It may seem like a lot of information for the pilot to process, but for the savvy controller it is a no-brainer. [Making two calls] wastes air time, which implies inefficiency. Only when a call is for a nonstandard reason do I advocate a call such as, "Phoenix approach, motorglider One-Zero-Six-Six-Foxtrot, request."
I'd like other instructors and ATC personnel to enter this debate. It may be that there is no one right answer.
Russ Hustead
Mesa, Arizona
Another good reason to go IFR
The August issue of AOPA Flight Training arrived in my mailbox with the cover title "Why IFR?" the same day that John F. Kennedy Jr.'s airplane was declared missing.
I understand that Kennedy was working on his instrument ticket but wasn't rated yet. This is a tragedy, but so are all of the many "continued VFR into instrument meteorological conditions" accidents that we face every year in general aviation. It's a good reminder to all of us to get IFR rated, and if we're not, to stay out of the clouds.
David Patterson, CFII
Via the Internet
Southern Illinois flight team success
As a flight instructor, I really enjoy your magazine and appreciate its value-both to those of us who teach people to fly and those who are just learning. But I would like to express a concern. I was reading your "School News" section of the August 1999 issue covering the national flight team competition. You managed to mention every single school who made the top five except for Southern Illinois University, who placed fourth overall.
I competed on the SIU flight team last year, and I know for a fact that we worked very hard for that fourth-place distinction and deserve some recognition for our efforts. Especially considering that there was only a handful of returning members on our team and that both the top male and female pilot awards were earned by members of our team, I think that the SIU flight team should not have been neglected.
Dianna Ingram
Via the Internet
Preparation keeps training costs down
Harry Leicher's letter in the July issue of AOPA Flight Training, "Preparation saves students money," deserves reinforcement. I recommended two Part 141 students for the private pilot checkride at the legal minimum-34.8 and 35.4 hours. The first student logged the needed two-tenths on the way to meet the examiner.
During the preflight briefing, I ask my students if they have any questions on the previous lesson or on the required study material for the upcoming flight. Most students say no. But these two students-the most motivated individuals I have ever met-would charge through the door 15 minutes early demanding answers to questions. They invariably asked for more instruction and practice on confusing maneuvers or on topics they had read about in advance.
They passed their checkrides on the first try with no trouble. These students became excellent pilots because of their study habits, keen desire to learn, and, I hope, good instruction.
This is not to downgrade the importance of the instructor, but learning is a partnership. Mathematics and physics students work practice problems every night, composition students write, and flight students must study and practice maneuvers with the help and support of a good instructor.
Richard E. Branick
Huntsville, Alabama
Don't try to beat the big guys
I wanted to pass on some comments regarding Patrick de la Garza's recent article, "The Black Wall," which I read in the July 1999 issue of AOPA Flight Training.
I am a professional pilot with 20 years of experience, and I also have a CFI rating. I believe that this article, published in a flight training magazine, does a great disservice to young pilots.
In the article, de la Garza admits to departing into a moving thunderstorm so that he could "beat the big guys." Because of his haste, he made a departure that was safe only with an immediate turn. He created a situation that required the controller's assistance to bail him out of his mistake, not the other way around.
My concern is not with de la Garza's judgment but with his reaction to his difficulties with the controller. While I agree that as the pilot in command he had the final responsibility for the safety of the flight, I cannot agree with his actions over the radio.
It is not only unprofessional but also unproductive to argue with a controller on the radio, no matter who is right. By venting his frustration on the controller, de la Garza creates an adversarial relationship for all pilots and controllers. The next pilot on the frequency might be the one making the mistake and might not receive a friendly warning from air traffic control.
If you have a problem with air traffic control, take care of it with a telephone call to the facility after you land, not in the air on the radio.
I don't think it helps anyone to give new pilots the impression that it is OK to vent your frustrations over the radio.
M. E. Pribble
Via the Internet
The flip side of high density altitude
I read with interest Christopher Parker's article on teaching density altitude ("Teaching High Density Altitude at Low Elevation," June 1999). The other side of the coin is those of us who have never flown below 6,000 feet.
In nearly 100 hours of student flight, I had never flown at anything close to sea level. Last month while I was vacationing in Georgia, I hired an instructor and a Cessna 172 and went for a ride. Following my normal landing procedure for Colorado, I found myself floating toward the far end of the runway before adding full power and initiating a go-around.
In my part of the world, full flaps are reserved for short-field landings. At 900 feet, they become a little more necessary along with careful management of airspeed on approach. Before that trip I never thought that a 172 could climb at more than 700 feet per minute either.
The rash of accidents we have every year that are caused by density altitude suddenly began to make sense to me. There is a drastic difference in aircraft performance that can lead a low-country pilot down the road to complacency.
The moral is that even when they have been taught about density altitude in primary training, pilots coming to the Western mountains still need a mountain flying checkout to be safe. The training for density altitude as described in Parker's article is little more than a taste of the full banquet.
Rob Kolter
Trinidad, Colorado
Don't just say it, do it
In the June issue of AOPA Flight Training, Richard Hiner expressed a very valid concern about the GUMP checklist and training in fixed-gear aircraft. I would like to share what my instructor taught me, a technique that has helped me and which I am now teaching to my students.
Although we trained in a Cessna 172 with fixed landing gear, my instructor taught me the GUMP checklist. But he taught me not just to say each item but to do each item. Naturally, I couldn't think of anything to do when it came to the undercarriage part of the checklist, and usually I just said something like "undercarriage down and welded."
Realizing that I wasn't taking this step very seriously, he asked me if I was sure that the undercarriage was still there. Of course I looked out the window to see that it was there and gave him a look as though he must be crazy. He pointed out that there are occasions when the gear is not there when a complacent pilot doesn't bother to verify it. He also told the story of somebody he knew who had landed a fixed-gear trainer with the parking brake engaged. From that point on, every time we did the GUMP check, he made sure that I looked outside to see that the gear was there and that the parking brake was off.
At the time it seemed trivial, but as soon as I began flying retractable-gear aircraft, I realized the value of this practice. Even now, every time I turn base, whether in a Cessna 152 or a light twin, I find myself looking out the window to make sure that I can see whatever part of the landing gear is visible.
If instructors are teaching their students to only say the GUMP checklist, then it can become a dangerous habit and lead to serious errors later on when the checklist has more real meaning. But if we teach our students to do the GUMP checklist and teach them the relevance of using the correct habits from the beginning, we can instill an effective and safe practice that will apply whether the student stays a private pilot or ends up flying the bigger birds.
Michael J. Spencer
Via the Internet
Q code confusion
AOPA Flight Training magazine-what a great read! As Amy Laboda rightly points out, one of the great privileges of holding a pilot's certificate is the ability to free yourself of earthly bonds and see the landscape from a different perspective-especially useful when on holiday in another country ("Vacation Flying," April 1999).
It is also interesting to learn about and compare the differences, sometimes in procedures
but mostly in no-menclature, in different countries. QNH, for example, is used in the United Kingdom and other countries to indicate the altimeter setting of a region or of a particular aerodrome. Although Laboda says in her article that QNH stands for 1013.2 mb, I think she is probably referring to the standard pressure setting, equivalent to 29.92 in the United States. QNH is pressure setting in mb/hPa instead of inches. Hence, a reference to altitude refers to the height of the aircraft above mean sea level.
The term height can then be used to indicate the aircraft's actual height above the surface. This gives rise to yet another pressure datum setting-QFE. When the altimeter is set to QFE on the ground, it will read zero, regardless of the aerodrome's actual altitude above mean sea level. This is useful while in the circuit (traffic pattern) because when at the circuit height (pattern altitude) of 1,000 feet, the altimeter actually reads 1,000 feet. (It's also useful for confusing candidates sitting for professional flight crew exams set by the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority.)
The use of these Q codes is a throwback to the days when the Royal Air Force used the codes to save time and confusion over the radio (for instance, QSY means cleared to change frequency). These days, apart from QNH and QFE, the use of Q codes is officially discouraged over the radio.
Hui T. Tan
Glasgow, Scotland
Generous readers
I just read the article "Reader offers to share gift of flight" ("Flight Forum," June 1999). Hats off to Michael Newby, an instructor who offered to give a fellow reader in his area some free flight instruction. Being that generous is just incredible.
I spend all of my free time polishing airplanes at the Cavanaugh Flight Museum to get rides in their warbirds (150 volunteer hours gets you a ride in a T-6).
I started taking lessons at a local flight school, but the costs are so expensive that the most time I can pay for is about two hours a month. Please let me know if there is anyone in Dallas who is as generous as Mr. Newby.
Randy Cumbaa
Dallas, Texas
Correction
In the June 1999 story "No Dumb Questions: Updating Charts" we misidentified the e-mail and Web addresses for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. To make a correction to a chart, e-mail [email protected]. For more information about NOAA, visit the Web site (http://acc.nos.noaa.gov/).
Related Articles
