Orville B. King
Carmichaels, Pennsylvania
He got me riled up
While "Learning Experiences: He got me" (June AOPA Flight Training) was entertaining, the actions by the flight instructor appear to have been reckless, irresponsible, dangerous, and juvenile. It is inappropriate for any instructor to intentionally place an aircraft in a true engine-out condition as the potential for truly creating an emergency can result - even if directly over an airport. If the engine refuses to restart and a power-off landing is required the pilot and flight instructor has absolutely no control of conditions that may change on the ground - e.g., a deer strolls across the runway in the landing path. I would suggest Todd Henderson tell the instructor whom he rode with that if he ever does such a reckless thing again that he will find a new instructor.
John Morrow
Albany, New York
I tell students that the standard pattern was designed primarily so that a pilot could make the runway if the engine quits. That said, I don't think actually shutting the engine down in the pattern - regardless of the learning experience it would create - is a good idea. Had there been some accident arising from trying to restart the engine or being distracted by same, it would have been difficult for the instructor to justify his actions.
I had the chief instructor pull the power to idle on me as a pre-private checkride student while we were at 2,000 feet and about two miles from the airport. He had me do a landing without touching the power. The difference here is that we had that power available had I screwed up; it may not have been so for our student in this article.
Bob Allen
Seattle, Washington
"Learning Experiences" is presented as a forum for pilots and student pilots to share lessons from their flight training experiences and to stimulate discussion. AOPA does not endorse the activities described therein. -Ed.
She scaled her plateau
Excellent article by Earl Downs in the June issue ("Sophomore Slump: Don't let learning plateaus trip up your training").
My CFI gave me a copy prior to my flight review. It applied to me; I even changed CFIs as the article suggested, and enjoyed the challenge of addressing my flare problem. I passed with flying colors and confidence.
Donna Wilson-Sommer
Sequim, Washington
Wings: The fine print
Twice in the June issue of AOPA Flight Training reference is made to the Wings program requiring three hours of dual flight instruction: page 8, "Preflight: Your other wings," last paragraph, "schedule three hours of dual instruction;" and page 71, "Teaching Without a Medical," first full paragraph, "the three hours of the flight portion of the Wings program." That the requirement is three hours is a common misconception. AC 61-91H, Pilot Proficiency Award Program, states it is three hours for even years of the program, and four hours for the odd years.
In Section 7, there is a note which states that in addition to the three hours described in subsections (a) and (b) there is a fourth hour for each odd-numbered award phase - i.e., every other year - for noninstrument-rated pilots and for noncurrent instrument-rated pilots. Thus only instrument-rated pilots who are current do not need the fourth hour during the alternate years. The fourth hour is not required for pilots of rotorcraft, gliders, lighter-than-air craft, or ultralights.
As an instructor I have found that the instrument competency (and comfort level) of the noninstrument-rated pilot definitely benefits from that additional hour.
Ian A. Worley
Cornwall, Vermont
Erratum
"Golden Rules: 12 rules to fly by," July AOPA Flight Training, included a bad link to online weather information from the AOPA Air Safety Foundation. The correct URL is www.aopa.org/asf/safety_topics.html#weather.
