Jennifer Nichols
Bedford, Texas
We sympathize. AOPA Flight Training's editorial style is to spell out most acronyms on first reference but use the acronym for some of the more commonly used terms, like the ones that stumped you (automatic terminal information service, or ATIS; fixed-base operator, or FBO; and automated weather observing system, or AWOS). We have a new online glossary that we hope you will find helpful.-Ed.
Watch how you speak
Far be it from me to quarrel with Ian Blair Fries' credentials, but in his article "Manner of Speaking" (August AOPA Flight Training) he says, "Some old timers...may even say 'over and out' when no reply is expected." No, no, no! I'm certainly one of those old-timers, and we especially know that "over" means "I expect a reply" and "out" means "I'm through talking." They're as different as "yes" and "no," and they are mostly uttered in those grainy flying movies of the 1930s. "Tally ho"-how British fighter pilots indicated they spotted enemy aircraft in World War II-isn't very popular with controllers either; they prefer "I have the traffic" if you see the traffic, or "Negative contact" if you don't.
Bob Button
Via e-mail
The article stated a common myth that is widespread among pilots regarding what is called "minimum fuel status." Advising air traffic control that you are "min fuel" (per the Aeronautical Information Manual's Pilot-Controller Glossary) simply means ATC must notify you of any further delays. It does not mean that you "can't tolerate any delay" or that you are going to get on the ground faster than anyone else because you're "min fuel."
For controllers to be able to legally give you priority handling, you must declare an emergency. That is the only way you get to go first. I've heard pilots mistakenly use this phrase with ATC for years now, only to land and complain that they were poorly handled. Pilots are somehow afraid that by revealing their true fuel status to ATC and declaring an emergency, they will get into trouble.
Flight instructors, get this one right with your students: "Min fuel" doesn't mean that much in the real world. It's the big "E" that will get you quickly and safely on the ground.
Will Ballard
Dallas, Texas
Correcting Wings record
As an FAA safety program manager, I am very closely associated with the FAA's Pilot Proficiency Award Program, better known simply as the Wings program. Mr. Ian A. Worley makes an incorrect point in your Flight Forum column (August AOPA Flight Training) regarding FAA Advisory Circular 61-91H, Pilot Proficiency Award Program. The references Mr. Worley cited from the June issue are correct.
Paragraph 7(b), Seaplanes and Amphibians, applies only to seaplanes and amphibians. It notes that if a pilot is not current and qualified for IFR under FAR 61.57, another hour of instrument training should be done while earning only the odd-numbered Wings phases.
Pilots training in land airplanes will get this hour of instrument training regardless. This is not to say that pilots would not benefit from an additional hour under the hood-in point of actual fact, many Wings candidates will do nearly the entire three hours under the hood, and turn the experience into an instrument proficiency check under FAR 61.56(d). However, the "fourth hour" is only required for Sea Wings candidates who are not instrument current.
Bruce Edsten
Louisville, Kentucky
Edsten is the Aviation Safety Program manager for the FAA's Kentucky FSDO.-Ed.
Correction
"Legal Briefing: Are you good to go?" (September AOPA Flight Training) included an incorrect citation of the federal aviation regulations. FAR 61.39 lays out requirements for taking the private pilot practical test.
Related Articles
