Letters

Discussing Dubroff

Bruce Landsberg wrote a very good article on the Dubroff disaster (" Safety Pilot: Decisions that Matter," May Pilot). At last count I have flown coast to coast in light airplanes 115 times (round trips) and twice around the world in my Bonanza. In the process I have researched long-range flying; learned a lot from the mistakes and successes of others; come to enjoy the detailed planning process required for maximum safety of operation; and, finally, talked to many pilots and aircraft operators in regard to their operations.

Ignorance and/or stupidity are the hallmark of incidents such as the Dubroff crash. Although Landsberg did not say this per se, it is clear that he did explore the many and exact stupidities and ignorances and showed how they conspired to cause fatalities. Shortly after that tragedy, I was in Cheyenne, Wyoming; waited out the weather for 2 days; and, as a result, had a lovely, quite enjoyable trip home with my precious cargo — my wife.

Robert E. Reiss AOPA 462101
LaJolla, California

The most troubling thought in Landsberg's well-written article was bone chilling. Following a series of minor mistakes "the flight was cleared for takeoff although the pilot had dispensed with the runup and just rolled out on the runway."

Normal procedure at high-elevation airports calls for leaning the mixture at full throttle during the runup to achieve maximum power just before takeoff. Failure to do so would result in a significant reduction of power, resulting in a loss of climb rate. If this were so, their overweight airplane simply wouldn't climb. Any back pressure would exceed the critical angle of attack, resulting in a stall. The article reported that the airplane descended rapidly to the ground in a near-vertical attitude. Poor Jessica.

Ray Noble AOPA 916821
Darien, Connecticut

Bruce Landsberg comments: The NTSB was unable to determine the position of the mixture control because of damage from the crash; the mixture may or may not have been leaned. Even if the mixture had been leaned perfectly, the wind shear the Cardinal encountered would have easily overcome the additional 100 to 200 fpm of climb that would have resulted from proper leaning.

Dusting off skills

It was a pleasure to read " Measure of Skill: Navigation Necessities" (May Pilot) by Thomas A. Horne. Many take for granted that all pilots are familiar with pilotage, dead reckoning, and nondirectional beacons — but we are not, or we have forgotten. It was good to review the VOR after years of relying on lorans and the newer GPS. I have all three installed in my Piper Comanche, but I tend to forget about the VOR when I have the two newer tools to rely on. Because of this reminder, I will be a better pilot in the future.

Jerry Gardner AOPA 283784
Tyler, Texas

I read with interest "Measure of Skill: Navigation Necessities." I visit the United States at least once a year for the purpose of renting an airplane and seeing some of your beautiful country. My navigation preference has always been by pilotage, using other navigation aids to confirm what my eyes tell me. Last year I joined the GPS club with a Garmin 89 handheld and used that to supplement other navigation aids.

I took Horne's article to be a reminder to GPS converts that the other navigation instruments still serve a purpose, and he outlined the way to use them. He did not, however, remind those of us rusty in their use to identify the navaids before using the information given by them.

As a European pilot I very much enjoy the ease and freedom with which one can fly in the United States; a flight down the River Thames through London or down River Seine in Paris, for example, can be only a dream for us, yet you can — and I did — fly the VFR corridor through New York.

John Archer AOPA 124714
Grenoble, France

Horne states that "many of us would have to say that our basic navigation skills peaked as student pilots and have been deteriorating steadily ever since." I agree that unless a pilot works with the basics routinely, there is a loss of some of the finer details. We have all been there at some time.

Horne has apparently forgotten that wind direction is reported in true direction, not magnetic. The wind correction angle must be added to the true course before the variation is added, not the other way around as he states in his article.

Also, it is not possible to home away from an NDB station, as he states in his article, if there is a crosswind component for your chosen direction of flight by simply "… turning to a heading that matches the value of the bearing you want to track, then keeping the needle on the airplane's … tail." If you do keep the needle on the tail with a crosswind, you will soon be flying a heading that closely matches the direction that the wind is blowing (asymptotic flight path). Tracking from the station will work, but that requires a crosswind correction to be held, so the needle will not be on the tail.

Larry Toto AOPA 568727
State College, Pennsylvania

Thomas A. Horne replies: Mr. Toto is correct with regard to applying the wind correction angle to the true course. Tracking outbound — or inbound — is, of course, the preferred method of navigating from or to an NDB. Space did not permit a full discourse on NDB navigation.

User fees 'sickening'

It is with shock and dismay that I read about President Clinton's proposing general aviation user fees. As the owner of a 40-year-old Bonanza that I fly between the San Juan Islands and Seattle in the course of operating my boat-leasing business, I shudder to think of what I and others who love to fly will do in reaction to user fees. Quite simply, I'll avoid the long arm of the FAA if at all possible. Where I now file an IFR clearance to remain "in the system" and safe, I'll probably go VFR and stay out of controlled airspace to avoid fees. I don't think that this is Clinton's intent.

I worked for the FAA for 10 years as an air traffic controller, from 1971 through 1981, when Reagan fired me (happily). I learned firsthand of government waste and inefficiency. I distinctly remember being told that the fiscal year was coming to an end and we needed to order new radios and furniture and hire new controllers so as to assure more money the next year. We didn't need all that stuff.

As a small businessman now, I cringe when I recall my previous life in government. The idea of a user fee that supports a terribly inefficient, bloated agency like the FAA sickens me. In my business I work very hard to accomplish an operational task at a lesser expense. To witness the waste and foolhardy spending in the FAA and then be asked to support it with another user fee that requires more bureaucrats to manage is absolutely absurd.

Michael S. Elliott AOPA 1184476
Seattle, Washington

One of the problems with user fees that needs more attention is the huge bureaucracy that will have to be created in order to determine fees, administer the program, and collect the fees. How much of the collected fees will be eaten up by this new organization? Far too much, I am afraid. It looks as if the choice of the people on the review commission is dictated more by campaign contributions than by any other qualification. This is unfortunate.

I commend AOPA on its fight on this issue. I hope that all owners and pilots will continue to write to all of the people involved in this insidious proposal. If you think that general aviation was in a slump 2 years ago, just wait. This will effectively kill it. We do have to get our government back from the campaign contributors and do it now.

Allan G. Hanson AOPA 469541
Somerset, California

Wake-up call

John Yodice's column (" Pilot Counsel: Inoperative Instruments and Equipment," May Pilot) should be a wake-up call for pilots and operators. Only a groundswell of political pressure can save general aviation from the capricious, obtrusive, and pernicious bureaucratic behavior of the FAA. Like certain other government agencies lately of note, the FAA — an agency which arguably has no enforcement authority — has granted police-like power to employees who have no law enforcement training or background. Nor have these employees been psychologically screened to determine whether they are emotionally equipped to exercise such power wisely and humanely. Add to that an administrator who presumes to have judicial power that supersedes that of legitimately appointed judges and you may as well flush the Constitution down the ubiquitous porcelain appliance. AOPA does a great job on the political front, but individual pilots and operators need to get mad as hell and put their legislators on notice that we're not going to take it any more.

Robert L. Smith AOPA 1160876
Shingletown, California

Please tell us that there is more to the story than appeared in Yodice's article, such as the charter operator who was the FAA's victim wasn't lily white because he had a history of previous violations or an earlier encounter of some kind that would make him their target in this instance. Otherwise, one is forced to conclude that the FAA has some people on its staff whose IQs must be about equal to their shoe sizes, up to and including the acting administrator in the subject instance, which is indeed unfortunate. Small wonder so many people are distrustful of government and have no respect for its agents. Is there any way at all to force these people into a real court of law and make them listen to reason? If not, a way should be created.

Richard Ashbaugh AOPA 1000528
Payson, Arizona

Off by less than a mile

I read with great interest Barry Schiff's " Proficient Pilot: Single-Engine Soaring" (May Pilot). Not only can sailplanes be simulated with educated throttle and flap adjustments, so can more important things such as feathered props and high-altitude departure stalls, to name a few. But before Schiff does any more performance calculations, he would be wise to double-check the length of a nautical mile. Its true length (or height, in this case) is 6,076.1155 feet, not 6,280 feet, as twice suggested. A statute mile is 5,280 feet, explaining Barry's confusion, and perhaps warning us all to revisit those old textbook definitions now and then.

Jim Burton AOPA 1294163
Belmont, California

Barry Schiff responds: Choose the most correct answer: My May column mentions a 6,280-foot nautical mile because

1. I wanted to increase the amount of mail that I receive.
2. I wanted to determine how many readers were paying attention.
3. I wanted to give you an opportunity to find an error.
4. I made a silly mistake and apologize for it.

Answer: (d)

We welcome your comments. Address your letters to: Editor, AOPA Pilot, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, Maryland 21701. Send e-mail to [email protected]. Include your full name, address, and AOPA member number on all correspondence, including e-mail. Letters will be edited for style and length.