Notice Number: NOTC3310

Available through a link below, is a Letter to Airmen from the Troutdate, Oregon Control Tower. You may be wondering why we are sending you a Letter to Airmen from Troutdale (TTD) Tower and you don't even operate near TTD.  That's because the problem is not just at Troutdale!

Have you recently been issued "hold short" instructions by a Control Tower and you acknowledged with just your "N" number or even worse, the infamous "roger"?  What happens next is the controller tries to get you to say the proper response.  This is not because the controller is "having a bad day" and is hassling you. This has been leading to some interesting radio dialog and ties up valuable radio time. 

All the Air Traffic Control Towers have been mandated to emphasize the use of proper radio phraseology concerning "hold short" instructions as stated in the AIM.  Also please note to always use your "N" number or call sign when acknowledging ATC clearances/instructions.

EXAMPLE #1
Controller Phraseology; "November One Two Three Four Five, Hold Short of Runway Three Zero Left at Kilo"
Pilot Response: "November One Two Three Four Five, Hold Short of Runway Three Zero Left at Kilo",
or
Pilot Response: "Cherokee Three Four Five, Hold Short of Runway three Zero Left at Kilo"

EXAMPLE #2
Controller Phraseology: "Piper 54321, hold short Runway Two Eight"
Unacceptable Responses: "Piper 321, holding short"
"Holding short"
"321"
"November 321, roger"

Acceptable Responses: "Piper 321, hold short Runway Two Eight"
"November 321, hold short of Two Eight"

Complacency and/or the lack of radio discipline has led to numerous runway incursions and other types of miscommunication.  We have been getting feedback from Control Towers that many pilots are not using the proper response to acknowledge ATCT clearances/instructions. Please maintain safety and professionalism by adhering to proper and precise radio communications. 

For more information and examples see the TTD Letter to Airmen and the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM).

Human-factors expert Dr. Tony Kern predicts that the business aviation accident rate “will go up 400 percent over the next 10 years” without significant upgrades to pilot training. Kern, a former B-1B bomber instructor pilot, made his remarks this week at Bombardier’s 15th annual Safety Standdown in Wichita. He said a perfect safety storm looms for a variety of reasons, including the failure of human-factors training to keep pace with advances in aviation technology, a new generation of pilots coming on line with “differing values with regard to entitlement and compliance” and “poaching” of experienced business aviation pilots and maintenance technicians by the airlines. “We’ve been drinking from the same human-factors training pool for 30 years,” Kern said. While he praised the proliferation of safety management systems (SMS), he said their adaptation absent a correlating change in a flight department’s culture could do more harm than good. “Habits are better than rules,” Kern said. This year’s Standdown attracted 468 attendees, who heard from a wide variety of experts, including three current members of the NTSB. Bonus audiocast: AIN spoke with Kern at the NBAA Convention earlier this month about professionalism in aviation.

CAMDEN - A federal aviation safety inspector from Pemberton Township admitted Thursday that he accepted tens of thousands of dollars in illegal "tips" from pilots he took out on unauthorized flights, passing them on their pilot testing and certifications.

Harrington Bishop, 63, of Red Feather Trail, pleaded guilty in federal court to an information charging him with one count of receiving illegal gratuities by a public official, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman said.

Bishop faces up to two years in federal prison and fines of up to $250,000 when U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler sentences him Feb. 2.

Bishop, a safety inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration, generally accepted $300 tips when he would take pilots out on "flight checks" at the Cave Flight School at the Flying W Airport in Medford, authorities said.

He worked for the FAA assigned to the Teterboro Flight Standards District Office in Saddle Brook, Bergen County, from May 2004 to February 2011.

Bishop admitted that, during that time, he spent hundreds of weekends, holidays and other days of approved leave taking pilots out on flight checks at Flying W.

The tests, none of which were authorized by the Teterboro office or the FAA, ranged from private pilot tests to airline transport pilot certificate tests, authorities said.

Bishop said in court that the hundreds of tests over the seven-year period nearly always resulted in the pilots passing.

Even though the FAA did not authorize the flights, the pilots became officially licensed, certified or otherwise approved by the FAA as a result of Bishop's official acts.

In exchange for the hundreds of check flights, Bishop collected the $300 tips, fully aware that he was not allowed to accept payment from pilots or anyone else in exchange for the performance of his official duties, authorities said.

Over time, he collected tens of thousands of dollars, federal officials said. They did not immediately release an exact amount.

The bribery charge carries a maximum potential penalty of two years in prison and a maximum $250,000 fine, or twice the gain or loss caused by the offense.

Fishman credited special agents of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General for the investigation leading to the guilty plea. 

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/faa-safety-inspector-admits-taking-tips-from-pilots/article_67397d6c-93f9-5420-a675-63a9660e9587.html

The other day, I tested 2 applicants for the private pilot certificate.  Both had similar traits; male, well educated, similar flight experience, and had excellent instructors.  Both applicants were very nervous.  It was easy to tell, the wringing of the hands, the pacing and laughing at my stupid jokes.  Any attempts at lightening the mood by me were not working at all.

Both applicants had worked hard and appeared well prepared.  But there was a clear difference in their performance during the checkride.  One applicant struggled throughout the test eventually blowing a maneuver to the point where I had to recover.  The other applicant sailed through the test despite ATCs attempts otherwise.  How can this happen?  Darn good question. 

Checkride-its, test anxiety, or whatever you want to call it, are all a form of stress.  Stress can either improve or hinder your performance.  I believe how this stress is handled is a good predictor on the outcome of the checkride.  I don’t have the expertise to write a doctorate paper on stress control but here are a couple of methods I’ve read about.

First method:  Prepare well.  Some theories state that consciously or subconsciously you know that you are not prepared for the test and this leads to that unsettling feeling.  By preparing well, I don’t mean cramming the night before the checkride.  You may have gotten away with it in collage but it doesn’t work very well (at all?) here.  Preparing over time with some concentrated study up to a couple days before the checkride works well.  I recommend taking the last 24 hours off from studying, have nice dinner and get a good night rest before the checkride. 

Second method:  Write down your concerns about the checkride.  One study found that when people with high test anxiety write down their testing concerns their performance improves during that test.  This study was performed at an aviation university using applicants for different checkrides.  This study also found that if an applicant fails a checkride their test anxiety goes even higher on the retest.   So I recommend writing down you checkride concerns before showing up for you checkride.  In doing so, you’ll address or at least acknowledge the concerns before the test.  What you do with the list is up to you.  The study doesn’t mention taking the list to your instructor for psychoanalysis but rather just putting it aside.  The idea is just to bring these concerns to the surface before the test.

Would either of these methods have helped first applicant pass the checkride?  I don’t know, but at least I can offer a couple of suggestions to help lower the anxiety.

It's been a very busy couple of week with a bunch (and I mean a bunch!) of  successfull checkrides.  There are a couple of issues that came up that I want to address.

On one ride we had a runway incursion.  The pilot was very familiar with the airport and had a taxi diagram out.  Two issues lead to the incursion; confusion of the taxi route and the fact that the taxi diagram did not have the taxiways labeled (I'm not sure where he got it from).  The easy fix would have been having a good taxi diagram and asking for a "Progressive Taxi".

The other issue involves landings.  I have seen a trend of landing very long on normal, short field and soft field landings.  The private PTS calls for landing within 400 feet of a spot for a normal landing, 200 feet for a short field and for either landing you can not land short of the spot.  I don't get to excited if you go a little beyone the 400/200 foot distance (the PTS does give some discretion).  What I've seen has been WAY beyond that.  Applicants are telling me they will land at the first dash after the numbers and then proceed to touch down hafe way down a 4000 foot runway.  Usually the approach is way to high and way to fast.  I will allow a go around when the applicant recognizes the issues, it's good judgement, but after 3 go-arounds for the same landing it might be time to throw in the towel. 

Regarding the Soft field landing, the PTS does not give a spot requirement but it is generally accepted to have the airplane touchdown at the proper speed within the first 1/3 of the runway.  I've seen touchdowns 1/2 down a 6000 foot runway at speeds around 70 knots in a C-150. 
 
The other landing issue has been with crosswind control, or rather the lack of it.  We almost ground looped one airplane.  Kind of woke me up for a second.  

Notice I didn't give any "How to" advise here.  There are a bunch of teaching techniques available and I don't want to influance those.  But take a look at the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook, the airplane POH and the PTS and use them as your guide.

A point of interest, most accidents occur during the landing phase of flight!  Let

Please call with any questions.....608-290-4700