Letters

Flying in Europe

I just finished the article " From Bad to Worse" in the November issue of Pilot and want to say how I enjoyed it — and how true it is! I got my first certificate at Norwood Aviation in Massachusetts back in 1976 and converted to a United Kingdom license on my return to the U.K.

As the bureaucracy and cost got worse I upgraded my FAA certificate over the years to a commercial, instrument single- and multiengine land, and rotorcraft. I have not bothered with a European license for many years now.

A friend who flies for the airlines and also instructs in light twins, jets, and helicopters reckons that the new rules could cost him up to $20,000 (about $30,000 U.S.) a year to stay legal with all the type ratings he needs.

The other ripoff here is the escalating landing fees as local airports become "international" — not difficult when you live on a small island. As an example, I recently visited Coventry, which used to be cheap, cheerful, and friendly. Now it is "West Midlands International" and they charged more than $30 ($45) plus value-added tax for the privilege of landing a helicopter, which didn't even use the runway, and buying their fuel.

The only exception that I would take to an otherwise faultless article is Everett's assertion, "So far, navigation charges have not been.levied on light aircraft using the system." It depends, I suppose, on your definition of light. The Eurocharge en route IFR rates kick in at a maximum takeoff weight above two met.-ric tons — i.e., a Grumman Cougar doesn't pay, a Cessna 310 does — and apply to the whole route, even if you fly 95 percent of it outside controlled airspace with no services.I spend Christmas each year in Florida, and the joy of flying in your airspace makes me realize how badly general aviation is treated here.

David Coplowe AOPA 916629
Hertforshire, England

Nigel Everett's article paints the wrong picture about flying the "friendly" European skies. I have been flying for more than four years, and last year I added an instrument rating to my private certificate. Even in the days of strictly VFR flying we were going from Belgium to the tip of Sicily to the most southwestern part of Portugal and every country in between. Every country has its own little set of rules, but as long as you fly safely and use your common "pilot" sense you will not work yourself into problems.

Flying IFR in Europe is even easier than VFR. File the flight plan the system wants to have and then work your way through the system. Ask for that direct route once you get airborne. Even if you file an IFR flight plan as little as 45 minutes before departure that passes next to the crowded Paris airspace, you'll be rolling according to plan.

Although I don't know any controller personally, they make my IFR flying through Europe safe and comfortable, and it is a pleasure to deal with all the different nationalities. It has a certain charm when a Spanish controller clears you for the ILS.

Ides Vanneuville AOPA 2629906
Herselt, Belgium

I enjoyed reading "From Bad to Worse." I think it's helpful for us to keep a perspective on flying and the privileges we enjoy daily here in America. International comparisons are always instructive in this regard and make fascinating reading. Many people don't realize that general aviation is a business almost exclusive to America, speaking volumes about our freedoms.

Frank Henderson AOPA 1054861
Austin, Texas

Battling the babble

I've always enjoyed Peter Bedell's articles and usually agree with 99.99 percent of everything he has to say. However, I disagree with one point in " Battling the Babble" (November Pilot). Bedell correctly asserts that using a specific model instead of just the manufacturer ("Skyhawk" instead of "Cessna") when identifying oneself to ATC is a good idea. However, when writing about unicom operations, Bedell says: "Unlike calls to ATC, we use 'Cessna' instead of the specific model because it would be hard for the pilot of another airplane in the pattern to tell a Skyhawk from a Skylane." While this is relatively true when comparing Cessna 172s and 182s, there are many other models of Cessna aircraft.

The message really hit home when I was a new CFI several years ago. At night, at a nontowered airport, a student and I had been practicing night takeoffs and landings. My student had announced that our "Cessna" (we were in a 152) was downwind. A few seconds later, another "Cessna" announced entering the downwind. Assuming similar-performing aircraft and similar speeds, I was caught unaware when I saw a red navigation light whizzing by the right side of our airplane. The Cessna, a P210 Centurion, was flying probably 40 kt faster than we were when it passed approximately 100 feet to our right. The pilot later related that he never saw us.

Don Desfosse AOPA 1100568
Chelmsford, Massachusetts

As a 13-year center controller, I would add one change to the "cold call" procedure outlined by Peter Bedell. Make your initial call, "Center, November 1-2-3, V-F-R." When you call a controller with nothing more than a call sign, he has to decide if you are an existing IFR customer with a request, a previous customer who hasn't been properly changed to the next controller, or new IFR business requesting airborne pickup of a clearance.

When you identify yourself as VFR, you relieve the controller of making sure that they haven't failed in their primary duty of providing service to IFR traffic. The controller will respond to this call as time permits. Ask your flight service briefer to enter your route of flight into the computer so the FAA facility serving your departure point will get a "proposal" strip. You have relieved the controller of the necessity of entering a flight plan, and they will already know what type you are and where you are going.

Charles Cornett AOPA 1333396
Hilliard, Florida

Icing on the Internet

" Wx Watch: Icing on the Internet" is a great and timely article (November Pilot). Last night I was planning to make a night proficiency flight from Boulder, Colorado, to Cheyenne, Wyoming, and back. After much looking at METARs and TAFs, I concluded that it was too marginal, because of the cold front coming south. Today, AOPA Pilot arrived, and after reading your article I checked the Web site. It was obvious that ice was a major problem. In the future, the AOPA Web site will be checked first!

Rod Smythe AOPA 1177290
Boulder, Colorado

Engine in

I recently read " Airframe & Powerplant: Engine In" by Steven W. Ells in the November issue of AOPA Pilot. I'm in the process of building a Lancair Legacy and plan to install a freshly overhauled Lycoming IO-540 engine. Since the first flight will be the first for both the engine and the airframe I have some concerns about following Ells' recommendations to the letter. I'm concerned about not performing a runup prior to takeoff and the length of time for the first flight.

Most homebuilt first flights I have been involved in have used a fairly lengthy ground run before the flight to make sure there are no problems with the fuel, oil, or engine systems. Most pilots shut the engine down after the ground run and remove the cowl for a thorough visual inspection. Usually the first flight is not very long, as often there are things found during the flight that need adjustment or correction before a longer flight is attempted. Would Ells suggest any changes to his procedure for a homebuilt first flight?

Tom Gourley AOPA 1324146
Banks Oregon

If the company that rebuilt your IO-540 did the customary standard acceptance test and ran the engine on a test stand, then the first flight can be performed the way I described. If the engine has not been fired up, then it is an unknown commodity. Similarly, your Lancair will be an unknown commodity. If the engine has been run, I would go ahead with the process you described — you shouldn't need too much power to get your Legacy moving down the runway. The critical thing is to have cooling air flowing over the cylinders before you give the engine full power.

I don't see anything wrong with doing high-speed taxi or (very) low-altitude flights and then shutting down to inspect the engine. I neglected to say in my article that it's wise to fly within gliding distance of the airport for the first half hour of flight (or until you're comfortable with everything) and then to land after the first hour to remove the cowl for a postflight inspection. We try to put a wrench on every fastener under the cowl after the first hour.

I would not do a full-power static runup nor would I cycle the prop before your high-speed taxi tests. Just don't use full power until the airplane is indicating 40 mph on the airspeed. And try to make power changes gradually.

If your engine has never been run, then you are gambling a little because you will be trying to prove two critical systems during a very busy time. There are manufacturer-approved methods of conducting high-power engine tests on the ground. They require the installation of ducting or a scoop to direct the air from the prop blast down over the cylinders. — Steven W. Ells

Errata

In the December issue (see " Airframe & Powerplant: Propeller Primer") it was incorrectly stated that the pitch of a fixed-pitch propeller is measured in degrees. Actually, the pitch number specifies geometric or theoretical pitch. This is a measure of how far the propeller will move forward in one revolution; i.e., a 53-pitch prop will move forward 53 inches during one revolution. Actual — or effective — pitch, is somewhat less as the result of factors designated as blade slippage.

Oops! While Lake County Airport in Leadville, Colorado, is the highest-elevation paved airport in the country, its elevation is 9,927 feet, not 10,152 feet (see " Answers for Pilots: Fly Another Way," November Pilot). The latter is the elevation of the county courthouse.

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.