What's the most abused item forward of the firewall? Other than the line person adding a quart of oil, it's arguably the spark plugs. These little wonders operate in an extremely hostile environment of high temperatures, continual electrical discharges, and caustic chemicals. Yet they usually perform their duties with great reliability.

But just like the abused line person, the plugs may continue to do the job but they might not do it as well as they possibly can. If we treat the line personnel well we will get better service. If we treat the spark plugs well we will get better performance.

Generally speaking, spark plugs should be serviced about every 100 hours. This involves inspecting, cleaning, and gapping the plugs. Having the correct gap between the plug's core and its ground electrode is critical. If the gap is too wide, the voltage will have to exceed the system's design voltage. This isn't good for the upstream components. If the gap is too small, the plug may fire before it has built up the desired voltage. This can cause decreased power. Frequent gapping of the plugs is important because the gap actually changes a very slight amount each time the plug fires. Never use a cheap automotive gapping tool on aircraft spark plugs. Some of these tools can actually damage the plug.

It is also important to clean the plugs of carbon build-up and lead deposits. These build-ups can cause reduced sparking due to increased electrical resistance.

Spark plugs aren't cheap, but should be replaced when excessive electrode wear is noted. They must also be replaced if dropped, even if dropped only a few inches onto a hard surface. If the ceramic insulator is cracked, plug performance will not be good. Plug life can be increased by rotating the plugs every hundred hours just like we rotate the tires on our cars.

So who cares about the condition of the plugs as long as the engine runs and the mag check is good? The pilot will care if he or she gets into a situation where maximum power is needed and the plugs remember that they haven't had any TLC in a long time. Just because the mag check is smooth doesn't mean that the engine will develop full power.

NTSB accident reports are full of crashes that happened during an aborted landing, or the "go-around." As conscientious pilots, we pride ourselves in saying that there is no shame in doing a go-around if things don't look right. That's true of course, but the go-around must be properly executed.

So to be safe pilots we need the judgment to know when to get out of Dodge and come back on the next stage. We also need to know the safest route out of Dodge. That means knowing the correct procedure for the airplane we're flying, reviewing the procedure mentally in advance of getting near the ground, and having practiced the procedure recently.

Part of our due diligence is knowing not only the terrain located on the approach to the runway, but the terrain to be encountered in the event of a go-around. After all, making a good decision to abort the landing is negated if we can't clear the ridge on the departure end of the runway.

We need to memorize the recommended procedure for an aborted landing. Procedures are generally similar, but there are some variations among airplane types.

Here are some of items worthy of consideration, but nothing here should be considered to contradict what a manufacturer says to do with their airplane. The people who built the airplane are the experts in how to fly it.

Some instructors teach a go-around procedure with which I take exception. In fact the FAA has presented this procedure in some of their publications and I take exception to them too. Read what I have to say and make up your own mind. The procedure in question pertains to when full power should be added. Some instructors teach that adding full power should be the first thing done once the decision to abort is made. Physics doesn't bear that out. The decision is probably made while the airplane is still in a nose-low attitude. Adding power in this attitude creates not only a horizontal component of thrust, but a vertical, downward component. Any energy that is directed downward must be overcome before any upward force can be effective. I teach my students to pitch the airplane to level or slightly above before applying power. This directs all the thrust either forward or slightly upward immediately. This probably isn't a big deal in a Cessna 152 with relatively low horsepower but it can be a big deal in a high powered airplane. Powering up a hundred or so horsepower in a five degree nose low attitude doesn't have the same effect as doing the same with 300 or so horsepower. I like to teach procedures that will work in the airplanes that might come later. This isn't necessarily the procedure to use in a jet because of the slower engine spool-up and greater airplane mass, but I use it on all reciprocating, propeller driven airplanes.

Of course the airplane with the constant speed prop must be properly configured for the go-around with the prop control in the full-forward, high-RPM positions well before nearing the ground.

If carb heat is on, it can usually be turned off as soon as full power is applied. This will give noticeably more power, but in extreme carb ice conditions, it might need to be left on. If in doubt, leave it on as long as the airplane is climbing and there is no immediate danger of a collision with obstacles or terrain.

When to retract flaps will generally be addressed in the Pilot's Operating Handbook, but the procedure must be practiced well in advance of a real go-around. The concept is to configure the airplane for greater lift and less drag, but dumping flaps too soon will increase the stalling speed, perhaps to a speed greater than the present airspeed and that will make for a spectacular arrival.

When to bring up the landing gear is also a consideration in airplanes with retractable gear. The objective here is to minimize drag. It's true that the airplane has less drag with the gear retracted but most airplanes actually have increased drag while the gear is in transit. The POH might address this issue and the manufacturer knows best. But in general, it's better to wait till obstacles have been cleared before selecting "UP" on that little round switch.

Every approach should be planned to end in a go-around. If everything goes well and a successful landing is assured, that's great. If anything isn't looking good or the approach isn't stabilized, it's great to already have an exit strategy.

Accidents discussed in this section are presented in the hope that pilots can learn from the mistakes of others and perhaps avoid repeating those mistakes. It is easy to read an accident report and dismiss the cause as carelessness or a dumb mistake. But let's remember that the accident pilot did not get up in the morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll go have an accident today." Nearly all pilots believe that they are safe. Honest introspection frequently reveals that on some occasion, we might have traveled down that same accident path.

On July 26, 2008 a Cirrus SR22 crashed at the Watertown Municipal Airport in Wisconsin. The 235 hour private pilot and his passenger both received serious injuries. The airplane was destroyed in a post-crash fire.

The accident occurred during an attempt to abort a landing after a bad bounce on Runway 29. The wind was down the runway at 10 knots and the sky was clear with 10 miles visibility. and the temperature was 81° F.

The pilot stated that he entered a full traffic pattern for runway 29. The pilot said that the approached was at 70 to 80 knots and it looked good up to the runway numbers. In the interview he indicated that during flare the mains touched first and the airplane "bounced like a ball straight up, really high." He said that he had bounced in a Cessna 172 and this was something he had never experienced before in a Cirrus. The pilot reported that he elected to let the airplane settle and added a little power to stop the bounce. The airplane bounced again and this time he did not add power and let it settle. The airplane bounced a third time and he stated that he was about two thirds of the way down the runway. At this point he elected to perform a go around. The engine responded "right away" to his throttle application of full power. He stated he realized he was "low and slow" and was not getting any lift with the throttle at full power. Realizing he was going to crash, he stated that he looked for an area without people. The pilot recalled that he thought he stalled the airplane and it impacted at full power.

In my opinion, this is a classic case of a pilot being behind the airplane and reacting to events rather than being mentally ahead of the airplane and planning for possibilities. There is always the possibility that a landing should be aborted no matter how skilled we are as pilots. If we fly every approach with that expectation, we will be ready to perform the maneuver if it is required. The fact that the airplane bounced three times before the pilot attempted to go around is evidence that he was being reactive rather than proactive. His delayed decision most likely allowed the airplane to get so far behind the power curve that even it's high-horsepower couldn't save the day.

Click here to read the full NTSB accident report.

Forget the regulations. They aren't working. Well, we can't really forget the regulations but I got your attention, didn't I?The point is that the present system is probably decreasing the number of accidents but it sure isn't working very well. Even the FAA admits that the system is based on voluntary compliance. When was the last time you were asked to show your log book to prove that you met recent experience requirements?

But even though enforcement is sparse at best, most pilots are in compliance with most regulations most of the time. Perhaps that's out of a sense of moral obligation or perhaps it's because the insurance company will use non-compliance to avoid paying a claim in the event of an accident. Or maybe pilots realize that the regs have been written in blood, often arising out of a serious accident. Whatever the reason, most pilots, to their credit, are in compliance with the regulations.

So how can there be so many accidents? An FAA inspector recently told me that both the pilot and airplane were found to be in full compliance with the regulations in about 85% of the accidents. Simple answer: the regulations don't go far enough or aren't strict enough to ensure safety in many areas. Take for example the pilot who hasn't flown at night in three years but is planning a night cross-country flight with his family aboard. A week before the planned trip, he sees a beautiful night with a full moon and completes three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop. When the night of the family trip arrives, he is faced with a solid overcast and 5 miles visibility with light rain. The forecast is for low IFR conditions over the next two days. If he doesn't depart now, he won't be able to make the trip. The accident report will state spatial disorientation and a lack of recent night cross-country experience as probable causes. But the pilot was in full compliance with the regulations since he performed three takeoffs and landings at night within the preceding ninety days.

Would stricter regulations decrease the accident rate? Possibly, but I think that very strict regulations would probably increase the rate of non-compliance with a minimal improvement in the accident rate.

The FAA can't make us safer. Only we can make ourselves safer. The regulations are a good starting point but certainly don't guarantee safety. We need to take responsibility for safety, not merely compliance. We need to participate in recurrent training designed not only to keep us legal, but to keep us safe. In the absence of that, we must accept our limitations and not begin a flight if we are not fully prepared. We also need to make sure our airplanes are truly well maintained and not just in compliance. And that also applies to rental or club airplanes that we fly. We must give a hard look under the cowl. Oil leaks, dirty engines, and chafed wires are probably symptomatic of minimum or worse airworthiness compliance. Check the tires. Tires are pretty cheap as aircraft parts go. If the tires are badly worn they may be legal but should be considered a big indication that someone doesn't want to spend money on this airplane.

So let's make sure we're in compliance with the regulations, but let's take a giant leap beyond that and concentrate on being safe.