Safety Net: MFS Ministry in Zambia
Safety Net: MFS Ministry in Zambia
Safety Net: MFS Ministry in Zambia
Safety Net
July, 2015
Inside
Congo
Calling
pg. 3
Do Audits
Work?
pg. 5
UIM Hangar
Door Save
pg. 5
Medical Wings
in Gabon
MSI Safety
Summit
pg. 6
pg. 7
pg. 8
This was the second audit MSI conducted for MFS, and much
progress has been made since our last visit. The aircraft have been
refurbished, equipment improved, and facilities upgraded. We
anticipate that MFS will continue to play a vital role in serving Kalene
and the surrounding area in the years ahead, and will continue to do
so in a safe, professional manner. It was a joy to work with them, and
we look forward to our next visit.
MSI
Congo Calling
by Jon Egeler
f you were to ask most people who are familiar with Africa about
the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), they might talk about
tremendous potential, very poor or non-existent infrastructure,
rampant corruption, an ineffective central government, and years
of internal conflict and warfare. They wouldnt be far off the mark.
Even in the mineral-rich south eastern Katanga region
of DRC, many years of corruption and conflict have hindered
infrastructure development. The few existing roads often are not
passable, and the countrys post office has not been functional for
decades. The result is that much business and travel depend on
aircraft. The work of the church in DRC is no exception.
The Methodist church has been active in DRC for well over
100 years, and several different flight programs
have been used by them for many years. The
current programs are an outgrowth of these past
ministries, and still retain some of the original
names: Southern Congo Wings of the Morning;
Wings of the Morning North Katanga; and
Wings of Caring.
While each of these programs currently
operate under individual regional leadership,
there has been a recent effort to form an Aviation
Board that will oversee all of them, to allow greater
cooperation, sharing of resources, and greater
effectiveness. This has led to the name United
Methodist Aviation Ministries (UMAM).
The MSI audit team of Jon Egeler and Clay
and Joy Norman went to DRC to conduct the
second audit of the UMAM programs in April.
This trip presented several unique challenges.
The obvious one is that UMAM represents three
separate programseach with one aircraft
that cooperate and operate under the same
Operations Manual and have as their common
coordinator veteran mission pilot Steve Quigg.
Continued on Page 4
MSI
Do Audits Work?
by Jon Egeler
e are often asked if Safety Audits really help. Isnt it easy for
organizations to put on a good front and fool the auditors?
The answer is yes, it is possible to make things look better than they
are, but audits still work. MSI has been traveling all over the globe
conducting Safety Audits for the past 32 years and we have noticed
some changes in missionary aviation. Audits have been especially
emphasized in the past 8 years or so, and some of these changes are
quite dramatic. Here is some of the progress we have noted:
Changing attitudes
Professionalismwe have seen a significant shift in attitude
toward being and acting like a professional, and away from the
image of the pilot showing up in a dirty t-shirt and shorts.
Striving for excellencea personal emphasis on doing
things right, striving to do it to the best of ones abilities.
Genuine desire to see things done bettergoes along with
striving for excellence, but acknowledging that there is room
for continuous improvement in ones ministry.
Above reproachmaking sure all involved are not only
complying with the law, but are avoiding any appearance of disobedience.
Not flying under the radarestablishing good relationships with the governing authorities rather than trying to not
be noticed and left alone.
Beginning to welcome accountabilityasking for input and
evaluation.
Open to suggestions/input from the industryno longer
thinking that the rest of aviation (airline, military, corporate)
is so different that they couldnt possibly have anything to offer,
but recognizing that there are many similarities with principles
We have been aware of the role audits have played in all these
improvements over the years and know that each of these areas has
been a point of emphasis during our audits. We are very pleased to
see the progress missions have made over the years.
While we all know there is still improvement to be made,
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
MSI
by Kevin Dunn
MSI
guest house was running pretty well under some local leadership,
so the move was a good fit for the program.
MSI conducted its second audit for AMB in September last
year. The audit team consisted of Jon Egeler and Jim and Diana
Brownlee. Rob met us in Libreville and flew us out to Bongolo in
the AMB Cessna 207. Rob and Bintou were wonderful hosts as we
interviewed, poked, prodded, and dug into the operation. What
we found was a well-run small operation that is serving the needs
of the hospital and missionaries quite well. Rob also helps keep
the internet connection going, which keeps everyone happy and
well-informed. In appreciation and cooperation, the hospital has
contributed to the ministry by procuring fuel for the program, and
providing housing and a vehicle.
Bongolo hospital was started in 1977 by Christian and Missionary Alliance missionaries to serve the people in rural Gabon. It
has grown to be one of the largest and well-respected regional hospitals in the country. Their top-notch eye hospital draws patients
from all over the whole country. Their active volunteer doctor program, and a training program for surgeons brings doctors from all
over Africa. The eye hospital and the visiting doctor programs are
especially dependent on the aircraft to provide transportation.
MSI
Unstable approaches
300 feet. In these cases, the aircraft must be stabilized even earlier
in the approach, when going around is still an option.
The absolute key to the whole concept is that if all of the stated parameters are not in place by the pre-determined point, a goaround is done.
Despite the great success of the stable approach policy, airlines continue to have approach and landing accidents, although
much fewer than before. Most of them are a result of an unstable
approach, so why are pilots not going around when they are supposed to?
The answer to that is a bit complicated, but quite insightful
for missionary aviation. There are a number of factors that work
against a pilot going around:
Pride/embarrassmentpilots dont like to fail, and a
botched approach feels like failure. Additionally, others are
watching, and they dont like to look bad by having to do it over.
ATC/trafficin a controlled environment, or when
there are others that will be affected by the go-around, it is
very hard to make oneself become a nuisance or problem for
them, which often happens with a go-around.
Unaware of instabilityquite often during an accident
investigation, the pilot reported that it was a normal approach,
but the flight data recorder says otherwise. It is easy to get tunnel vision when you are concentrating hard, and miss clues
that indicate things are not going well. Overcoming this is one
advantage of multi crew.
I can salvage it/ Its not so badquite often pilots have
been trained and rewarded for pulling off a good landing even
when the approach was pretty ugly. We tend to be optimists,
and pretty confident in our abilities, which can be a dangerous
combination.
Thought process of predisposition to landingpilots
are conditioned to expect every approach will end with a landingit is what is carved into our consciousness through repetition and practice. Somehow we have to shift our thinking
from we are going to land now, no matter what to unless
things are looking good, we will be going around.
ver 20 years ago, airlines were very concerned about the high
number of approach and landing accidents occurring. The
Flight Safety Foundation, a non-profit safety consulting organization that works primarily with the airlines, formed a task force
to examine the problem, and come up with some solutions. This
Approach and Landing Accident Reduction (ALAR) task force developed a report and tool kit to help airlines eliminate this type
of accident. Their efforts were very successful, and these types of
accidents dropped to nearly one tenth of what they had been.
Fast forward to today, and missionary aviation is in much the
same situation that the airlines were in 20+ years ago. Nearly 66% of
our accidents fall into the approach and landing category, just like
the airlines did. What did they do that we might be able to duplicate?
One of the primary focuses of the ALAR task force was on
stable approaches. This is simply defined as ensuring the aircraft
is in the right place and speed by a predetermined point in the approach, or a go-around is required. Now, that is an over-simplification, so here is a bit more detail.
The key essential parameters are:
Aircraft trackthe aircraft must be lined up with the runway or very nearly so.
Flight path anglethe descent (sink) rate and power setting should indicate a proper flight path approach angle (normally
close to 3).
Airspeedthe airspeed must be at the target airspeed.
Some additional criteria include having the aircraft configured properly for landing (gear and flaps, engine controls, checklists done), and any pre-flight briefings completed (additional crew,
passengers, flight following report).
For the airlines, the normal pre-determined point by which
all of the above criteria need to be met is 1000 feet AGL for instrument approaches and 500 feet AGL for visual approaches. For
many mission operators, it was found that for normal operations,
300 feet AGL for visual approaches works well.
In special cases, a go-around is not possible, or the approach
does not allow for the aircraft to be lined up with the runway by
Safety Net is published periodically by Mission Safety International Inc., Harold W. Berk, Ed.
Articles appearing in this newsletter are the expression of the writer and edited as appropriate.
Every attempt is made to represent information and opinions accurately and fairly and in such
manner that an uninformed reader will not be drawn to erroneous conclusions. However,
there is no guarantee that these objectives will be fully realized.