Morning Brief #BAC59

I
 TAF VTBD
VTBD 280030Z 20006KT 9999 FEW020 BKN100 28/25
Q1006 NOSIG
TAF VTBD 272300Z 2800/2906 22005KT 9000 -RA
FEW020 SCT040
BECMG 2801/2803 9999 NSW
TEMPO 2809/2812 24015G25KT 5000 TSRA FEW018CB
SCT030 BKN100
 TAF VTUQ
VTUQ 280000Z 22008KT CAVOK 27/23 Q1007 NOSIG
TAF VTUQ 272300Z 2800/2824 23008KT 9999 SCT025
TEMPO 2809/2811 VRB15G25KT 5000 TSRA
FEW018CB SCT025 BKN100
 TAF VTBU
VTBU 280100Z 24004KT 9999 FEW020 SCT100 29/23
Q1007 NOSIG
TAF VTBU 272300Z 2800/2824 22010KT 9999 FEW020
SCT100
TEMPO 2806/2812 VRB12KT 5000 RA FEW018CB
SCT035 BKN100
BECMG 2812/2814 25006KT 8000
 TAF VTPH
VTPH 280100Z VRB02KT 9000 -RA FEW020 SCT100 27/25
Q1006 NOSIG
TAF VTPH 272300Z 2800/2824 24005KT 9000 FEW020
SCT040
TEMPO 2800/2806 24015KT 5000 TSRA FEW018CB
SCT030 BKN100
 TAF VTPP
VTPP 280100Z 16002KT 9999 FEW025 BKN080 26/24
Q1005 NOSIG
TAF VTPP 272300Z 2800/2824 23005KT 9999 FEW025
TEMPO 2809/2815 VRB15G25KT 5000 TSRA FEW020CB
BKN025
Instrument Flying Methods
The most challenging part of learning the IFR environment is not following complex airspace rules and procedures (they
actually do make sense after awhile) or talking on the radios to the “BIG” ARTCC controllers. The single most important and
challenging aspect of IFR flying is learning and maintaining your instrument scan.
There is a lot already stated about different methods on how to learn your instrument scan and working on maintaining that
technique. This blog isn’t going to focus on those techniques. If you want to learn about that… read the
FAA’s Instrument Flying Handbook. Instead I want to spend time talking about the two training philosophies on how to
control the aircraft without outside references: primary and secondary method or control performance method.
Control Performance Method
In my opinion, this is by far the better method of the two, and if you are
wondering I was unequivocally taught using the primary – secondary
method. This method is taught in the military on aircraft with back
attitude indicators for their backup attitude indicator. The point being,
is that from a risk standpoint a military aircraft is statistically
guaranteed to always have a working attitude indicator. This is not the
case for civilian small aircraft; they are lucky if they have two attitude
indicators.
This method can be summed up in a simple formula of ATTITUDE + POWER =
PERFORMANCE. The beginning instrument pilot is taught to that precise
attitude control and precise power settings will make the airplane go and do
what the pilots wants it to do. For example, if the pilot wants the airplane to
climb at VY, they will raise the nose of the airplane on the attitude indicator
to 5° and increase power to 2400 RPM. The airplane has no choice but to
climb at VY. The pilot will then verify the performance of the airplane by the
other five instruments.
1. Establish an attitude and power setting on the control instruments that results in the desired performance. Known or computed
attitude changes and approximated power settings helps to reduce the pilot’s workload.
2. Trim (fine tune the control forces) until control pressures are neutralized. Trimming for hands-off flight is essential for smooth, precise
aircraft control. It allows a pilot to attend to other flight deck duties with minimum deviation from the desired attitude
Case Study 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash
The Learjet's cockpit voice recorder (CVR), which was recovered from the wreckage,
contained an audio recording of the last 30 minutes of the flight (it was an
older model which only recorded 30 minutes of audio; the aircraft was not
equipped with a flight data recorder). At 1710:41Z, the Learjet's engines can be heard
winding down, indicating that the plane's fuel had been exhausted. In addition,
sounds of the stick shaker and the disconnection of the autopilot can be heard. With
the engines powered down, the autopilot would have attempted to maintain
altitude, causing the plane's airspeed to drop until i approached stall speed, at
which point the stick shaker would have automatically engaged to warn the
pilot and the autopilot would have switched itself off.[1]
At 1711:01Z, the Lear began a right turn and descent. NODAK 32 remained
to the west, while TULSA 13 broke away from the tanker and followed
N47BA down. At 1711:26 CDT, the NODAK 32 lead pilot reported, "The
target is descending and he is doing multiple aileron rolls, looks like he's out of
control...in a severe descent, request an emergency descent to follow target."
The TULSA 13 pilot reported, "It's soon to impact the ground; he is in a
descending spiral."[1]
Impact occurred approximately 1713Z, or 1213 local, after a total flight time
of 3 hours, 54 minutes, with the aircraft hitting the ground at a nearly
supersonic speed and an extreme angle.[5] The Learjet crashed in South
Dakota, just outside Mina in Edmunds County, on relatively flat ground and
left a crater 42 feet (13 m) long, 21 feet (6.4 m) wide, and 8 feet (2.4 m) deep.
Investigation
The has several levels of investigation,
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

of which the highest is a "major" investigation.

Because of the extraordinary circumstances in this
crash, a major investigation was performed
The probable cause of this accident was incapacitation of the
flight crew members as a result of their failure to receive
supplemental oxygen following a loss of cabin pressurization, for
undetermined reasons.