Letters

Home on the airport

Being hopelessly attracted to airplanes and obsessed with a need to be constantly near them, I was drawn with intrigue to Lane E. Wallace's " An Airplane in Every Garage" (April Pilot). It was an excellent article, highlighting one of aviation's best kept secrets: how to have the best of two worlds, living in a house you enjoy ... and being close to your airplane.

My first experience of living on an airport came 35 years ago, building a vacation cabin on a coastal airstrip where I could taxi my plane into our front yard. We now have a full-size home and hangar on a residential airpark, with accommodations for guest airplanes in our yard. Like Cameron Airpark, we are on a public airport with an excellent restaurant and fuel and maintenance facilities; but, in contrast, we have separate streets and taxiways. No mixing of cars and airplanes; no stop signs and no turn signals required. But, after Ms. Wallace's inspirational article, we'll probably have a few more neighbors now that the secret is out.

Glenn Plymate AOPA 196380
Independence, Oregon

Your article on Cameron Airpark contained an unfortunate sting in its tail. It implies that Spruce Creek Fly-in, where I have had a home since 1989, is elitist " ... where the owners tend more toward Beechcraft Barons or Aerospatiale TBM 700s."

Well, it's true that there is a TBM here — and several Barons, including a couple with Colemill conversions. We also have some even more exotic machinery, including two Citations, two Learjets, and the royal family of Kings, Queens, and Dukes. But they are not typical of the more than 300 airplanes that are based here. On a lesser scale, we have a dozen Piper Cubs, several Aeronca Champs, and myriad biplanes, including Buecker Jungmanns, a Marquart Charger, several Lakes, and Christen Eagles — many built or restored right here. We must have one of the largest private air forces in the SA, with a Grumman Wildcat, several T-6s, two P-51 Mustangs, several Stearmans and (my) de Havilland Chipmunk.

But it's not the fancy hardware or the impressive real estate, nor the 18-hole golf course and country club that make Spruce Creek special. It has more to do with the spirit of its people that makes this place unique.

Michael J. Keemar AOPA 996588
Daytona Beach, Florida

Rules for the radio

Bruce Landsberg's recent article, " Safety Pilot: Radio Pros and Clods" (April Pilot), notes a weakness of many new pilots. Their radio communication is poor.

There are really just two major rules for using the radio: First, get the message across accurately and promptly. Second, get it across briefly and concisely; i.e., do not tie up the frequency any more than necessary.

Of the two, the first is more important. If the message comes across garbled or wrong, there is a possibility of a mishap. Pilots and controllers would rather a message be a bit too long but clear than short but misinterpreted.

As your article points out, the best technique combines both rules. However, your example is still one word too long. When calling "Newton Traffic," it is excess verbiage to repeat the word "Newton" at the end of the transmission. Leaving out the redundant word is one more mark of a "pro" with really good radio technique.

Robert L. Wick Jr., M.D. AOPA 191652
Arlington, Texas

The recent article by Bruce Landsberg on radio procedures was excellent, but it contained a few errors and probably should be corrected.

"This is" clarifies who is talking. Without it, confusion as to who is calling and who is being called is quite possible ... the controller cannot hear a comma. While the Airman's Information Manual condones this omission, good radio practice (and other governmental agencies) would discourage it. I insist that my students use "this is," at least on initial call-up.

"Over" means "I am through talking and expect an answer." Simply dropping voice pitch can lead to confusion. And, by the way, "Out" means "I am through talking and do not expect an answer," so when you hear the TV hero say "Over and out," he is really saying "Go ahead and shut up!"

The verbal pause is a leftover from the days of tube radios and was used only when keying the microphone to allow time for the tubes to heat to operating temperature. Mr. Landsberg is quite correct in saying it should be eliminated.

John A. Pahl AOPA 196377
Lockeford, California

Veterans' benefits

Peter A. Bedell's article " VA Flight Training Benefits: Vets Launch Aviation Careers" (April Pilot), was a very accurate rendition of the requirements and process for obtaining VA flight training benefits. Although it took nearly five months from the date I first applied for my first check to arrive, that first check was a lump-sum payment, retroactive to my start date. It was well worth the wait. The $6,000-plus benefit that I received enabled me to obtain my commercial certificate and instrument rating. I am now enrolled in a CFI course and am beginning to see a dream come true that I never thought would be possible.

Skip Capone AOPA 1109236
Greensboro, North Carolina

The information provided in "Vets Launch Aviation Careers" was excellent. I'm surprised, however, that none of those interviewed commented on what I've found to be the biggest ripoff involving VA flight funding — price gouging by the training institutes.

I've used my VA in the past to obtain CFI and CFII ratings and have recently begun trying to find an affordable place to obtain an MEI and a turbojet type rating. In every case, I find that my VA "out of pocket" costs will be almost identical to a non-VA program. When I question these schools about it, I'm informed that the difference in cost lies in Part 141 versus Part 61 training. With 27 years of flying experience and more than 6,000 flight hours, I'm hard pressed to accept these flimsy excuses. As an example, one company I dealt with offers FAA-approved ATP and Cessna Citation type ratings for $3,750. When one reads the fine print, Part 141 training (read VA) is $5,450. At 40 percent out-of-pocket, that means I'll have to pay $2,180. At another school I talked to, the difference in out-of-pocket expenses for a seaplane rating was only $95.

Having taught in a Part 141 program, I can attest to the fact that there is very little, if any, difference in the amount and quality of training.

Thomas J. Doherty AOPA 10788917
Ft. Walton Beach, Florida

Assuming responsibility

Thanks for " Pilot Counsel: Careless or Reckless" in the April issue.

For those of us who fly the heavy iron, we are also passionate about general aviation. Hundreds of our pilots at American Airlines fly everything from homebuilts to warbirds. Your article was an excellent wake-up call for all of us.

C. J. Price AOPA 276782
Chicago, Illinois

Generally I agree with John Yodice's views in "Pilot Counsel"; however, April was an exception. It is absurd to believe that the respondent was "merely offering assistance to the responsible pilot," when he refused to turn down the ATC speed request. As the other pilot's employer, he knew and expected that his employee would defer to his judgment. He intentionally became part of the decision process.

I am not implying that the employee should be absolved of responsibility. He should have insisted on refusal of the ATC speed request. But the respondent contributed to this incident and should also be held accountable.

I think that the NTSB's message is clear. If we elect to exercise our pilot expertise, we will be held accountable for our actions. That's just fine with me.

John R. Bruns, Jr. AOPA 743445
Bound Brook, New Jersey

Sunset for A.M. Weather?

Thanks very much for the update on A.M. Weather ("Wx Watch: Sunset for A.M. Weather?" April Pilot). I did not realize how much I depended on A.M. Weather for an overall picture of the weather pattern, and I have missed it sorely. Evidently, here in California, weather is not as important a topic as it is elsewhere; there is no Weather Channel available to us in the San Francisco Bay area, cable or not.

I cannot believe that such an important source of weather information is just going to fall off the face of the earth. Is there anything we can do?

Robert C. Pierce AOPA 907890
Corte Madera, California

Nice guys finish last

In " Pilotage: Last One There" (April Pilot), Mark R. Twombly writes, "Doug [is] a nice guy." Later we read " ... the Commander was entering a right downwind to Runway 34 at 2DT." Perhaps the hidden moral of this story is: Nice guys finish last — especially if they violate FAR 91.126 (b).

Bob Dillon AOPA 813339
Aurora, Illinois

Disqualifying the healthy

Your report that the FAA was unable to document the basis for five of 10 medical certification issues in response to AOPA Freedom of Information Act filings (" AOPA Action," April Pilot) is most significant. I would certainly recommend that AOPA and all others responding to the FAA's proposed revision to pilot medical standards cite that absence of substantiation. You have exposed those FAA medical bureaucrats for exactly what they are: purveyors of over-hyped non-facts seeking to mislead the public (and, probably, their own senior management) into believing that there are problems where none, in fact, exist. In this devious manner (citing non-existent studies, surveys, analyses, and reports as the basis for "corrective" rulemaking), they seek to tighten their control over the pilot community.

If we recognize the potential significance of the Bob Hoover ruling as a precedent and link it to these proposed new standards — which are liberally salted with terms such as "but not limited to" — it is clearly evident that these FAA medical bureaucrats will have attained arbitrary and complete control over us, should their proposals become incorporated in the FARs. The mind boggles at the many ways they could disqualify the healthy.

C. H. Wilbur AOPA 250044
Alexandria, Virginia

Robinsons revisited

In your April issue you printed two letters that indicated a lack of knowledge about Robinson Helicopter Company. Unfortunately, neither pilot has attended the factory Safety Course; otherwise, they would realize how mistaken their assumptions about the company really are. They would have seen the quality system which has made the R22 the most reliable light helicopter built (even the NTSB does not dispute this).

They would also be aware of the major effort the company devotes to developing safety-related improvements for the aircraft — such as a rotor brake, RPM governor, various warning devices, and a number of new projects presently under development. I strongly encourage both of these gentlemen to attend our Safety Course and then give us their opinion of the company.

Frank Robinson AOPA 1171282
Torrance, California

In defense of Robinson Helicopters, I would like to relate my experience of flying helicopters with semi-rigid rotor systems for the past nine years. I was trained to fly helicopters by the U.S. Army in 1986.

Semi-rigid rotors (teeter-totter type) have the potential to flap down too far and bump the mast or strike the tailboom or another part of the aircraft. To control this in the UH-1 Huey, the Army or Bell Helicopter has placed a limit of minus 0.5 Gs. This was thoroughly ingrained into our military minds as part of our training.

Exceed this limit at the risk of losing your life and the lives of your passengers. To this day I get a bad feeling in my stomach any time I feel the aircraft approaching a negative-G mode of flight, even in a fixed wing — because I know that once below minus 0.5 Gs, one is at risk when flying this type of helicopter.

Gerald Bourgeois II AOPA 937802
New Iberia, Louisiana

We welcome your comments. Address your letters to: Editor, AOPA Pilot, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, Maryland 21701. Include your full name, address, and AOPA number on all correspondence. Letters will be edited for style and length.