AOPA ASI Blog: Leading Edge

The loss of Micron CEO, Steve Appleton, last week drew considerable media scrutiny and perhaps in the minds of some, reinforced the idea that general aviation is unacceptably dangerous. The early information is that shortly after takeoff  Appleton advised the tower he needed to return. It was reported that this was his second unsuccessful takeoff that morning. It was also reported that this was a turboprop version which is the latest kit from Lancair.

Two thoughts for your consideration:

1) The Lancair IV-P is one of the most beautiful and fastest piston aircraft ever conceived. The piston version cruises at 286 knots and has a wing  loading of somewhere between 36 and 32 lbs/ sq. ft depending on equipment. The Turbine Lancair claims 300 knots – no wing loading information is provided. By comparison the Piper Mirage, the only certificated pressurized piston single in production, has a cruise speed  of 213 knots and a wing loading of about 23 lbs/ sq. ft. The Mirage is a six seater compared to IV-Ps 4 seats. Stall speeds are listed at 59  knots for the Piper and about 65 knots for the IV-P. They operate in similar environments on similar missions but the safety record is quite different.

According to the FAA, the IV and IV-P have significantly higher fatal accident involvement due to loss of control than other comparable amateur-built aircraft. That is to be expected given the numbers cited above and should come as no surprise. Does this make Lancairs bad aircraft? Not in my view. But before flying one pilots must understand the nature of the animal they’re dealing with. The MU-2 Turboprop comes to mind. It had a pretty dismal safety record until the FAA, after some serious review, decided that pilots needed special training to fly it. The safety record improved significantly. In fairness, there are very few turbine Lancairs flying so it may be premature to lump them in with other models.

Is it time to think about something like this for the Lancair? The Lancair Owners and Builders Organization or LOBO  has long offered a special transition course for new owners. They claim that pilots who have taken their courses have a significantly better record than those who just try to wing it.  This seems to make more sense than some of the other solutions that may be proposed after this accident. However, remember that this is an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft with different rules and higher risks.

2) Steve Appleton was not your run-of-the-mill pilot. He had considerable experience in flying high performance aircraft.  He was involved in other high risk sports and had survived an aircraft accident several years ago. Risk taker? Yes. Unaware of those risks? Probably not. There are already calls for boards to look at whether CEOs and other executives should be allowed to fly GA.  Where does that line get drawn? There is a fine line between reckless and managed risk. The nuances are endless. It would be most unfortunate if this accident turned into a widespread mandate from company risk managers to limit executive and staff flying.

Appleton himself acknowledged that high risk was part of who he was and that it contributed to the success of Micron, his company.  How much risk one takes on should be a matter of individual choice so long as other people understand and have the option to get off. As we all know, pilots are unique people and many of them are significantly more successful in business and in life than those who choose to hunker down.

I never met Steve Appleton but suspect we’d have gotten along very well.

The Blog is traveling extensively for the next two weeks and will resume after that.

The image of the Lancair previously on this post has been deleted.

There is enough heated rhetoric regarding the topic to warm up an NFL stadium but what sends cold chills down my back is the very real possibility that some pilots will try to save a buck. We won’t discuss class warfare, party affiliation, collection efficiencies, big government, the fuel tax or inherent fairness. The politics of this can and should be handled by AOPA but the potential safety ramifications are real and should not be left out of the calculus. The stated plan by the government is that a $100 per flight segment would only apply to turbine powered aircraft. Before we get into how this concept could mutate let’s just look at it at face value.

On short flights – say to reposition, some jet operators could easily decide that they should fly lower and under VFR to avoid the fee. Today almost every turbine  fixed wing aircraft operates with the protection of IFR. The jets typically fly higher because of fuel burn and there is guaranteed separation from all other IFR aircraft. Good idea! But under the new rules it’s easy to see the rationalization that could take place.

The unintended consequences are myriad: Low altitude unpressurized turbine aircraft such as the Caravan or the Kodiak routinely ply the skies below 10,000 – guess who will now go VFR whenever possible? It may not necessarily be safe in marginal VFR but why pay when you can go for free? Much of the helicopter fleet is turbine and they routinely fly low altitude. Does this make sense?

As new variants of very light jets come into the mix they too may eschew the systemic protection because they are not in the same economic strata of Gulfstreams or Challengers. Is the rule to be based on turbine fuel? I predict that we’ll start to see diesels coming into the light aircraft fleet and they use turbine fuel or jet A. Where is the line drawn?

The fee proposal mentions controlled airspace. In most areas east of the Mississippi it starts at 1,200 feet agl, lower in transition areas around airports. Let’s suppose that isn’t what the government meant but rather mandatory communication airspace such as Class D, C, B, or A. Do we really want some of the turbine fleet routinely trying to avoid the system that was put in place to keep us all from colliding? Given the choice between paying the fee every single time the turbine  flies out of a towered airport, it seems economically  rational that there would be a migration to non-towered airports where much of the non-turbine fleet lives. That is not the safest mix in the world.

Now take all this and extrapolate it to other parts of the fleet. No – that couldn’t possibly happen, could it? And the per segment fee couldn’t possibly increase during times of economic downturn or because the fee itself reduces demand? Look at the history of user fees in other parts of the world. I’ve spent some time talking with non-aviation friends about this and when it’s explained in this way, almost all of them agree that our present system, funded by fuel taxes and some contribution from the general fund makes far better sense. We’d like to hear your safety thoughts.

As the details of the Italian cruise ship accident, the Costa Concordia, came out this mishap began to bear an uncanny resemblance to the aeronautical pastime of buzzing. The ship was on a pre-programmed course, one that it and other vessels took hundreds of times before. The ship’s captain, Francesco Schettino apparently deviated from the official computerized route. The small island of Giglio was the source of attraction and, according to the ship’s data recorder, the Concordia came within 150 meters (488 feet) of the Giglio coast, much closer than the approved route. The captain had never done this before (he said) but he did have charts on board and electronic equipment showed the rock formation that ripped a 162 foot gash in the left side of the vessel. Schettino admitted to making a “navigational error” when he “ordered a turn too late.”

So why’d he do it? Showboating, if you’ll pardon the pun, comes to mind. According to ABC News, “Italian media have reported that Schettino was close to the shore in order to wave to a friend who was on land. ” The Cruise Critic blog notes that “Giglio’s news outlet says a similar maneuver in August 2011 earned Schettino a letter of thanks from the island’s mayor. Costa’s CEO, Pier Luigi Foschi said that the August sail-by, which was timed in conjunction with Giglio’s patron saint day, was pre-authorized by Costa and local maritime authorities. The ship stayed at least 500 meters (1,625 feet) from the coast for the entirety of the sail-by, added Foschi. …But, citing Automatic Identification System tracking data, which cruise ships with gross tonnage of 300 or more are required to divulge, shipping publication Lloyd’s List reported that the August sail-by “took the vessel far closer to Giglio than the 500 meters claimed by [Foschi]“—and within 200 meters (650 feet) of the “point of collision” on Friday.”

In the aviation world, you won’t often see a buzz job by an airliner on a regularly scheduled run although accident records show that on deadheading legs for Part 135 and 121 operations, the temptation to do something interesting happens often enough that it’s become an educational point for flight operations. Rest assured that the cruise industry will spend a long time studying this mess. For Part 91 pilots could this serve as a really BIG object lesson?

A perfectly functioning ship is driven into the ground by the captain to show off for a friend and innocents are lost. It is highly likely that the captain will be charged with manslaughter and may serve a long jail sentence. In aviation, we’ve seen foreign authorities prosecute pilots for what truly are accidents, such as the collision between a business jet and an airliner over Brazil a few years back. Honest mistakes are one thing. Deliberate deviations are something else. You’ll recall the case of a pilot giving biplane rides a few years back who decided to engage in some “river-running” and tangled with some wires which resulted in the loss of his passenger.

When one gets away with it they’re a hero in the eyes of some (usually uninformed). But the downside risk is so incredibly high that thinking people will think better of the impulse that may infect a few of us. Without being too sanctimonious, we should share the Concordia disaster with the so-called unreachable among us who are prone to put others or themselves at risk. You want thrills? Try bungee jumping with a long tether—that will cure you—Splat!