I have a potential student whose husband recently purchased a Cessna 172. She has yet to fly with him as a passenger nor has she started her pilot training. In fact, she's never flown in a small airplane. She appears sincere in her interest to learn but is concerned about her acrophobia. Yes, she has a fear of heights and complains that she can't look over her home's second floor balcony without feeling queasy. She says she's not afraid of flying on a commercial airline, but she's never been in a small airplane. She's worried that she'll experience her fear of heights during flight training. Is this a hopeless case? Is there a theory that explains acrophobia? How should I go about introducing her to flying?
Thank you in advance,
John
Greetings John:
No, I don't suspect this is a hopeless situation at all. You might be surprised to learn that an aviation professor at the University of Southern California once told me that the rate of acrophobia in some of the pilot groups he's encountered is upwards of 90 percent. This is pretty interesting when you consider that acrophobia in the nonpilot population is only about 6 to 10 percent, depending on whose study you read.
My experience also indicates that acrophobia is more common among pilots than nonpilots. Now, I'm not suggesting that her fear of heights qualifies her to be a pilot. I do, however, suspect that it won't have the same effect on her when she's inside the cockpit of an airplane as opposed to looking over her balcony.
Many pilots still enjoy flying even though they have some degree of acrophobia. That's because there seems to be a difference in how they experience acrophobia.
Many pilots with acrophobia report that they, too, often have great difficulty looking over the edge of a tall building. I've known a few who must get on their belly and crawl to the ledge just to peak over the side. Some even report getting woozy while watching a TV show where a camera pans from the steeple of a building then tilts downward toward the ground. (Some pilots might get queasy just reading this.) Others can't even climb a ladder to change a light bulb. Yet these same individuals willingly enter an airplane and blast off without giving it a second thought. What's happening here?
Perhaps the best explanation deals with pilots' sense of control over their environment. For instance, a current cognitive theory describes acrophobia is generated by the stimulation of a visual fantasy. When a pilot approaches a precipice, he or she responds with an inner visual drama. He may see himself falling and might even feel the physical sensations of sliding, tilting and being drawn over the edge. This is called somatic imaging, and it helps to explain a phobic's feelings of dizziness or queasiness in high places. To put it simply, pilots - who like being in control - don't react well to thoughts of falling. It's the ultimate loss of control for them.
This explains why pilots with acrophobia seldom experience symptoms in an airplane. Sitting in the cockpit gives them a definite sense of control. Consider that a pilot's left hand controls bank and pitch, his right hand controls power and his two feet control yaw. The pilot has immediate control over four separate items. If this doesn't give an aviator a sense of control, then not much will.
It's my guess that your student's acrophobia won't manifest itself in the cockpit the same way it would while looking over the edge of a building. So explain these concepts to her. Let her know that, while acrophobia isn't uncommon in the pilot population, its symptoms don't manifest themselves in the cockpit. Explain why. Then, if she elects to fly, give her the one thing that makes a pilot comfortable in the airplane: a means of controlling her environment. Since she doesn't know how to use the controls to do this, give her the power of veto. Inform her that she can stop the flight or stop any activity just by speaking up. Of course, you must make good on this promise. Then introduce the flight controls to her in the same manner you would any other student.
Dear Rod,
I need to know if I'm right on this one. Recently a DPE refused to give a checkride to one of my private pilot students. He claimed that the student had logged solo cross-country incorrectly and thus didn't have the required minimum solo cross-country time. As part of his training, my student had planned and flown, with my approval, a solo flight from La Belle airport (X14) in Florida to Immokalee airport (IMM), then to Okeechobee County airport (OBE) and back to La Belle. (Note that the distance from X14 to IMM is 18.7 nm; the distance from IMM to OBE is 57.8 nm; the distance from OBE to X14 is 44 nm.)
In his logbook, he logged the IMM-to-OBE flight as solo cross-country since the straight-line distance between these two airports is more than 50 nautical miles. The DPE referred me to FAR 61.109 indicating that my student couldn't count this time as cross-country because the 50-nm requirement had to be from the original point of departure. He interpreted that point to be La Belle (X14), since the flight originated and terminated there. I tried to convince him that my interpretation of the regulation was just as valid, but to no avail. I really would appreciate your comments and opinion on this matter.
Thanks,
Kerry
Greetings Kerry:
Though this is an often-confused issue, the designee is correct here. Since your original point of departure is La Belle, your student didn't land at an airport that's more than 50 nm away from this point. According to FAR 61.1(b)(3), to count as cross-country flight time for a private, commercial, or instrument rating, there must be a landing at an airport that's at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles away from the original point of departure. In other words, there can be numerous stops between these two airports, but the distance between the origin and the most distant stop must be more than 50 nautical miles.
The confusion here rests with the fact that the FAA hasn't officially defined the term original point of departure in Parts 1 or 61 or any other FAA publication. The FAA says, "Each situation is unique and a definitive definition of 'original point of departure' that will cover all circumstances and situations is not practicable and not possible."
Related Articles
