Letters

Meigs Field's future

Thanks for the excellent article on Meigs Field (" What Fate Meigs?" June Pilot). I live in Detroit, have an apartment in Chicago, and use Meigs as my easy-access gateway to the city about every other weekend. I am of the opinion that starting last fall, the city has been "constructively closing" the airport during regular events at Soldier Field (Bears games, concerts, etc.) by refusing to let pilots, airport employees, passengers, and anyone not in an emergency vehicle gain access to the only road leading to the airport. I have been literally threatened with arrest for attempting to get a cab through the gauntlet of traffic-control police shutting down the only road leading to Meigs.

Just this past weekend I was again refused access via cab to the airport during a soccer match at Soldier Field. After discussing this situation with the management at Signature Flight Support and the airport manager, Bill Brogan—who sympathizes with my plight—it appears that airport employees are similarly given the same treatment by the Chicago Police, despite showing Meigs identification. One lineman said he has to walk to work on many occasions.

I can't help but wonder if the control tower employees are in the same boat, potentially creating a safety issue. It would appear that the city does not have a policy of permitting access to Meigs during regular events in and around the museum campus. This would seem to run counter to its obligation to "promote the airport."

Brian Barr AOPA 1036398
Detroit, Michigan

On behalf of more than 3,600 members of the Friends of Meigs Field, thank you for your recent in-depth article on the current situation and future of Meigs Field, one of the best-known GA airports in the world. AOPA's support to date has been instrumental to the preservation of this downtown destination, and will be even more so as we approach 2002 when the City of Chicago still plans to shut down the field.

We would like to correct one misimpression that may have been left by the article. Readers will recall that the reason Meigs is open today is a five-year settlement agreement between the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago that expires in February 2002. Under the agreement, the city pledged to take certain actions to maintain and promote the use of the airport.

In fact, contrary to City of Chicago's assertions and the wording of the article, the city has not lived up to its obligations under the letter or the spirit of this agreement. The city has not extended the hours of the airport as promised, has closed portions of the airport, has not returned all services available prior to the closure, and has not only failed to promote the airport but—in numerous documented cases—has actively sought to suppress positive publicity for it.

The stated purpose of closing Meigs is to create another lakefront park in a city that boasts 26 miles of existing lakefront parks. If this is such a good idea, Chicago should not have to go out of its way to undermine Meigs' success. By doing so, it proves the weakness of its own case.

Steve Whitney AOPA 734388
Chicago, Illinois

Whitney is president of Friends of Meigs Field—Ed.

Sharpening up

I just finished reading Alton K. Marsh's " Staying Sharp" (June Pilot), and it was a trip down memory lane. I learned to fly at Santa Paula in the early 1990s at Santa Paula Aviation, an FBO adjacent to CP Aviation. Because of a last-minute vacation decision, I found that my favorite Mooney Ranger was not available. Everything was booked, down to the Cessna 150s.

However, a call to CP Aviation put me in contact with Dan Mooney. How ironic, I remember thinking. After a short conversation we set up a checkout in their Cessna 172. From the minute we taxied out I knew that this was not going to be an average checkout in a 172.

We flew off the coast of Ventura, and Mooney displayed the exact flying techniques described in the article. He rolled in full nose-up trim and configured power to maintain level flight and made turns with rudder. Then the kicker: With the yoke full aft we were droning along, making heading changes with rudder only. I was very impressed with Mooney. His enthusiasm and knowledge were shown from the preflight oral to the postflight debrief. When it was all said and done he said to me, "How in the world do you fit in a Mooney anyhow?"

Dennis B. Mulloy AOPA 1170197
Oxnard, California

Flight level faux pas

I teach international altimetry at FlightSafety International in Savannah, Georgia, and really enjoyed reading " Passage to Prague" (June Pilot)—until the section titled "Flight Level Five-Five." Prior to flying internationally in any aircraft, pilots must have a rudimentary understanding of international altimetry.

In the contiguous United States, Alaska, and Canada, the transition altitude is above 18,000 feet. Below the transition altitude pilots set their altimeter to local barometric pressure, more commonly referred to as QNH. Using QNH an altimeter will indicate height above mean sea level. U.S. air traffic control directs traffic below 18,000 feet using indicated altitudes based on a QNH setting. Above 18,000 feet, flight crews use a QNE setting—a standard altimeter setting of 29.92 inches Hg—and ATC uses flight levels instead of altitudes to control traffic.

In Europe and the rest of the world, transition altitudes vary greatly. The published transition altitude in many ICAO countries may be as low as 3,000 feet. Pilots when climbing through the transition altitude are expected to change their altimeters to the QNE standard of 1013.25 hectopascals (29.92 inches Hg).

Most ICAO countries use a transition level. The transition level allows for controllers to separate IFR traffic descending out of a flight level from traffic flying below the transition altitude. The transition level may or may not be published on approach plates. Usually the transition level is set 1,000 to 2,000 feet above the transition altitude. Aircraft descending out of a flight level through the transition level are expected to set in the altimeter the local barometric pressure setting based on QNH. The area between the transition altitude and transition level is called the transition layer. The term flight level is used when referring to a QNE setting and the term altitude is used whenever QNH is set in the altimeter.

Michele McAloon AOPA 1409967
Richmond Hill, Georgia

Backup altimeter

I read Barry Schiff's " Proficient Pilot: An Ailing Altimeter" (June Pilot) with great interest. I truly believe that being exposed to humidity and vibration can cause these aging instruments to "stick." Schiff points out some very interesting things one can do when this happens, especially when flying IFR in IMC.

However, I disagree with Barry's statement that "There is no satisfactory backup for an altimeter." I find it unbelievable that so few pilots carry my kind of altitude life insurance, also known as an altimeter watch. A few years ago I bought one of these multipurpose wrist watches, mostly for hiking. I found out that it is amazingly accurate when I compare its reading with that of my on-board altimeter. As a result, my $100 solution has become a constant companion on all of my flights. And what it lacks in minor accuracy (it may be off by 20 feet or so) it makes up for by not being affected by icing. And given that these instruments cost less than do most pilot accessories, it truly amazes me that so few of us are wearing these little lifesavers.

Hans J. Gugger AOPA 1115030
North Bend, Washington

The rest of the story

It is amazing to me how two people's recollection of an incident can be so different. I owned the FBO and the airplane it was rented from in the incident described in " Never Again: Troubled Night Over Water" (June Pilot). Here is the story as I recall it:

David Kraul was a commercial pilot working on his instrument rating and rented the 1979 Cessna 172 that evening. He was accompanied by a CFI who had spent the better part of the day flying freight for a Part 135 company also owned by me.

The first report of the airplane going down came from a call I received at home from flight service. I immediately went to the airport, where I was joined by our FAA operations inspector, and we awaited the final determination of the two pilots' fate. When they walked to the Civil Air Patrol hangar nearest the breakwater after swimming in, we were all relieved they had survived with no serious injuries.

Interviews of each pilot were conducted separately and the findings differ dramatically from those in the June story. It turned out that the instructor had fallen asleep while the student flew the final approach. The student fixated on the attitude indicator and literally flew the aircraft into the water. There was no engine failure. To my knowledge no one was violated by the FAA.

The airplane had no open discrepancies at the time of the accident and no prior indications of any engine malfunction. I had flown it earlier the same day with no problems. The aircraft was lying in 80 feet of water and was looked at several times after the accident by experienced divers. There was no indication of any type of catastrophic failure. It had gone out that evening with full fuel.

The story as published in your June issue reads better; however, pilot error is just that.

Steve Uslan AOPA 763585
Hobbs, New Mexico

Back to the future

While electronics will control future management of powerplants (" Future Flight: Micro Management," June Pilot), the concept was introduced and effectively used in the past, utilizing a mechanical hydraulic computer called the brain box. The resultant single-lever throttle (or unilever throttle) was a unique feature of the World War II Focke-Wulf 190.

The hydraulic mechanical device automatically set mixture, propeller pitch, boost, and magneto timing for maximum efficiency. There was just the throttle to worry about. The Fw pilot enjoyed a lower workload than did pilots in other air forces. It seems that the future is finally catching up to the past.

Russ Vizzi AOPA 1057659
Boynton Beach, Florida

Clarification

The Air Force Academy is subcontracting for Top Cub tow planes, rather than buying them as reported in last month's "Pilot Briefing" ("Yakima firm puts Top Cub in production," July Pilot).

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.