ver the last couple of years my fellow Safety Program Managers have asked me to be a guest speaker and I have had the privilege of speaking

on the subject of flying in Alaska to large groups of pilots across the nation. It never occurred to me that so many people wanted to fly to here. The response to the meetings was exciting. Pilot feed back was complimentary. However, the majority of pilots never realized that there was so much water to cross.

From the beginning I have suggested that pilots fly through Canada up the Alcan then cross over to the coast, if you will, to Ketchikan, Petersburg, etc. For the inexperienced, lower forty-eight pilot, the inland waterway is fine if the aircraft has two engines or is a floatplane. What about pilots who do not have aircraft of that description? Not to mention the pilots that live in Southeast Alaska and fly on a regular basis.

For all its splendor and magnificent beauty, Alaska can be a harsh taskmaster when it comes to aviation. Even experienced pilots can and have had negative episodes while flying over the waterways that separate airports in Southeast. For the most part it is commuter airlines that carry passengers and cargo in Southeast. Experienced pilots operate air carrier aircraft. They are familiar with the terrain and the rapid changes in the weather. The quantity of passengers and cargo transported by air is astounding and is necessitated by the remoteness of the area.

Civil aviation, not for hire, makes up a small part of the flying public in the state as a whole. Yet accounts for most of the accidents. When I saw the statistics I felt sure that the pilots who were experiencing trouble were coming in from outside the state. I found through research that my supposition was wrong. The majority of pilots having accidents were from the area near to the accident site. It occurred to me that maybe I had missed

the mark and the local pilots were the ones that needed the education. Pilot error is the one most prevalent cause for the accident rate, followed by weather related, then mechanical issues.

It is imperative that the pilot flying in Southeast Alaska, as well as the rest of the U.S., is competent, current and think like a pilot-not an airplane driver. There are no places to pullover to the side of the road if an unforeseen situation arises. Pre-planning and caution are the two items most forgotten by the pilot. Forgetting to close a door can cause enough distraction to make a pilot forget to fly the airplane, if only for a moment. It could be that the moment is a critical one. Fuel management, or a lack of, can cause an engine to quit. Poor judgment on landing approach caused seven out of fifteen accidents in Southeast last year.

What can you as a conscientious pilot do to rectify the situation? Plan as carefully as the pilots flying to Alaska for the very first time. That pilot finds out everything about the area he or she plans to fly in. All of the nuances that are needed to make a safe flight: Contingency plans, if weather precludes continuation of that flight, and a flight plan filed to assure safe rescue in the event of an emergency landing, especially this time of year when weather can turn in a heart beat.

Lastly, get some flight training each year. Don't rely on a Biennial Flight Review to keep you competent to fly. Now is the time to plan your next flight, and the one after that, and the one after that.... Preparation. Currency. Competency.

Safe flight. That's what it is all about.

+

Patricia Mattison is the Safety Program Manager at the Juneau Flight Standards District Office.

or most pilots, the greatest challenge they face is the practical test. That meeting with a designated pilot examiner (DPE) or FAA inspector can be daunting. "Am I good enough?" they think. Flight instructors often have similar thoughts because how their student does reflects on them. "Have I prepared my student well enough?"

To help you the flight instructorprepare your students through the practical, let's look at what the Practical Test Standards (PTS) are meant to do. In Chapter VII, "Evaluation," the Aviation Instructor's Handbook, AC 60-14, says, "If students demonstrate the ability to perform selected parts of a skill [emphasis added] for which they are...trained, it is assumed that they will be able to perform the entire skill. In other words, performance testing is a sampling process. It [is] a carefully selected part of a complete doing process typical of the skill for which training is being given."

This definition suggests that a practical test samples the skills and

knowledge a person needs to be a pilot. In other words, the PTS selects portions of everything a person must know and do, and it's the examiner's job to decide if an applicant can do everything else.

But the examiner's judgement of performance isn't totally subjective. The examiner assesses the applicant's ability against the definition of a "satisfactory performance," which is given in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) §61.43, "Flight tests: General Procedures," and the PTS introductory pages. An applicant gives satisfactory performance when he[she] executes procedures and maneuvers within the aircraft's capabilities and limitations; executes emergency procedures and maneuvers appropriate to the aircraft; pilots the aircraft with smoothness and accuracy; exercises judgement; applies his[her] aeronautical knowledge; and shows that he[she] is the master of the aircraft, with the successful outcome of a procedure or maneuver never seriously in doubt.

If the applicant fails any of the re

quired pilot operations in accordance with the applicable provisions of FAR §61.43, the applicant fails the flight test and isn't eligible for the certificate or rating until he[she] passes the operations he[she] failed. Either the examiner or the applicant may discontinue the test when the failure of an operation makes the applicant ineligible for the certificate. If discontinued, the applicant is entitled to credit for the pilot operations he[she] has successfully performed.

The PTS also defines "Unsatisfactory Performance." In part, it says, "If, in the judgment of the examiner, the applicant does not meet the standards of performance of any TASK performed, the associated AREA OF OPERATION is failed and therefore, the practical test is failed.... Typical areas of unsatisfactory performance and grounds for disqualification include: Any action or lack of action by the applicant that requires corrective intervention by the examiner to maintain safe flight. Failure to use proper and effective visual scanning techniques to clear the area before and while performing

maneuvers. Consistently exceeding tolerances stated in the Objectives. Failure to take prompt corrective action when tolerances are exceeded."

In other words, if an applicant scares me doesn't scan for traffic and clear the area, consistently exceeds maneuver tolerances, and doesn't fix errors when he[she] gets outside the tolerances-the test is over. Remember, the PTS's plus-orminus tolerances are predicated on smooth air and a good flying day. Examiners have some leeway to allow for turbulence, but we know the difference between choppy air and hamhandedness.

During the test, I'm an observer, not your friendly flight instructor. Usually, I tell applicants to treat me as a "knowledgeable passenger," but that does not mean they should forego giving me the passenger briefing required by FAR §91.107 (and the PTS). As an examiner I must ensure that your applicants meet the knowledge and skill tolerances for every Task in every Area of Operation. During the oral exam I must, to the greatest extent possible, test an applicant's correlative abilities rather than his rote recitation of facts. During the flight I must evaluate his ability to clear the area and examine his collision avoidance procedures besides how he performs the maneuvers.

Examiners must develop and use a written "plan of action" to give practical tests; mine is three pages long. On it are the applicant's record of eligibility to take the test and the "rules" of the test. First among them is that the applicant, regardless of the certificate or rating sought, must acknowledge that he[she] is the pilot in command.

FAR §61.47, "Flight tests: Status of FAA inspectors and other authorized flight examiners," makes this quite clear. What this really means is that whatever happens, good or bad, it's the applicant's fault, not mine, including violating a regulation, bending the airplane or worse. Naturally, no examiner will intentionally ask an applicant to do anything that will hurt us or the plane. But examiners, contrary to the thoughts of some, are human. They can misspeak or use words dif

ferently than the applicant's instructor.

If you, the instructor, can implant one idea in your student's head before a practical test, it should be that he[she] is the pilot in command-and that the PIC is totally responsible for the safety of the flight, even though there's an examiner sitting next to him[her]. Bolster your student's resolve to ask the examiner about anything that seems unclear, illegal, or unsafe. If anything, asking questions is a sign of good judgment.

What is the applicant's job during a practical test? To demonstrate his[her] knowledge and skill to the examiner. The examiner will use the PTS to decide if the applicant can do it all, and if the applicant knows and can do all that the PTS requires-hey, is there a problem here? Reality time: Can anyone know everything? Hardly. If the applicant and the examiner exchanged places, it wouldn't be long before he[she] found holes in his[her] knowledge; with me, your questioning would shoot me down within a few minutes-l know 'cuz it happens to me all the time. What is the flight instructor's job in preparing applicants for practical tests? The PTS says this: "An appropriately rated flight instructor is responsible for training an applicant to acceptable standards in all subject matter areas, procedures, and maneuvers included in the TASKS within the appropriate practical test standard. Because of the impact of their teaching activities in developing safe, proficient pilots, flight instructors should exhibit a high level of knowledge, skill, and the ability to impart that knowledge and skill to students. Additionally, the flight instructor must certify that the applicant is able to perform safely as a commercial pilot and is competent to pass the required practical test."

This couldn't be better said. As a CFI, you're responsible for everything your student must know and do, including his[her] application, logbook, and airplane recordseverything! When you endorse a student's logbook and application for a certificate or rating, you're testifying that the applicant knows and can do it all. As you work with your student,

you must ensure that you cover all the material and skill areas, and that your student knows how to apply them. Then, you should review them with your student to be sure yourself. Finally, you should help your applicant organize his[her] material so he[she] can really impress the examiner when he[she] takes the test. In my experience, around 75 percent of all applicant failures are the result of a CFI who didn't do his[her] job. From my perspective, it's easy to tell, too.

Instructors can't vaccinate their applicants against "checkitis" because no one is immune. (Remember your initial CFI ride?) The best you can do is try to ease the applicant's mind so he[she] doesn't become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Make sure he[she] understands that the FAA doesn't issue examiners a forehead-shaped stamp that says FAILURE. And that anyone who's been in aviation for some time and said he[she]'s never had a pink slip or a down check is probably stretching the truth (for example, I've had two pinks in my career). As you know from your tests, if the applicant is prepared, checkitis usually fades once the test begins, and a little nervousness is good because it stimulates the thought process.

Finally, tell your applicants never to stop-unless the examiner says "stop." Tell your applicant not to dwell on their supposed mistakes.... The applicant's total job is to concentrate on flying the aircraft.

The day before your student takes his[her] test, tell him[her] he[she]'s prepared because he[she]'s received the best education money can buy. Tell him[her] to go home, find his or her significant other, have a good time. (without alcohol!), get a good night's sleep, and eat a good breakfast the next morning. Then go knock that examiner down and don't let him[her] up until he[she] says, "You passed-and congratulations on one of the better jobs I've seen!" (As an examiner, that makes my day, too!)

Reprinted with permission from the NAFI Mentor.

• Pilot Flight Time

Some time ago I wrote looking for input on FAR § 1.1 that defines "pilot flight time." I said that some of our pilots claimed "flight time" included start, warm-up, taxi, runup, and further taxi (all under the assumption that this time is "for the purpose of flight") while the purists in the group claimed that flight time didn't even start until power was applied at the end of the runway.

According to FAR § 1.1, does flight time include start, warm-up, taxi to the run-up area, further taxi to the runway, etc. or does "moving under its own power for the purpose of flight" begin only when the aircraft is lined up on the centerline beginning its take-off roll?

The argument, of course, is that since most GA aircraft begin charging for the airplane once the engine starts, most pilots have decided to log what they pay for.

But there is another group of pilots who say that warm-up and taxi time is not flight time.

Has the FAA explained the definition we find in FAR § 1.1?

Fred C. Smyth

Via the Internet

Flight time is as defined in FAR § 1.1. FAR $ 1.1, states in part, "Flight time means pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing; or..." The references are FAR $$ 1.1 and 61.51. A more common definition is "Block-to-Block" time. So in essence, flight time means:

Start up: No.

Warm-up: No.

Taxi: Yes.

Further taxi to the runway, etc.: Yes.
The aircraft moves out onto the

runway, and begins the takeoff roll: Yes. En Route: Yes.

Landing and roll out: Yes.

Taxi in to parking: Yes.

Engine Shut Down: No.

* What's in a Name?

That was a really great photo on the back cover of our May/June issue. Only there was one problem. Yes, it is a Piper, but it's a Seminole, not a Seneca.

from multiple calls

Thanks to everyone who caught the error and called or e-mailed us. As you can see by the photos, there is a definite difference between the two airplanes, especially in the tail area.

• Tell Me It Ain't So

I am writing about the May/June 2000 FAA Aviation News photo on page 20 with the caption "Golden Knights 8-way over Bermuda. (US Army Photo by Gary Walker)

The problem is my concern about the jumpers being the legal distance from clouds as required by FAR $105.29. The required distance is 1,000 feet above--"maybe for a moment," 500 feet below-"maybe in a few moments," 2,000 feet horizontal"unlikely," and may not pass into or

FAA AVIATION NEWS welcomes comments. We may edit letters for style and/or length. If we have more than one letter on the same topic, we will select one representative letter to publish. Because of our publishing schedules, responses may not appear for several issues. We do not print anonymous letters, but we do withhold names or send personal replies upon request. Readers are reminded that questions dealing with immediate FAA operational issues should be referred to their local Flight Standards District Office or Air Traffic facility. Send letters to H. Dean Chamberlain, FORUM Editor, FAA AVIATION NEWS, AFS-805, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591, or FAX them to (202) 267-9463; e-mail address:

Dean.Chamberlain@faa.gov

through a cloud—"probably."

I think a violation appears to be documented by the U.S. Army Photo. Then it is printed in FAA Aviation News in an article about FAA attorneys doing a tandem jump.

Tell me it ain't so!

FAR §105:11(c), sections 105.13 through 15.17 and 105.27 through 105.37 of this subpart do not apply to a parachute jump made by a member of an Armed Force:

(1) Unless this is not over the United States, or it is over or within a restricted area when that area is under the control of an Armed Force, or

(2) In military operations in uncontrolled airspace.

Is Bermuda in the United States? There has to be some LEGAL explanation, right? If there was a reason this jump was legal, it might have been prudent to explain the reason in the article.

I am currently doing violations for civilian skydivers jumping through. clouds, and I feel rather silly/stupid for trying to enforce the rules when something like this shows up in our FAA publication.

Chuck Cox

Seattle FSDO

An FAA aviation safety inspector should never feel silly or stupid enforcing FAA regulations.

The last time we checked Bermuda was not part of the United States. As you noted, FAR § 105.1, Applicability, states in part (a) "This part prescribes rules governing parachute jumps made in the United States...."

As you pointed out, this jump was made in Bermuda by military jumpers in accordance with applicable local regulations.

We want to thank you for reminding everyone of the U.S. parachute cloud

FORUM

requirements and flight visibility requirements contained in FAR $105.29, Flight visibility and clearance from clouds requirements.

As you noted, the requirements are three statute miles flight visibility and distance from clouds of 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, and 2,000 feet horizontal at both 1,200 feet or less above the surface regardless of the MSL altitude, and the same requirements exist for more than 1,200 feet above the surface, but less than 10,000 feet MSL. At more than 1,200 feet above the surface and at or above 10,000 feet MSL, the flight visibility becomes five statute miles, and the distance from clouds becomes 1,000 feet above and below and one mile horizontal.

• No Hard Copies

I am a newcomer to aviation. I am to take my practical test in two days for my private pilot certificate. It is a relief that Congress has finally passed the legislation to free up the money that was supposed to be for the FAA. Still, it is stunning that the FAA, which Congress has charged with maintaining public safety regarding aviation, has been intentionally underfunded by diverting the funds elsewhere, and let relatively inexpensive safety items, like FAA Aviation News, lapse for lack of funds.

One of the instructors showed me a back issue, and I was convinced that every pilot should be reading it. I hope. the new legislation lets you get back in business.

Ralph Swank
Tampa, FL

via the Internet

As you now know, funds were approved for the magazine. Thank you for your support of the magazine. I hope you are now a new private pilot. If so, congratulations on your accomplishment.