I came over the fence at 100 mph in the Cessna 172. Even the traffic reporter sitting to my right knew I was way too fast. I saw her hands tighten around her seatbelt harness, her knuckles whiten.
Halfway down the 3,000-foot runway, I’d only bled off 20 mph. Normally I’d have firewalled the throttle and flown a go-around. Instead, when the wheels touched pavement with 300 feet of runway left, I retracted the flaps and stood on the brakes.
“You never go around in the Flight Restricted Zone,” my boss — the owner of the airplane — had warned when he hired me.
He was the owner of a Washington, D.C., traffic reporting company, based at one of the three airports inside the DC FRZ. “You never go around at Hyde Field, unless you want F-16s out of Joint Base Andrews greeting you when you pop back up on radar.”
So I didn’t go around. I just pumped the brakes harder with less than 200 feet to go, determined not to skid or square the tires. I managed to come to a stop on the white runway end line —zero feet to spare.
The weak joke I made to the traffic reporter, hoping to ease the tension, didn’t go over well. She yelled, “I’m eight months pregnant!” We rode back in disquieting silence.
Back at the office, she requested never to be assigned to fly with me again.
My boss was even less forgiving: “When I said you don’t go around, I didn’t mean it literally!”
Another C-172 pilot also decided to abdicate his pilot in command authority to accommodate a Tower controller at his local airport. The plane landed long, at the runway end threshold, with overheated brakes and damaged tires.
According to his report to NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System, he was inbound and ready to join the pattern. Tower asked him if his intention was to fuel up at a particular FBO before parking the plane. He confirmed that intention. That’s when Tower changed the pilot’s clearance to a different, shorter runway closer to the FBO.
The pilot understood that the controller was trying to do two favors at the same time — save the pilot taxi time to the fuel pumps and give himself less traffic to deal with.
However, wrote the pilot, “I was initially unsure of how to enter this approach for RWY X, being not overly familiar with the airport, and answered the controller: ‘You want me to make a 2-mile right base for RWY X?’ He replied, ‘You can fly south and bring it straight to the numbers RWY X, cleared to land RWY X.’”
At that point, the pilot read back the clearance and went to work. He was still at pattern altitude and at 85 knots, no flaps. He cut power to idle and put the plane into a slip. He lost altitude quickly, but also gained 20 more knots of airspeed. Coming out of the slip, he found himself still high and fast.
“I forced the plane down at about 80 knots, bounced once, I think, then slowed it down, braking harder as I realized I was running out of runway. The last few seconds I was braking hard with the yoke back, and the tires or brakes were squealing.”
A flight instructor in a Cessna 152 had to file a NASA report after his rationale to continue a forward slip to a landing became a runway incursion involving an Eclipse jet. The instructor was preparing a student for a private pilot checkride at an uncontrolled airport.
On base leg, the pilots saw the Eclipse jet land long. The CFI expected the jet to clear the runway in time for their landing. Instead it began a back taxi down the airport’s 8,800-foot runway, toward Taxiway Delta.
The flight instructor chose to have his student continue the forward slip approach “to the numbers.” He rationalized his decision as a teachable moment on short approach and short field landings.
The student landed the plane on the runway threshold. The C-152 did roll out well before the Eclipse jet, but not before the jet had exited onto Taxiway Delta.
In another NASA report, a newly minted private pilot described his rationale for landing long. He discovered on short final that the throttle on his Piper Archer wouldn’t retard to idle.
“When I descended, I seemed to have difficulties slowing down the aircraft, and much later I realized the throttle was stuck at about 500-600 rpm above idle, not too much, but enough for a crash landing.”
His intended runway was a relatively short 3,000 feet. Plus he was 30 knots too fast due to the stuck throttle.
“I was forced to make a decision in less than five seconds. With the stuck throttle, damage could also affect the higher rpms sooner or later,” he wrote, rationalizing his decision to continue for a landing.
He then dove the airplane with full flaps at the runway threshold. Once over the runway, he chopped the mixture and retracted the flaps.
“In any case, I still had too much airspeed, about 75 knots upon touchdown.”
He touched down with more than 50% of the runway behind him. Heavy braking kept him from going off the runway.
RATIONALIZING A BAD DECISION
What did all these pilots have in common with me? We all rationalized a bad decision.
I rationalized landing long and the subsequent havoc I wreaked because of blind adherence to my boss’s directive. I chose to obey my boss rather than exercise pilot in command authority. If I had done so, I would have made the reasonable decision to go around and shoot the approach again.
Wanting to help out the controller was how the C-172 pilot rationalized his bad decision.
“I wanted to complete the landing to accommodate the controller, who was accommodating me by giving me the RWY X approach. Though I didn’t think of it in these terms, I must have subconsciously thought that if I didn’t accomplish the first approach, I would have wasted the controller’s efforts, which, while true, was not a good reason to continue a bad approach.”
The Archer pilot did not derive any wisdom post-incident.
He wrote, “I would still have done the same should it have happened again. I could have damaged the front gear in the grass ahead, but we still would have walked out safely and with minor damage to the aircraft. Going around is perfect if you have misjudged the airspeed or altitude, but not in a power failure, where the situation could get much worse.”
Yet he was still airborne when he discovered the problem. He could have applied full power, which he still had, aborted the landing and climbed to a safe altitude to reassess his situation.
At first the pilot expressed concern about arriving before sunset. However, he later wrote that he’d arrived over the airport well before sundown, with enough time to have gone to an alternate airport. Time enough to go to an alternate means time enough to climb out of the pattern and start all over again. Why did this pilot feel his decision was his only option?
In psychology, rationalization is defined as a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable — or even admirable and superior — by plausible means. Rationalization happens in two steps:
- A decision, action, or judgment is made for a given reason, or no known reason at all.
- A rationalization is performed, constructing a seemingly good or logical reason, as an attempt to justify the act after the fact for oneself or others.
Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing.
The Archer pilot believed he had not been trained for his particular emergency.
“So there you are to improvise and control your panic,” he wrote.
That was his rationalization.
He also believed he only had five seconds in which to make the decision. But that wasn’t the case. He had a working motor and fuel, which meant he had time. He also had the training — the engine-out procedure. As a newly minted pilot, he would have practiced that maneuver a lot, prior to having performed it during his checkride.
In controlling his panic, the pilot failed to correlate that procedure with the unfamiliar stuck throttle situation. A more reasonable option would have been to abort the landing, get back into the pattern, and set up for an engine-out landing.
The C-152 flight instructor rationalized his bad decision because he was too locked into that approach so he could finish the lesson. In his conclusion, he realized the fallacy of his logic.
“In retrospect, this incident should have been used as a teachable moment, and I should have performed a go-around. I did call the student later this evening and emphasized this.”
The C-172 pilot confessed he also thought going around might make him look bad.
A wise CFI once told me that, in flying, sometimes doing the right thing ain’t always pretty.
I agree with the comment that a go around followed by a possible full throttle event could be handled easily. You might practice engine out landings, but most folks don’t. What this really comes down to is currency and good airmanship…
Truer words never spoken.
But I have seen other pilots like Gbigs. They’re characteristically untrainable once they get the piece of paper that makes them “legal” to fly. From that point on they know what they were taught, right or wrong, and what the reg’s say word for word. They are almost immune to logical thinking and feel persecuted if anyone disagrees with them so they fight back.
Sounds like a lot of voters we all know about.
I am just about convinced that gbigs is a fake. There can’t be anyone who has earned his pilot certificate that has an attitude and ignorance like he has displayed here. There is no instructor who could teach him to fly. If he is a pilot, I wonder if he could safely fly an airplane with the airspeed indicator covered up? His whole goal with his ignorant and seemingly hard headed posts is to torment all the other readers & posters on here with his unbelievable comments.
@DanielTorres
Since you asked:
Mach is a function of the speed of sound which varies dependent on temperature only (not altitude); so at 35000′ with an OAT of -50°C, mach .80 will give a TAS of 465 knots, if the temperature was -30°C at 35000′, mach .80 would give a TAS of 485 knots.
TAS is IAS corrected for altitude and temperature; as the temperature or altitude increases, the air density will decrease and this will cause the indicated airspeed to read lower than the true airspeed.
IAS is used to determine all of the perforance and limits of the aircraft…especially overspeeding.
Here is how to get IAS from a Mach number and reversed: http://www.flightsimaviation.com/rule-of-thumb/23_Convert_Mach_Number_to_Indicated_Airspeed_IAS.html
First, YOU are pilot in command, the controllers instructions are to be followed if you can, however they are technically advisory, You as the PILOT in command has final authority as to the outcome ( safety) of the flight, so if necessary, exercise that authority.
Second, Look at your chart, everything is marked in both statuary and nautical miles. Personally, I never understood the use of nautical miles in aviation. Everything else in your daily life is equated in statue miles.
( Car speed, distance etc.) even the farm fields in the midwest are statue mile squares. Airspeed indicators where all originally marked in statue miles not knots. and that is what we grew up in aviation with. In respect, airspeed instruments are highly overrated in their usefulness, because for airspeed control, they are way behind the airplane, and for distance navigation are extremely inaccurate. To get from point A to point B before running out of fuel, GROUNDSPEED not airspeed for the distance is what gets you there. When it comes to so called “stabilized ” approaches, here is another poorly taught procedure in aviation. Actually there are “two” phases to a landing. First is the approach phase and second is the landing phase. Neither phase is going to guarantee a “good” landing. They should be taught as two separate portions to a landing. I believe airspeed indicators should be banned in all training aircraft, then perhaps the student will learn to “FLY” the airplane and not the instrument..
Yes, I am an “older” pilot soloing in 1963 with around 7000 hours flying all over the western half of the US, including Alaska, with basically charts, and little radio for navigation, using the statue mile.
Gbigs, A lot of assumptions but you are of course entitled to your own opinion.
Safe travels to you wherever you fly….
These are great “never again” stories. They are mean to help others to be safer and make better decisions. Thank you for sharing the stories, even though pride had to be swallowed in order to help others.
I have owned several aircraft and both POH’s were also in MPH. Not sure what new plane POH’s are. Both mine were used and older.
I’ll take the F-16’s any day rather than a accident in a plane. So this aircraft had no radios? Good story and lots to learn from it.
Use knots in aviation articles not MPH. The first rule of unstabilized approach is go around. Unstabilized means what it means. If you don’t know what it means then A. don’t get into the air and B. if you do manage to con someone into letting them rent you their plane, don’t fly anywhere near the airspace where I fly.
Of the four aircraft that I have owned, they all have airspeed indicators in MPH. Assuming a single way to do things is part of the cause of the incidents in this article.
Nothing the FAA produces in regard to training material, nor does ATC give speeds in mph. Suggest you get updated.
My PA-28-180 has an ASI marked in MPH and the POH and Flight Manual quote all critical (V) speeds in MPH. When operating an aircraft, you use the information provided by the manufacturer (or STC provider if applicable) so if your approach speed is given in MPH, you use MPH. You don’t convert to knots just because newer aircraft use speeds quoted in knots. Greg Wilson is correct. And nothing in FAA training materials tells you that you are forbidden from referencing speeds in MPH. Greg Wilson is also correct in implying that inability to adapt to a situation is a factor in all of these incidents. Sounds to me that he is quite “updated”.
Like I said. The FAA writes the rules in knots. ATC gives direction in knots. The entire aviation world uses knots. If you are flying around in MPH then you are flying unsafely.
Maybe you should change to boxer style.
Wow. And with that you have likely lost credibility with anyone else commenting on this thread.
gbigs, That is one of the most stupid comments I have ever read from you. You seem to have a talent for posting them.
It is a legit point. Sectionals, instrument charts, ATC, the FAA, all the training materials all specify speeds and distances in knots.
Anyone flying around converting MPH to knots in their heads is a problem for all of us in the air. Especially a guy flying in IMC calculating fuel reserves and distance between waypoints which are all in nautical miles and knots.
Gbigs if it’s unsafe to fly using mph instead of knots please educate us all and tell us WHY! Why am I more likely to get in your way or run out of gas because my ASI is marked in mph than you? Don’t just lecture us tell us your reasoning.
Oh are you a college professor in California? Never mind then.
I suppose airline pilots are unsafe because they use Mach at high altitude cruise.
Gbig clearly does not understand the basic fundamental concept of performance based speeds and regulatory based speeds. If your ASI has marking in MPH and your POH published stall speeds in MPH, and all your V speeds are published in MPH, then you better be basing your approach speeds on MPH.
One day Gbig may bend an airplane and we’ll read about him here on GA News. I can see it now: “The pilot stated that he set a final approach speed of 80 kts. The aircraft touched down at a higher than normal rate of speed and bounced. On the third bounce, the nose wheel struck the ground first cause substantial damage to the nose gear, firewall, and engine mount. The POH for the airplane stated an approach speed of 80 MPH and the ASI only had markings in MPH. When asked why he referenced his speeds in kts when the POH quoted all reference speeds in MPH, the pilot stated that MPH is unsafe because ATC give speed assignments in kts. The pilot was eventually given a 90 day suspension of his certificate for violating CFR 91.13(a) and was required to take recurrent training.”
(OK, a bit of embellishment there, but you get my point.)
This article is about landing at an airport. Pilots (including ATP) use knots when flying single or multi engine prop planes. Only jets capable of mach speeds use mach above FL180. And mach is still based on IAS which for jets is ALWAYS in knots.
FAR Part § 91.117: Aircraft speed. (b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots.
Gbigs
Balls to the wall and slightly downhill your Cirrus might be able to make 200 KNOTS and you might have an issue with the speed limit . For the rest of the proletariat it’s not a problem and what the ASI is marked in has NO effect on the ability to land the airplane.. FYI the old timey ASI in most airplane’s built since since the 60’s have dual markings so this is all a moot point anyway unless you fly a real antique, as I do.
It occurs to me what a shame it is you weren’t around in the days of Jimmy Doolittle, Chuck Yeager and Bob Hoover. They could have learned so much from you about safety in aviation as related to following rules.
Once again, gbigs misses the difference between performance speeds and regulatory speeds. He seems to think that just because a FAR states a speed limit in knots that somehow it’s illegal and unsafe to fly an airplane with an ASI marked in MPH. I’ll say it for that last time: if you ASI is in MPH and your POH publishes all V speeds in MPH, then you better be planning approach and touchdown speeds in MPH. If your POH is in knots, then you better be flying your approach based on knots. There should be no question about this.
And btw, Mach is not based on IAS. The relationship between IAS and Mach varies with density altitude.
Your statement that
” Only jets capable of mach speeds use mach above FL180″ is incorrect. The DC-7’s that I used to fly before the jets came out had airspeed indicators with a built in mach number indicator. It would “kick in” at somewhere around 18,000′ and the normal limit was Mach .520 with a maximum of Mach .565. I still have my manuals for that aircraft, so was able to confirm the above statement.
Interesting thread on Kts vs Mph, My 310 poh is in mph as is the asi, Since the aircraft/poh were certificated in mph I felt it wise if not legal to continue with that approach when I updated the panels & instruments, I simply had the asi outer ring in mph and inner ring in Kts like my PA28-200. The apparent devotion to kts or stay out of my airspace is more concerning as it seems many pilots are becoming more involved with their latest electronic devices than comprehending their instruments and listening to what the airplane is telling you, . Most important of all though is your head on a swivel and eyes out of the cockpit?
A couple of comments for our resident expert(s).
Assume no wind and standard temps: Your true airspeed at 7500′ msl is the same as your ground speed. True or False
If the indicated airspeed happened to be 100 mph(older plane), what would the true airspeed be?
I wonder if they still teach the old 9/5 or 5/9 + or – 32 stuff they did back in the early 50’s when I started flying. I find the easiest way is to double the centigrade degrees, subtract 10% and add 32. Reverse it to convert F to C.
I agree Greg, that attitude in a few of these comments is what is unsafe.
So my 1947 PA-12 is dangerous because the ASI is marked in mph instead of knots and I should throw it away? Give me a break!
Gbigs you never cease to amaze.
Me either. I bet super pilot gbigs couldn’t taxi your PA-12 away from its parking space without going round and round in circles. We had a couple of guys on the airline with the superior attitude like him. They never made it past their probationary period. Folks like him are educated beyond their intelligence it seems.
Yeah but he’s good at something I guess since he flys an airplane worth 2 or 3 times as much as my house, which of course proves his superior airmanship.
He and I could go cross country in his Cirrus and my Bonanza and he’d still be zipping his pants in the John when I got there, but my airplane is a clunky old piece of junk because it doesn’t have a Garmin 1000 in it.
and an airspeed indicator that reads in MPH.
Well actually knots and mph at the same time! Does that make me superior to him? No I guess not since no real pilot needs or uses mph anyway in spite of the fact his G1000 will display that way “for fun”.
That Archer pilot could have just added carb heat on final (assuming that his story about having a stuck throttle was true). Doing so would have reduced his RPM by about 300. It would have been a non-event had he done so.
“How was he to know that the throttle wouldn’t stick wide open if he added power and ended up in an even more threatening situation?”
He also could have used his mixture control to take care of worry about advancing the throttle and it sticking open so he could do a go around.
While It’s true that many pilots never go around and will continue on with an unstable approach even when it is obvious that things are going wrong, I’m not sure I disagree with the Archer pilot’s decision.
How was he to know that the throttle wouldn’t stick wide open if he added power and ended up in an even more threatening situation?
This is a very helpful thought provoking article.
You make an interesting point Tom. I would like to pose these questions to you: if the pilot’s throttle is stuck in the wide open position, shouldn’t he treat it like an engine failure? With the throttle stuck in wide open, he would have no motor control, just as he would have no control over an engine that failed on him. Wouldn’t his procedure be to set up his approach and then cut the motor, and dead stick his plane to a landing?
“ ‘You never go around in the Flight Restricted Zone,’ my boss — the owner of the airplane — had warned when he hired me.”
“You never go around at Hyde Field, unless you want F-16s out of Joint Base Andrews greeting you when you pop back up on radar.”
“My boss was even less forgiving: ‘When I said you don’t go around, I didn’t mean it literally!’”
Bosses can be like that – saying something stupid then covering it up.
When you’re dealing with the DC FRZ/SFRA you don’t mess around – everything you say has to be crystal clear and/or literally true. Including giving instructions to your employees.
I would still put the responsibility on the pilot for worrying more about potential (perceived) consequences that worrying about safety. If at any time you feel that safety may be compromised, the appropriate action is to address the safety concerns and worry about dealing with paperwork later. While his Boss’ remarks were stupid, seeing as how you could easily go around the pattern once and land before F-16’s are even scrambled, the pilot is the one responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft.
I was once flying back home to FRG from Manasses and was on an IFR flight plan going through the DC Class B. There were lines of storms to west that were starting to move closer and at one point I saw build-up about 20 miles ahead while I was heading NW on the West side of the Bravo. I asked ATC for a diversion twice and was denied. Finally, after seeing a lightening bolt about 5 to 8 miles ahead I got on the radio and SAID that I was turning 30 degrees to the right to avoid a lightening strike. I expected to hear a denial once again along with the threat of having to call some number when I got on the ground and probably have to deal with an investigation, bla, bla, bla, etc. yet I made the decision that flying so close to T-storms was worse. So I made the command decision to divert and figured I would deal with the consequences later.
You know what happened? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! I continued my un-eventful flight and got home 1 1/2 hours later. My point is that it is unfortunately common for pilots to take actions counter-intuitive to safety for fear of some regulatory consequence, but these fears are generally unfounded and serve to be a detrimental distraction. Fly the plane, get back on the ground safely, do whatever you need to do to responsibly fly the plane. In the unlikely event that you busted a reg or encroached on the fringe of some airspace, deal with it later. I’m sure once you explain your situation there will likely be nothing to come of it.
So an anti-glass guy shows up.
Did you know the G1000 and other glass panels can be setup for Kts or mph, Zulu or non-military time or non military time, centigrade or Fahrenheit, miles or nautical miles?
And ADS-B nor a glass panel prevents, inhibits or Pavlov dog conditions someone not to scan outside. That is a myth and uttered usually by guys who have never flown with glass.
An no. An aircraft is not certified for mph versus kts. But as I keep pointing out ATC, the FAA, the sectionals and the instrument plates all use nautical miles and knots. So those stuck with mph on their airspeed indicators really should change those airspeed indicators out for a modern one indicating knots.
“Did you know the G1000 and other glass panels can be setup for Kts or mph, Zulu or non-military time or non military time, centigrade or Fahrenheit, miles or nautical miles?”
Gbigs, why would Garmin design this high end equipment to use dangerous metrics like MPH instead of knots?
By the way I compliment you on your clever way of letting the uswashed know that you fly a G5 Cirrus in such a subtle way. The rest of us will just have to keep stooging around in our span cans designed in the 40’s and try to stay our of the way of your state of the art plastic airplane with a parachute and magic instruments and an overall safety record almost as good as that crummy Witchita iron it replaced. Can’t speak for others but I for one will do my best to stay out of your way.
Because it’s a software driven device and it’s easy to add that capability (and a ton of other goodies too that are fun to have but not used). But no one using a G1000 sets anything to MPH (G1000 will not be found in old planes or little cheap pieces of junk). And if they are truly a pilot they will also not set OAT to Fahrenheit or use anything other than Zulu time.
You are a piece of work Gbigs!
Well said, Batr. Well said.