2. Flying Safety December 1 st, 2015 1.NASA Callback … Fuel Caps 2.Decommissioned Instrument Approaches 3.Mishap Review 4.NASA Form and “Call this number” Reminder

3. Please send me a photo of YOU. I want to include one each month…for the cadets. jimk@satx.rr.com

4. NASA Callback … Fuel Caps A C182 Pilot was lucky to have an airport within gliding distance after the engine ran out of fuel. A post-fueling pre-flight could have prevented this embarrassing bladder-emptying event. Apparently the rate of fuel loss from the uncapped tanks was not sufficient to catch the attention of this Cirrus SR22 Pilot. This Pilot got rushed and forgot to check the fuel caps after refueling a borrowed C182. An hour from the destination airport, the Pilot also failed to pay attention to a feeling that something wasn’t right. While there are several lessons offered in these fuel cap incidents, the one that would ultimately have prevented each of these events from occurring is perhaps the most obvious— check the fuel caps (YOU do the checking).

5. From the FAA … April 13, 2015 Cancelling certain ground-based NDB and VOR Instrument Approach Procedures is one integral part of right-sizing the quantity and type of procedures in the National Airspace System (NAS). Based on the final policy criteria, 736 procedures have been identified for cancellation at this time.

7. This Procedure WILL be cancelled TX KERRVILLE MUNI/ SCHREINER FIELD NDB RWY 30

8. IAP cancellation dates are uncertain. BOTTOM LINE: Make sure you are looking at a current data base before you attempt to fly an instrument approach procedure.

9. 19 NTSB Aviation Mishaps in October 2015 10 unexplained (ham-fist / bucket-head … NOT Proficient ) 2 pure bucket-head 2 engine quit (1 did good, 1 not so good) 2 unexplained (mechanical failure) 2 out of Fuel 1 Hypoxia 0 mechanical failure (explained) 0 Ground Fatality 0 gear collapse Out of the 19 mishaps…11 were Fatal mishaps (20 fatalities total) Out of the 11 fatal mishaps…5 of the mishap pilots held an advanced aeronautical rating 1 ATP/IP, 1 Commercial/IP, 3 Commercial

10. Individual Mishap Summary Piper Cherokee 140... 1 Fatal Piper Saratoga… 4 Fatal Coot Amphibian Experimental … 1 Fatal Cessna TU 206 G Cessna 172 B Cessna 152 … 2 Fatal Luscombe 8F Silvaire Piper Cherokee 180 Cessna 150 … 1 Fatal Piper Tomahawk … 1 Fatal Cessna 182 P … 3 Fatal Quest Kodiak 100 Columbia 400 … 2 Fatal Piper Arrow II Cessna 172 S … 1 Fatal Beech G35 Bonanza … 2 Fatal Cessna 172 N Beech A36 Bonanza Piper Cherokee 180 … 2 Fatal

11. NTSB Aviation Mishaps … Running Summary 2015 (including current month) 51 engine quit 47 unexplained (Lack of proficiency) 22 pure bucket-head (just plain dumb) 20 unexplained (mechanical failure) 7 out of fuel 6 gear collapsed 6 mechanical failure (explained) 2 Fatal Ground Mishap 2 Hypoxia 1 Iced up

12. Ham Fist / Bucket Head Mishaps appear to be caused by Lack of Proficiency Not many other explanations for crashing a perfectly good airplane. This Month Lack of Proficiency was responsible for 17 of the 20 Deaths. Similar (mostly preventable) results each month. After 1 year of NTSB mishap reporting … I am astounded. These monthly statistics are becoming stomach-turning. In my world … this level of carnage is UNACCEPTABLE.

13. The good news: CAP isn’t wrecking any airplanes or killing any pilots

14. We will discuss proficiency again … be thinking about: When is Big Brother TOO Big? Part 91 vs. Part 121 requirements, why the big difference? Should the FAA require REAL part 91 proficiency (they clearly don’t require it now)? Is it an individual's right to fly an airplane while not reasonably proficient? If not, WHO should determine “proficiency” (and how … and how often)? If REAL proficiency is required, should all or a portion of the cost be subsidized? Can you teach and train enough to overcome carelessness and stupidity? Regardless of what the FAA requires … what should CAP require? Rumors of even more AF funded flying time for CAP pilot proficiency?

15. NTSB hosted a Loss of Control prevention conference in October … with some pretty shocking statements about lack of pilot proficiency. The FAA is evolving … regulatory changes are occurring (or are fixing to occur) What is the FAA going to do about proficiency (if anything at all)? This is going to be interesting to watch … it could potentially effect us here in CAP. In the meantime … stay focused on your own proficiency. Keep doing what you’ve been doing. And, add a little emphasis to Bold Face procedures.

16. I am the “new guy” here … but still FAA Current is not proficient.

17. File your “NASA” form electronically: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic. html FAA Regulations prohibit reports filed with NASA from being used for FAA enforcement purposes. As long as your acts are not determined to be “intentional” (you followed the rules) Your identity will remain anonymous. File the NASA Report within 10 days of the incident You may file as many NASA Reports as you like…there is no limit. So….no matter how minor the incident…file a NASA Report You may only use a NASA Report for immunity from FAA enforcement actions once every five years

18. Advise When Ready To Copy a Number: Regarding ATC requests to "call a number" after landing. In most cases, calling this number will not prevent the FAA from taking any planned action; generally it is a method to collect the pilot's name and certificate numbers for processing an alleged violation. If you are asked to call a number after landing, First … File your “NASA” form electronically: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.html Then … at your discretion, call the number requested by ATC

19. Questions? Comments? Concerns? DID EVERYONE SIGN THE ROSTER?