On several occasions we have had ?twin drivers? come in. And, after spending all that money on fancy equipment, they are apparently unable to afford radios and proper charts. On one occasion, I was flying with a student who was doing tailwheel transition training, and we were on final for the runway facing into the wind. The student did a nice job of handling the aircraft, using the radio at all the correct places and announcing her intentions, so that anyone in the area would have no doubt as to her position.
I told her that there was an airplane in the vicinity of the airport but that I thought he would fly over the airport. Instead, he made an unannounced entry to a right base (although the runway uses a standard left-hand pattern) and then turned onto final. We were forced to go around and let him land as it was obvious that he wasn?t talking on the radio, or at least on our frequency. We went around successfully, made another approach, and landed with no more interference.
I talked to the pilot after we were on the ground to see if he had heard or seen us. He said that he had neither seen nor heard us. He wanted to know why we weren?t on the proper frequency, and so I pulled out a VFR chart, and showed him that indeed we had been using the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) of 122.80. He apologized, and said that he had assumed that at an airport without a tower and without a unicom you were supposed to use 122.9 MHz. I think he was a little embarrassed by his mistake and he promised that the next time he flew to such an airport he would overfly the field before landing to check for traffic and wind. As you can see, he did several things improperly that could have posed real safety hazards: 1) He failed to properly clear the area; 2) He did not use the proper frequency for communication; 3) He made right hand turns in the pattern; 4) He did not check the wind or surface conditions at the airport; 5) He did not look for other aircraft in the traffic pattern.
It would be to everyone?s advantage to occasionally review chapter four, section three of the Aeronautical Information Manual for recommended procedures at airports without an operating control tower. There are local folks using the airport properly, and even if we are not flying the big equipment, most of us still try to abide by the rules. ?Joe Spence Enterprise, Oregon
For more information about operating safely at non-towered airports, visit the AOPA Air Safety Foundation at AOPA?s Web site (www.aopa.org/asf) or call 800/683-3101 to order a copy of the Safety Advisor on operations at non-towered airports.
Reader offers to share the gift of flight I just got through reading the April 1999 issue of AOPA Flight Training, and I was wondering if you could help me contact one of the people who submitted a letter. The letter was titled ?Paying for Training? and was submitted by Katie Brand of Lake in the Hills, Illinois. I am also from Lake in the Hills and would like to speak with Katie about giving her some free flight instruction. I was at her stage once in my training, and I would like to help out a fellow pilot make the dream of flying a reality. ?Michael Newby Lake in the Hills, Illinois
Since Mr. Newby made this generous offer, we have been trying to contact Ms. Brand to pass along the message but have been unable to do so. We hope that she will contact the magazine so that we can put her in touch with Mr. Newby. ?Editor
Instructor shares tips for localizer, VOR sensitivity checks In the story on conducting VOR sensitivity checks in ?Instrument-Related Accidents? in the April 1999 issue of AOPA Flight Training, the author implies that an insensitive localizer indicator could have been detected by a VOR sensitivity check. That is incorrect.
A VOR sensitivity check does not check localizer reception. The indicator instrument operates on a completely different principle for the two functions. An indicator may operate perfectly on a VOR and operate poorly or not at all on a LOC, or vice-versa. A common complaint to an avionics shop is ?localizer OK, no omni.? The opposite case is a somewhat less common failure. There is no way to make a valid localizer sensitivity check in flight except by flying a very accurate position on an operating ILS localizer and moving to the correct physical distance from the centerline by visual reference to landmarks. This involves carefully marking a visual chart with the exact angular deflection of that particular localizer at an exact distance from the antenna and picking out three landmarks?one for center, one for the left edge, and one for the right edge of the on-course indication, then flying over those landmarks while carefully monitoring the reception to assure adequate signal strength. A much better check is a bench or ramp check with a localizer signal generator. (It?s probably cheaper than the gas, too.) I teach the VOR sensitivity check as follows: After centering the needle with the omnibearing selector knob (OBS), turn it 10 degrees off, looking for a smooth needle movement to five dots deflection. I find five dots easier to see than one dot?if the needle pegs early, the sensitivity is high, if it ends up short of the fifth dot, the sensitivity is low. This method makes the resolution five times greater; thus it is easier to see rather than trying to squint at the first dot. ?Jerry Copeland, CFI, A Grand Island, New York
Learning to keep your reactions under control Recently your article titled ?Lost Nuggets: What you forgot to tell your student? in the March 1999 issue brought to mind a similar situation which happened to me shortly after I got my private certificate.
I was flying with my girlfriend on my second flight with a passenger, and we decided to do a little sightseeing and circle a friend?s house. We found the house by using a waypoint on my handheld GPS receiver, and as we were circling at 2,000 feet, I noticed that the blue outer marker light had come on. I looked up from the instrument panel and saw the runway of the local airport whose ILS I now knew I was crossing. The first thing which crossed my mind was, ?Oh no! At this altitude we could be right on the approach path of someone using the ILS!? Unfortunately, the vocalization which my mind processed and sent into the intercom microphone was somewhat more colorful, followed by an immediate maneuver to depart the area. I didn?t have time to explain what had happened as my girlfriend worriedly asked me what was wrong until we were some distance away. At that time I explained the meaning of the outer marker beacon and the reason for our hasty departure. When we landed, however, she indicated to me in no uncertain terms that my reaction was less than comforting.
The ?nugget? of experience here is that even if you know that a situation is under control, your reaction to an unexpected situation, such as the outer marker beacon, can frighten your passengers.
As pilots in command we must not only be knowledgeable about our airplanes, but also handle even the smallest incidents carefully to keep from frightening those who fly with us. My girlfriend told me that she did not care one bit that I bounced the landing, but when I made that expletive, it was the one time during the flight that she was scared. ?Walker J. Seestedt Via the Internet
Boeing 727 panel I would like to point out a mislabeled photograph in the story ?To FE or not to FE?? in the April 1999 issue of the magazine.
The photograph that is labeled Boeing 747-100 appears to actually be a Boeing 727 panel. Notice that there are only three sets of engine instruments on the lower right side of the panel. Also, the set of nine orange lights in the upper left quarter of the picture are arranged in three columns, one for each generator. Each engine has one generator. ?Webb McDonald, B-727 FE Via the Internet
Related Articles
