrong button push and poof!, you’re on your way.

This kind of thing is common with intersections because they use five letters. Key in DRIFT instead of DRIFY and you’ll end up east of Philadelphia instead of south of Long Beach, CA.

I’ve done this several times myself. The only way to prevent it is to double check that the courses and distances make sense.

Computers have the ability to smooth and simplify our lives. They also have the ability to cause major problems. Anyone who has ever cc:’d an email to the wrong person(s) can tell you about that.

In aviation, they can cause funny things to happen even outside the cockpit. Here’s one such example: a friend of mine runs a well-known aviation weather site, and his system choked on an odd identifier. Turns out someone at the FAA cut-and-paste into the wrong window, and his laundry list of personal tasks ended up in the FAA’s international NOTAM system.

You’ve gotta see this NOTAM that popped up a couple of weeks ago, and it just tripped up our decoder today…

This is for ICAO identifier “MIKE” — which as far as I can tell is just a guy named Mike!! :-)

Wish this was just a joke, but it’s actually in the FAA’s international NOTAM system!!!!!

0014/09 – 0014 NOTAMR 0009 0013 A) MIKE PART 1 OF 2 B) WIE C) UFN E)

THINGS TO DO LIST IN NOVEMBER 2009 AT:
1607 JAMES ISLAND AVE., N.M.B.
BRING: MESUREMENTS OF: OUR BEDROOM SET, ETC.
TURN ON THE HEAT VICE A/C.
MASTER BATHROOM/KITCHEN PAINT: CLOSET/WINDOW MOULDING.

I OWE JOE/JOE FOR PALM FERTILIZER/TRIMMING, IF DONE??
BUY: GRILL, PRESSURE WASHER AT LOWE’S (NMB), NEXT SPRING (2010).
10 AZALEAS, OR FLOWERS (NMB), NEXT SPRING (2010).
CURTAIN ROD FOR UP-STAIRS BATHROOM??

TO DO: ME, HANDY-ANDY, PAINTER??
STAIN/OR WAX BANNISTER?
SPARE BEDROOM: PAINT INSIDE TRIM IN CLOSET.
CLEAN UP THE PLANT IN THE GARAGE, NEXT SPRING (2010).
FERTILIZE LAWN/PLANTS, NEXT SPRING (2010).
HANDY ANDY, NEXT SPRING (2010).

(ED) CAULK/PAINT OUTSIDE WHERE NEEDED.
INSTALL SHELVING IN ALL UPSTAIRS CLOSETS.
RE-HANG BALCONY DOOR LIGHT FIXTURES.
LAUNDRY ROOM: INSTALL CABINET/SHELF ABOVE.
CLEAN OUT THE GARAGE DOORS: BRAD/BRADY, CHRIS DOORMAN.

(AUGUST 09)
CALL EXTERMINATOR FOR APPMT: 843-365-5120 (CONWAY PEST CONTROL)
CALL A/C TECHNICAN FOR SEPT. CK ON HEAT PUMPS, NEXT SPRING (2010).

You’ve gotta admire the guy’s level of organization. His home sounds lovely. Now if he could just do something about those “fat fingers”…

4 Comments

Ron, November 20th 2009 | Tags: , , ,
Posted in Aviation, Humor, IFR
« Older Posts



Switch to our mobile site