Doing it by the Book

The incentive is strong for pilots to fly carefully. Although the safety record of general aviation - and the accident rate - have continued to improve almost every year since the end of World War II, accidents still do occur. Statistics indicate that the fatality rate for aircraft accidents is one in five; if that accident happens at night, the fatality rate increases to about one in three. If the accident occurs when you're flying by instrument flight rules (IFR), your odds of a fatality increase to almost 60 percent; when flying night IFR, your statistical chances of survival are only about one in four.

How does a pilot "fly right"? The data show that, by far, the most effective way to avoid accidents is to simply follow established procedure in whichever forms you can find it. Comply with regulations, use checklists, adhere to published policies, establish and follow operations specifications (all airlines have such specs, approved by the FAA), understand and abide by pilots' operating handbooks and aircraft flight manuals, heed the guidance in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) and FAA handbooks - and these are only some sources of guidance. Adhering to established procedure avoids accidents. It's a fact.

Avoiding accidents can be as simple as doing it by the book.

A subject of some debate

But hold on a minute! Everybody may not agree with that approach. There are as many opinions out there as there are pilots. Consider this.

As I stepped down from the platform a few months ago after presenting a unit on "Teaching Safe Pilot Performance" at one of the AOPA Air Safety Foundation's Flight Instructor Refresher Clinics, I was approached by a visibly irate CFI from the audience.

He said, "I don't agree with what you said. I think you're dead wrong that we should teach people to enter the visual traffic pattern on a 45-degree leg. I always enter on the crosswind leg below pattern altitude so I can see who�s in the pattern! You're wrong to teach the 45. I think that's the most dangerous place you can be!"

After reflecting on a proper and respectful response to this experienced CFI with obviously strong convictions, I said, "You're certainly within your rights to enter on the crosswind, but that's not what the FAA recommends. I think most people in a nontowered-airport pattern would expect other pilots to enter on the 45. That's the procedure recommended in the AIM. It's not the law, but it is acknowledged, published guidance. So that's what I try to teach my students to do: follow established procedure."

In fact, the AIM does say to enter the traffic pattern "in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway, at pattern altitude." The diagram accompanying this guidance depicts a 45-degree entry leg leading to the pattern (figures 4-3-2 and 4-3-3). That's what I try to do - every time. I think that's what most pilots expect me to do. They're on the lookout for me to enter in that manner. It's safer, in my opinion, to do it that way - the way that other pilots expect.

The Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3, also says, "When approaching an airport for landing, the traffic pattern should be entered at a 45-degree angle to the downwind leg." That sentence is accompanied by a diagram (figure 7-1) showing the procedure (see facing page).

But can you enter the pattern any way you choose? Yes. Is that what I and most other instructors teach or would recommend? Probably not.

Why? Because it's statistically proven to be safer doing it the "recommended" way, following standard procedure. Regulations and procedures, for the most part, are written from a base of experience and are designed to keep you out of trouble.

Doing it by the book

Let's say you're approaching a typical nontowered airport for landing. The AIM specifies standard procedure: "When approaching for landing, all turns must be made to the left unless a traffic pattern indicator indicates that turns should be made to the right." The AIM, of course, is guidance - it's not the law. So who cares? All you have to do is be heads up. You can legally turn any direction you choose, right?

Wrong! That's because the same stipulation is contained in Part 91 of the federal aviation regulations, and Part 91 is not mere policy - it's the law. FAR 91.126(b)(1) says, "Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right."

That paragraph was probably written to keep people from milling around randomly over nontowered airports.

Well, back to the classroom. My comments during the discussion of "Teaching Safe Pilot Performance" that day centered on a variety of ways that CFIs can help their students to become "safe" pilots.

A key point of the discussion was that simply "doing it by the book" - obeying rules and regulations, adhering to accepted good practice, following published procedure - is the quickest way to avoid accidents, save lives, and significantly improve safety. There is impressive evidence to indicate that. It's also the opinion of the overwhelming majority of acknowledged accident prevention experts to whom I've spoken over many years.

What the "numbers" say

Even a casual look at the numbers will confirm that following published procedure is, by far, statistically the most effective and economically the least expensive way to break a developing accident chain and avoid accidents. Doing it by the book saves lives.

Nearly a decade ago, The Boeing Commercial Airplane Group sponsored a study that examined 287 major airline accidents over a 10-year period. Sufficient detailed information existed on 232 of the accidents to permit in-depth analysis. More than 5,700 people perished and 138 multimillion-dollar aircraft were destroyed in those 232 accidents. Every one of them could have been prevented.

A clear sequence of events leading to each accident was painstakingly established for each of these accidents. Investigators looked at these sequences of events and asked themselves this question: "Could any of these accidents have been prevented? If so, how?" The inquiry was not concerned with who was to blame, what was the primary cause, who was liable, or who could be sued. It focused on how they could have been prevented.

The results of the study were simple but powerful. Although many possible accident prevention strategies and interventions were identified, by far the most prevalent was pilots doing it by the book - following established procedure.

As an outgrowth of the Boeing study, two organizations, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (for commercial airplanes) and Joint Safety Council, were formed to look into accidents from the perspective of prevention. After several years of work, the results of their research yielded identical results: following established procedure is, by far, the most effective and cheapest risk-reduction strategy.

All of this boils down to a simple fact. If there's a checklist written for your airplane, use it. If you even question that what you're about to do will violate a regulation, don't do it! If your flight school, the pilot's operating handbook, or your company has a published operational procedure, follow it. If the AIM prescribes a procedure, follow that, too.

Blind obedience to directives is never a good substitute for good judgment. But before you decide to get creative and do it "your way," think about why you really want to do it that way if doing so disregards published or established procedure. Then think again.

I like to tell the story (and demonstrate by my actions) to my students that if there's an operating limit written in a manual, I'll follow it, just because the people who designed and tested the airplane might have known little more about it that I do. I tell them that the only time I've ever exceeded published limitation was in combat, and that was to save my life. Now, some won't think that such strict adherence to operating limitations is very cool, but I'm convinced that it's the only way to go.

And how about factoring this into your reflection? One day, we had quite a discussion going around the airport about a particular airplane that had this warning in the POH: "Do not slip when using more than 30 degrees of flaps due to a possible downward pitch during certain combinations of airspeed and sideslip angles."

The fact is that we'd all done it. One FAA-designated pilot examiner even required applicants to perform a full-flap slip in this particular airplane during the private pilot practical test.

Being the contrarian that I am, I flatly told my students that if that request were made on the test, they were to decline to perform the maneuver. If the Law of Primacy has any validity at all, ignoring a handbook prohibition during initial training isn't a very good way to start a flying career.

So if "everybody" had been doing it, why would I say, "Don't do it"?

The day before that discussion, I talked to a CFI who had called the manufacturer and talked to one of the test pilots. He told me that during a full-flap, steep slip the airplane had a propensity to "swap ends." That didn't appeal to me, particularly below 500 feet agl. It's just one more illustration why just "doing it by the book" - even without calling the test pilots - seems like a savvy thing to do. Here are a couple of other things to think about.

Why would you ever try to "salvage" a landing? There are probably as many answers to that one as there are pilots, too - but I only have one: I wouldn't.

If you're a CFI, why in the world would you ever train a student to "salvage' a landing - and why would you ever do it yourself? Most pilots' manuals contain procedures for "balked landing," "go-around," "missed approach," or something similar. I don't recall ever seeing a published checklist for "salvaged landing." There might be a reason for that.

What is so important or critical about an unstable or otherwise botched landing or traffic pattern that any pilot should try to "save" it?

My personal solution - every time - is simple: Go around. If I mess up the pattern on downwind, I begin the go-around from downwind. If I realize that the pattern is botched when I'm on base leg, that's where the go-around starts.

To me, this is just one more example of a no-brainer. The procedure is: If you mess it up, just go around! A go-around usually takes only five minutes or so at a nontowered airport, and it's a lot safer than trying to save a mangled traffic pattern, unstable approach, or misaligned final.

Other traffic pattern dangers

Statistics generally show that more than half of the accidents in general aviation occur during approach and landing. Add to that the fact that half of all midair collisions happen at or below 500 feet agl, and 77 percent of them occur below 3,000 feet agl.

Fewer than one in 20 midairs is "head-on." The rest involve airplanes overtaking other airplanes from directly behind or from the side. The one that overtakes you on final might very well be someone who has legally chosen to enter the visual pattern from somewhere other than the 45.

Here's another case in point to which I was a party.

A local Piper Twin Comanche decided to enter the pattern on crosswind one day while I was flying in the pattern with a student pilot. The first call we heard was "XYZ traffic, Twin Comanche entering the pattern on crosswind." No runway, no nothing! That was followed by another crosswind call. Both calls came after my student had called, "XYZ traffic, Cessna Four-Sierra-Papa entering downwind, touch and go, Runway 14, XYZ."

We were both craning our necks but still had no idea where the other aircraft was, though we'd made all the prescribed calls and were on downwind at pattern altitude. My student was getting apprehensive, so I said, "Twin Comanche on crosswind at XYZ, say position."

His reply was, "No sweat. I've got you in sight - I'm inside of you on downwind." And so he was - about 500 feet lower than pattern altitude. That's why I didn't see him. It was totally unexpected that he'd be 500 feet below me, and half as close to the runway. Not exactly standard procedure.

Here's another example of failure to do it by the book. A student and I were practicing touch and goes at the same airport just a few weeks after the incident above. After turning downwind (on a hot day with a density altitude of 9,000 feet, where the rate of climb was torturously slow), we saw that the airplane behind us in the pattern had turned early and had nearly flown up under us. A bit surprised, I radioed, "Aircraft on downwind at XYZ, you just cut me right out of the pattern!"

"Well, that's the way we do it here," the pilot replied. After landing, I tracked him down and we had a little chat. He said that his flight school had established procedures for "keeping the pattern tight." (On a 90-degree-plus day near the mountains of Colorado? Right.)

I told him that I was an FAA aviation safety counselor and would really appreciate a copy of those "published procedures,' especially because they ignored FAA recommended policy. The AIM, paragraph 4-3-3, says, "If remaining in the traffic pattern, commence turn to crosswind leg beyond the departure end of the runway within 300 feet of pattern altitude" - not whenever you feel like it. Do you suppose there's a reason for that?

He said he'd send me his school's SOP, and I thanked him. It never came, but I think I'd made my point because it never happened again.

If you're the only pilot in the pattern, perhaps seemingly little "breaches" of policy like these assume lesser importance - but how do you really know? Airplanes at a nontowered airport aren't required to make radio calls. They don't even need to have radios. But consider a newly soloed student pilot in any of these patterns. To say, "Well, they'll just have to learn to be flexible" isn't good enough. Following established, recommended procedure is, on the other hand. It helps us all - and it prevents accidents.

Here's another one. Five times I have been confronted by corporate jet traffic landing opposite to me - downwind! - on the same runway. No radio call, no nothing. Legal all the way, but not very smart. Or very safe.

I just executed a go-around and lived to fly another day.

Though several of the examples I've cited have to do with the traffic pattern, I could have cited other areas for illustration. They all point out how ignoring those boring standard procedures can be dangerous. They also provide food for intelligent thought that says, "It's just not worth it." Flying by the book can avoid needless unsafe conflicts, promote confidence and safety, and sharply minimize accident potential. Statistics prove that.

Avoiding accidents is a very big deal. Try to think of ways to do that in your flying. Doing it by the book is a great start.

Wally Miller is president of an aviation training, consulting, and marketing firm in Monument, Colorado. He is a Gold Seal CFI who has been instructing for more than 30 years and flying for more than 40.