Letters

Tribal chief

With much delight I just read Thomas Horne's article " Budget Buys: Tribal Chief" in the December 2002 issue of AOPA Pilot. Any article regarding Comanches will instantly consume me, and any other chores will be put aside while I dream of Comanches once again.

My love affair with the Comanche began more than 10 years ago when I was first introduced to a 1963 Comanche 250. What a wonderful airplane. As with all pilots new to this unique bird, I at first struggled with the usual things like, "How do I slow this thing down?" and "Boy, when it decides to stop flying, it stops flying!" (Thus, the typical "thud" Comanche landing — you just hope you're very close to the runway when this phenomenon occurs.) But I quickly learned how to control the unusual nature of the Comanche and went on to log more than 450 hours in that wonderful 250.

I now own N5162P, a beautiful 1958 Comanche 180 affectionately named Princess. The 180 of course was the first of the Comanche line, and you can tell from the way it handles that the original designers put together the perfect mix of engine and airframe. Having flown the 250, the rare Comanche 400, as well as the 180, I think I'm most partial to the 180. It's easy on the controls, has great fuel burn (9.5 gph), and is fast enough for me at 170 mph TAS (yes, we've added a few speed mods). I never walk away from the 180 after a flight that I don't say, "What a great airplane!"

Thanks for the terrific article. It's so nice to see Comanches like N8071P that are in such pristine condition. As you stated, some Comanches are "well-worn" and it's good to see other Comanche enthusiasts preserving these wonderful machines.

Melody Horton AOPA 1171828
Diamondhead, Mississippi

I have owned a PA-24-250 since 1984. In 1985 we modernized the panel and then flew it to Paris for the Paris Air Show. (I was based in Frederick, Maryland, then.) It is a great airplane.

One thing I regularly hear and cannot understand is the complaint that the Comanche is difficult to land. Nothing could be further from the truth. What does seem to be the case is that most people fly them too fast on final and that causes the problems you relate. Me? I fly it at 80 mph on final and 75 mph over the fence. I consistently land and turn off in under 1,000 feet that way. That is a far cry from the 90 mph I was taught during transition training.

Brian Lloyd AOPA 535941
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

Hitting the spot

I enjoyed reading Marc Henegar's " Hitting the Spot" in the December 2002 AOPA Pilot. When he said, "Defend the centerline like it was your little sister," it reminded me of less elegant, but perhaps more direct, advice I got from my first B-52 instructor pilot 23 years ago. He was explaining the importance of maintaining centerline amid the complexities of tip gear 140 feet apart, potential asymmetric thrust caused by having four engines on each side, and a crosswind crab landing system that would perplex Bill Nye the Science Guy. However, his advice still holds true in any airplane. Scaring me a little bit, he said, "If they find your smoking body on the runway someday, it better be on the d--- centerline!"

Michael Koch AOPA 1360676
Abilene, Texas

It's supposed to be hard

I suspect that Barry Schiff will be chastised for saying that the emperor has no clothes in his column (" Proficient Pilot: 'It's Supposed to Be Hard,'" December 2002 Pilot).

I would like to point out a couple of things about his comments regarding those "studies and statistics" that try to compare driving and flying safety. First, the stats would be much, much more accurate with a better handle on fleet flying hours. Some have proposed that each airplane's time in service for the past year be reported to the FAA when the airplane has its annual inspection. That makes a modicum of sense, although I'm reluctant to advocate an increase in bureaucracy.

The other point I'd like to make is that, while the numbers may vary, nearly all of the attempts at statistical comparison I've seen agree with Schiff's informal poll in concluding that general aviation flying is more dangerous than driving. Just how that comparison stacks up numerically is the real debate, as Schiff has noted. The "trip to the airport" quip may work for airline travel, but it certainly holds no sway when it comes to GA.

Ken Ibold AOPA 1022586
Orlando, Florida

I was disturbed by the reasoning in Barry Schiff's "Proficient Pilot" column in the December 2002 issue of Pilot. The results of Schiff's informal survey are exactly what should be expected, even if general aviation flying is demonstrably safer than driving. This is because a single GA death is known to many pilots, but a single driving death is frequently known to only a single pilot.

Consider a contrived example, biased toward flying being safer than driving. Imagine an airport used by 101 pilots, one of whom dies in a general aviation accident. A pilot is part of a small community, most of whose members know each other. So all of the remaining 100 pilots, asked if they personally know someone who died in a GA accident, would say yes.

About 40,000 people die in automobile accidents in the United States each year, out of a population of about 280 million, or about 1 in 7,000. Assume each pilot knows 100 nonaviation people. Each pilot has a 1 in 7 chance of knowing someone who died in an accident in the past 10 years. Using this figure, about 12 of the pilots would know someone who died in an automobile accident in the past 10 years. The result is that most of the pilots would know more people who died flying than driving, even though in this example there is a single death from flying but 12 deaths from driving.

If Schiff collected the names of people who died and examined only unique individuals, his results might be very different. It would also help if the pilots were chosen at random. This is not to say that flying is statistically safer than driving. There are many ways to look at the numbers and, as Schiff points out, they give conflicting results. One way I haven't seen is to compare the rates among the affected populations. For driving, the rate is about 1 in 7,000. For about 200 annual fatal accidents among an active pilot population of about 300,000, the rate is about 1 in 1,500.

Schiff points out that most accidents are due to pilot error, but it's also true that many accidents are due to pilot stupidity. Pilots take off without fuel, fly into clouds without an instrument rating, and engage in low-level maneuvering. For those pilots who avoid such activities, it's quite likely that flying is safer than driving. Let's all try to be such pilots.

Jeffrey Carter AOPA 1258434
Apache Junction, Arizona

Ready for anything

I really found value in Elizabeth Tennyson's article " Out of the Pattern: Ready for Anything" in the December issue of AOPA Pilot. I'm a new pilot (80 hours) currently working on an instrument rating. I've often worried about the possibility of control failures, and this article provided some reassurance that I won't be helpless if something like that happens. I'm amazed that none of the training that I had working toward the private and instrument rating covered any of this.

Jim Geier AOPA 4245227
Yellow Springs, Ohio

My primary goal as a flight instructor for many years, and as a commercial pilot now, is to eliminate as many of the risks of flying as possible. Hopefully my students picked up the fact that a thorough preflight, including a number of items specific to their airplanes and systems, goes a long way toward preventing some of those things discussed in Tennyson's article.

When giving flight reviews I would watch the preflight in particular. Then I would point out areas that the pilot missed or perhaps had no idea as to what they were checking and why.

Hopefully the article's suggestion of practicing control problems, engine problems, and other problems will not go unnoticed by CFIs and pilots. They certainly can be lifesavers.

Skip Degan AOPA 4681305
Ruckersville, Virginia

The name game

Phil Scott invited speculation on the origin of nacelle for the engine-room cover in his article " The Name Game" (December Pilot). Well, nacelles do resemble small boats, which is the meaning of the word. I suspect further that the boat-shape gondola (also a boat) slung beneath lighter-than-airs or the outrigger engine pods (also resembling small boats) had much to do with the persisting appropriateness of the word. There may be some etymological affinity with the French word naseau for nostril, to some extent the appearance of the open front end of the nacelle.

William Lyons AOPA 300459
Falls Church, Virginia

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.