I started a ground school class with this same instructor and was able to convince him to take me on as a student when the timing was not particularly good for him, as he was expanding his responsibilities in the flight school.
To make a long story short, he has never been a no-show and he has never been late. He is always prepared and has prepared me well for the upcoming lesson. He has never yelled at me. He knows my concerns and, yes, fears, and respects them. He pushes me gently yet knows my limits and never pushes me too far. He always lets me fly. He has never scared me by showing off. He always listens to me and makes sure to answer all of my questions, and believe me, I always have a lot!
In short, he treats me with respect, consideration and kindness. I want to let people know that there are good instructors out there. There are great instructors out there. Don't get discouraged, keep looking, ask around, and you'll find yours!
Terry Munson
Louisville, Colorado
Another Foundation For Landing
Here we go again, flying Cessnas and Cherokees like airliners! I am referring, of course, to the article on stabilized approaches ("A Solid Foundation for Landing") in the February 2000 issue of AOPA Flight Training. While stabilizing the approach at some point is necessary, stabilizing a VFR pattern at 300 feet and one nautical mile from the runway is overkill in a light aircraft. Airliners fly a stabilized approach from 500 feet agl and 1.5 miles because heavy jet aircraft with their massive drag in the landing configuration and huge inertia simply do not respond to power and flight control inputs rapidly. A light aircraft, by comparison, can alter its flight path like a butterfly.Flying a flat, power-on approach in a light aircraft as described in the article results in a huge pattern and a guaranteed off-airport landing should the engine fail. During simulated engine-out approaches and short-field landings, the student is used to looking at a much flatter angle to the runway and has trouble finding the correct approach path for these "abnormal patterns."
A much better pattern for light aircraft is a low- or power-off approach with a descent gradient of about 500 feet per mile. This pattern puts the downwind about one-half mile from the runway and gives a final approach that is one-half to three-quarters of a mile long with rollout on final still at 300 feet agl.
Now, I can hear all the CFIs yelling, "Students can't fly a pattern that tight!" I know that any student can learn to fly the pattern I describe because, until the last 20 years when the jet mentality took over flight instruction, every student learned to fly light airplanes in a small, power-off pattern, and our students today are just as bright as we were. Probably brighter. And when the student moves on to a heavier aircraft, we teach him to fly that aircraft as it should be flown, explaining the reasons behind the new techniques. The student will understand the why behind what he is doing and therefore be a much safer pilot.
John McMurray
Burkburnett, Texas
A Better Way To Land?
This is regarding "A Solid Foundation for Landing" by Robert Rossier in the February issue. The article is great, but I have a different opinion on two items.First, you teach students to make a reduction of power abeam the touchdown point, which will result in a 400-foot-per-nautical-mile descent. The problem with this method is that no one can see you in the downwind when they are behind you. This is particularly true if you fly a low-wing aircraft. By staying at the same altitude during the downwind leg, everybody can see each other and reduce the risk of midair collision. Descending on the base leg still gives you enough time to adjust your height with the touchdown zone elevation and allow the people behind you to see you. As an example, France has taught its pilots to not descend in the downwind, following the collision that happened with a Cessna Cardinal and a Robin (low wing). Seven people died in this accident.
Second, I believe that flight instructors should teach their students to not use full flaps on final. Most runways are long enough. And climbing a Cessna 152 with full flaps is prohibited in the flight manual. In case of a go-around, there's no need to be distracted by flaps if you only lowered them to the second notch.
Richard Depinay
Long Beach, California
Try A Steeper Descent
I read February's article "A Solid Foundation for Landing," and although I have always read Robert Rossier's articles with interest in the past, I do not agree with his suggestion that a normal final approach path is a 3-degree angle of descent.I teach my students to reduce power to about 1,700 rpm abeam their int-ended point of landing. By the time they arrive on long final-about one-half to one mile from the runway-the flaps go to 30 degrees. If they have not touched the power, they will realize a descent rate of about 500 to 600 feet per minute when at the appropriate approach speed of about 70 mph. This yields a descent angle of about 5 degrees. Any headwind component on final approach (which is usually the case) will further increase this angle since the forward speed will be reduced.
So what is the benefit of an approach lighting system during the day if normal approach is much steeper? There isn't one. Under normal circumstances, when turning final you should see an above-glideslope indication because of the steeper approach angle. The FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook only makes mention of using a VASI system at night, so I teach that approach lighting systems are beneficial when your are flying into an unfamiliar airport at night, especially over featureless terrain.
To fly a 3-degree glideslope would require too much power on final to minimize the descent rate, which places you in jeopardy if you should have an engine failure, or too much airspeed which will cause excessive floating when you flare to land.
James Barton
Macomb, Michigan
No Need To Hog The Pattern
I enjoyed Bruce Landsberg's article "Pattern Hogs" in your January issue; however, I disagree with a total ban on touch and goes on Saturdays. I am a student pilot who needs considerably more experience with takeoffs and landings. I also work a full-time job, which gives me the ability to pay for my flight lessons. If I don't fly on Saturdays, I don't get to fly at all, especially during the winter months with their shorter daylight hours.We must remember that many of these frustrated pilots waiting their turn at the runway were once students themselves who practiced touch and goes. On the other hand, as students who should have safety foremost in their minds, doing touch and goes at a busy field is inviting disaster. I myself prefer the pattern to myself, so that I do not feel pressured or in the way. There are several small airfields just a short distance from my home field where I can go to practice when my field is busy. Instructors should teach their students to go where it is safe to practice and not "hog" the pattern. Instructors should also be willing to go with their students to these less-busy fields instead of staying in heavy traffic when dual practice is needed.
Is Landsberg suggesting that all takeoffs and landings be made full stop when the pattern is full? If so, I will agree. The time it takes to taxi around for takeoff gives me the opportunity to assess my last landing and find ways of improving my technique. Requesting no touch and goes when the field is busy is also a good idea, and thus leaves the decision to the pilot to practice safe flying. However, a total ban for no other reason than what day of the week it is, is ludicrous and overkill. I have practiced on some Saturdays and had the field all to myself.
Lisa Robinson
Alabaster, Alabama
We are in total agreement. The pattern capacity should dictate whether full stop is mandated for safety, not the day of the week. As a former full-time instructor who still occasionally teaches some weekends, I completely understand the need to maintain the job and yet develop the skill to fly safely when you're able to get to the airport.
Bruce Landsberg
We welcome your comments. Address your letters to Editor, AOPA Flight Training, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, Maryland 21701. Send e-mail to [email protected]. Please include your full name and mailing address on all correspondence, including e-mail. Letters will be edited for length and style.
Related Articles
