Letters

In the lee of giants

The December 2001 issue of AOPA Pilot was excellent, and one article gives me the opportunity to make a speech. It's the soaring article, " In the Lee of Giants," by Nathan A. Ferguson. What a good story! We need more of that.

I have been grumping to myself for the past year or two that what this magazine needs is more narrative pieces. We get lots of exposition, especially safety sermons and instructional messages — and they're needed — but how much easier it is to learn from a story. Keep going.

Ed Reading AOPA 1310133
Edmonds, Washington

Underwater escape

I wanted to thank Barry Schiff for his article on underwater egress (" Improving Your Chances," December 2001 Pilot). As a guy who flies fixed-gear aircraft to the Bahamas, I find little information available on ditching. I have heard that most small GA aircraft "float" for only about a minute, fixed-gear aircraft are sure to flip, and low-wing aircraft will put you underwater for sure. Your article gave accurate information about staying in position, belted in until you have established your orientation with respect to the aircraft. I learned from that. Thanks.

Samuel Messiter AOPA 516395
Pawlet, Vermont

A danger to us all

I was deeply dismayed by some of the columns and implications in the December 2001 issue of AOPA Pilot — in particular the columns by Julie Summers Walker (" Answers for Pilots") and John Yodice (" Pilot Counsel") that discussed an incident where a pilot flew a Cessna on September 13 when GA was still grounded.

While I agree the danger posed by a Cessna is minimal to nonexistent and that the government may have been overly conservative, the rules were very clear. I had planned a flight that day and had to keep pushing it back because of the restrictions. However, in the heightened news mode of the time, the information was very easy to obtain. Any pilot flying that day had to be living in a black hole. I strongly feel any pilot that out of touch does not deserve to be flying, as he or she clearly poses a danger to the rest of us.

While I hope that AOPA continues to work to clarify and reduce the restrictions placed on pilots since September 11, failure to condemn the actions of such pilots only reduces the credibility of the organization and general aviation as a whole.

Robert Dempsey AOPA 1221431
Houston, Texas

After September 11

As I write this, GA is back in the air nearly everywhere in the country except the no-fly zones over the Washington-Baltimore area and around New York City. I was not surprised to find much of the November issue of Pilot dedicated to the events of 11 September and AOPA's efforts to get us back in the air.

Life in the United States is based on freedoms, both guaranteed and implied. All are perishable commodities and once lost are gone forever. The bad guys would like nothing better than to strip us of our personal freedoms and oppress us as they have others. No one in this country — not those of us in general aviation, not anyone — should stand for that.

National security and personal safety are on everyone's minds these days, but so far most of the restrictions and counteractions I've seen are against law abiding, tax paying, born-in-the-USA Americans. Incredibly, those who imposed many of these restrictions on our lives are not elected officials and are not accountable to the people. They are appointed advisors and functionaries.

Our leaders told us that these things were done for our own good to protect us and make our lives safer. Fortunately, most people in this country have never known real fear. As a result, many quickly acquiesced to our politicians' need to do something even if it's wrong. Some seemed happy to because they believed it to be their civic duty.

Thankfully, all of you at AOPA raised the voice of reason and worked to get general aviation and, by extension, our lives back on track. I bought a 1929 Curtiss Robin project just days before the attack and despaired that I would finish it but never would be able to fly it. Now it looks as if I may make the fly-in circuit after all, because, thanks to you, it looks like there will be fly-ins to attend.

Robert D. Coffman AOPA 1333912
Burke, Virginia

VFR instrument rating

Barry Schiff's proposal of a limited VFR instrument rating (" Proficient Pilot: The Darkest Day," December 2001 Pilot) is so good, so rational, and so appropriate to the particular circumstances of flight training that it has no hope whatsoever of coming into existence. Don't you know that people want to be dazed and confused?

Apart from everything else, it is simply a superior way of approaching any complex training program. I am a 600-hour private pilot with an IFR-equipped airplane who doesn't consider for a moment going for an instrument rating, for precisely the reasons given in the article. But I would instantly go for the limited instrument rating if it were available.

Alas, it's just too good to be true. Nevertheless, pass me the petition when you send it around.

William Dawes AOPA 1328312
New York, New York

I have to pitch my take on the Pilot story on the VFR rating. Yeah, I'm against it. Why? For starters, Barry Schiff may not have any more pull than I do with the FAA, but he sure does have a larger following than me, and a national forum. He has, I think, just given all those politicians, do-gooders, and rating-loving pilots a way to limit our VFR flying. They could see this as a method to control us.

Yes, it would be a good way to experience instrument rules. But be careful. I doubt it will stop there. To say that the $FIs he interviewed liked the idea ? what would you expect them to say?

I, for one, have 1,500 hours of all-VFR time and love to fly with my 70-plus friends here in the Chica-go area every Sunday. We love to meander where we want, chat on 122.75, etc. What I think someone will do with Schiff's idea is to stop all of this forever.

Mark Wiencek AOPA 911384
Oak Forest, Illinois

I agree with the suggestion of a limited IFR rating, but I wanted to add something to it. It has been my experience in my own flying and in talking to others that having an instrument rating and flying in the soup are two different things. Some have sug?ested that there be restrictions on actual IFR flight until you have a certain amount of dual actual. Others argue that this would place too much of a burden on people who get their ratings in places like Florida or Arizona.

I suggest that this limited IFR ticket is the answer to the issue of IMC experience. Perhaps it could allow flight in IMC as long as the ceiling is above a certain height — maybe 2,000 feet agl. This would allow pilots to accumulate actual instrument time with relatively little danger. It would also allow someone with a restricted IFR rating to fly in the system. Then after the pilot accumulates a certain amount of actual time, the restrictions could be reduced. I think this would provide a good introduction to instrument flying with a significant reduction in danger.

Eddie Hunnell AOPA 3573367
Raleigh, North Carolina

I agree 100 percent with Barry Schiff about creating a modified instrument rating. All my flights are done talking to the system from takeoff to landing. On a long trip when I tell the controller my route using intersections and airways, the controller usually asks me if I am filing an instrument flight plan. Controllers seem to be perplexed as to how a VFR pilot knows the system so well. It is only a matter of time until this new type of rating will be required.

James W. Greenrose AOPA 911060
Lindenhurst, New York

Errata

In " AOPA Sweepstakes Bonanza: A Technology Bonanza" (December 2001 Pilot), the sample aircraft loading center of gravity and CG limits were incorrectly stated. The proposed aircraft loading would result in a CG of 84.65, which is 0.85 of an inch beyond the aft limit. Installation of the tip tanks restricts the aft CG limit to 83.8 inches at 3,600 pounds.

The frontal code interpretation digits in " WxWatch: Winter Wise" (December 2001 Pilot) appeared out of sequence. The digits' ranges begin with 0 and end with 9.

A title search performed by AOPA Title & Escrow Service is a report based on a review of FAA records for a specific airplane and does not actually include copies of the FAA records as stated in " Airframe & Powerplant: Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later" (January Pilot). In addition, members can receive a report on chain of ownership and on major repairs and alterations to an aircraft based on FAA Form 337, but these are provided as separate services.

The Aviation Digital Data Service Web site (" WxWatch: ADDS on the Move," January Pilot) has been changed ( http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov).

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.