The latest FAA Airplane Flying Handbook includes, for the first time, a chapter on aircraft energy management.
Collaborating with the FAA on that chapter was Dr. Juan Merkt, an associate professor of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
The chapter offers an in-depth explanation of the factors affecting an airplane’s energy use, emphasizing that energy management awareness is key to aviation safety, according to Merkt.
“Every pilot is an energy manager — managing energy in the form of altitude and airspeed from takeoff to landing,” he said. “Proper energy management is essential for performing any maneuver, as well as for attaining and maintaining desired vertical flightpath and airspeed profiles in everyday flying.”
“Mistakes in managing the airplane’s energy state can be deadly,” according to the FAA handbook. “Mismanagement of mechanical energy (altitude and/or airspeed) is a contributing factor to the three most common types of fatal accidents in aviation: Loss of control in-flight (LOC-I), controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), and approach-and-landing accidents.”
Merkt, who created a course called “Safety Principles of Aircraft Energy Management” at Embry-Riddle, added he would like aircraft energy management to be incorporated into pilot training to help improve both safety and efficiency.
“Despite their impact on safety and economy, energy management skills are not adequately taught or evaluated in civilian pilot training,” Merkt said, pointing out that in-flight energy crises can lead to fatal accidents.
He added that as the aviation industry heads into a surge of pilot hiring, most new pilots will come not from the military, where pilots are trained in energy management skills, but from civilian training programs.
Meanwhile, a focus on energy efficiency is also a “first step toward embracing principles of sustainability,” he said.
Merkt is also involved in an FAA-sponsored research project with colleagues from Florida Institute of Technology and Georgia Tech that explores the energy requirements for certification of electric aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing capabilities.
I think that what the Dr. is touching on is what makes the difference between a “Pilot” and an “Aviator”. The Pilot drives the craft around manipulating the controls with little “feel” about what the craft is really doing, works very hard, if at all, to maintain airspeed and altitude, glide slope, etc. The Aviator is “One with the machine”, knowing exactly what is necessary to accomplish the intended mission in advance, knows the crafts capabilities in all modes of flight as well as his/her own. Then when an emergency does occur, the Aviator has a greater probability of a survivable, if not successful, termination of the flight than the Pilot. IMO, every Pilot should be striving to become an accomplished Aviator, but sadly many don’t. A great example of what I am speaking of are those who fly Sail Planes. Every flight is what a powered plane pilot would call an emergency in progress. I do not fly sail planes, but wish that I had. Just another opinion.
This chapter was written for a Engineering text book. Where is Richard Collins when we need him?
As an Engineer in aviation, this chapter is added unneeded technobabble seemingly unrelated to flying. It’s been years for me, but I expect the CFI would be discussing Airspeed and Altitude during the very first student landing.
Energy is a 3 dimensional concept, like most flying issues. Reading a 10,000 word engineering dissertation does not convey or help visualize 3D flying concepts for a pilot.
Personally this chapter can be eliminated and replaced with relatable piloting functions which regulate observed characteristics of the plane.
Energy Management is: “Controlling Airspeed and Altitude while not hitting the ground too hard or in the wrong place”
I read the new chapter. Truth is, “fly the numbers” is what we teach until a student acquires ‘feel.” Unfortunately, many pilots never move beyond “fly the numbers.” This new chapter on energy management should push aviators stuck on “fly the numbers” to add an intellectual layer to their flying…if “feel” is too soft a concept.
Glider pilots are completely dependent on a feel for energy management (as Capt Sully, himself a glider pilot, demonstrated on the Hudson).
So was the master of energy management Bob Hoover in his Shrike Commander engine out demonstrations. I found this published tribute;
“Hoover is remembered by millions of people as the premier air show performer in the world. He is renowned for the Energy Management Maneuver, where he shuts down both engines of his Rockwell Shrike Commander and performs a loop, eight-point roll, a 180-degree turn to a landing, then taxis in before the crowd without ever restarting the engines! Hoover has flown before more people, in more countries, in more aircraft than any other pilot in history.
Another maneuver, captured on film, demonstrated his superb pilot skills in both the Commander and the Sabreliner. At altitude, he set a glass on top of the instrument panel and poured iced tea into the glass from a pitcher in his right hand, using his left hand to completely roll the aircraft. He combined centrifugal force with smooth handling of the controls and never spilled a drop of tea!†” https://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2021/10/29/a-pilots-pilot-bob-hoover/
Unlike brute force, horse power-driven aerobatics, Art Scholl in his “Lines & Symmetry” Chipmunk act finessed energy management.
I like the new chapter.
What would Bob Hoover say about energy management?
I respectfully disagree. I fly a STOL aircraft and energy consciousness is critical to safely flying the aircraft at full performance. When landing, deep on the backside of the power curve, I am continually integrating speed, rate of sink, and altitude to understand if I have enough energy to flare. I suppose you can be a numbers pilot and stay in the center of the envelop and not worry about energy, but you won’t be using a lot of what your airplane can do for you.
What about a Vx climb? There is a “valley of death” in the first few seconds before the aircraft is high enough to have enough energy to glide and flare if you loose power. Aviators need to be aware of this so they can conceive what actions to take. A loss of power in this situation requires a counter intuitive push and dive in order to have enough energy to flare.
Agreed that one cannot stand on purely theoretical physics to know how to fly.
Does this “energy management” thing mean one must strive to fly in the middle of the envelope? Never fly at max cruise or max gross just because it’s “safer”? Vx and all other factors assigned to a particular aircraft have a safety margin. One cannot ignore the fact that leaving the ground in any kind of vehicle has risk. Ignoring the risk is dangerous. Knowing the reasons for any point of increased danger is the concept. Each aircraft has different factors. I have seen numerous small planes take off hundreds of pounds over gross in even low density. Most made it, a couple didn’t. I don’t advocate such risks, but only point out that spec numbers are a compromise of sorts.
One flying a STOL learns the feel of such limits. Someone may call it whatever. If “energy management” lets a pilot feel comfortable, ok with that, I guess. The antics and exhibitions at any STOL competition prove that many small planes are next to impossible to predict exact performance using the ‘numbers’.
Since I haven’t read this new chapter in the AIM, I’m in no position to criticize it. But it seems to me that it’s not energy management that needs to be taught but basic flying skills. Way too much emphasis today seems to be on button-pushing skills rather than stick & rudder skills. Basic aeronautics hasn’t changed, but too often the new pilot doesn’t experience it but rather reads enough to pass a written or oral test, and that’s not good enough. It’s not good enough to say, “a stall can happen in any attitude at any airspeed”; it’s exponentially better to have the pilot experience a stall with the nose pointed down and at an airspeed much higher than Vso. It’s not good enough to say, “density altitude affects power and lift”; it’s exponentially better for the pilot to experience how little power and how little lift exists at 12,000’ compared to a few hundred feet MSL. Teaching the pilot to set up the autopilot to take over at 500’ AGL doesn’t teach the pilot to fly.
The professor’s kind of semantic manipulation of already known and well explored principles is an example of attempted scholarly dissertation, but comes out as goobledegook like that found in much government legalese and political propaganda.
I will have to get a copy of the new edition to learn exactly what significant flight psychology might be learned.
I have always thought ‘energy management’ was checking the fuel in the tanks and where the throttle was set, but there must be some factors overlooked. Those factors don’t mean much when the engine quits, at that time ‘energy management’ becomes a quick mental calculation on just how far can one glide until reaching a flat spot.
Goobledegook is exactly what it is. Pitch and power is really one of the most simple subjects to master. After all it is programmable in autopilots – it doesn’t necessitate understanding of complex solutions. Slave the elevator to control pitch – slave the throttle to control speed, or simply do each manually. It takes a few minutes to demonstrate and practice to reasonable proficiency in slow flight and approaches. Then you understand the process for everything from a Piper Cub to a 747. Your driving experience is even an unexpected benefit that keeps this a short process. Car starts going uphill (like pitching up) – add power. Downhill (pitching down) – reduce power. Again something programmable (cruise control).
Now this totally new 19 pg chapter introduces theories, mathematical formulas (that few will ever understand), figures full of boxes and flow charts, rules, diagrams, etc. Now I need to know if I’m in the southwest box of one diagram, or the northeast box of another. Is this something that is beneficial in an environment where split second decision making is needed. It sure doesn’t seem to follow any guidelines in the FAA Instructor’s Handbook to provide training in a simple, effective, and proficient manner.
Gravity is the cause of airplane crashes and boats sinking.
AGL altitude is energy used to get there. How you spend that energy is call piloting.
Stating that energy management is essential to flying is a specious tautology. It’s about as meaningful as saying that the most significant factor in aircraft fatalities is OATS — Off Airport Touchdown Syndrome.
Aviation these days is suffering from superfluous complexity. Whereas abstractions like potential and kinetic energy are valid engineering concepts, no pilot thinks about those concepts in flight or articulates them — the relevant parameters are airspeed and altitude. They’re measurable and intuitive parameters.
And while Merkt may have a Harvard Ph.D., his is in biology. My Ph.D. is in engineering from M.I.T.