Letters

On autopilot: Now you need to know

Viable autopilots have been in service since the 1960s and, in 2004, the FAA recognizes their existence (" On Autopilot: Now You Need to Know," February Pilot). Welcome to the twentieth century. Hundreds of pilots have died from spatial disorientation. Hundreds more pilot deaths are blamed on VFR pilots flying into IFR conditions; the vast majority of them died because of spatial disorientation. John F. Kennedy Jr. died on a clear night from spatial disorientation and he, like hundreds of others, only needed to turn on his autopilot to live. Why didn't someone teach him that?

Granted, some autopilots are susceptible to upset in the case of a single-source vacuum failure; others fail in the event of electrical failure. Most can fail internally and cause an upset. But when we compare the number of deaths from autopilot failures for any reason, how does that number compare to the number of people who have died from spatial disorientation? Compared to humans, autopilots are infinitely more reliable. I'll take my chance with the autopilot.

The F-16, at night and in the weather, is a spatial-disorientation nightmare. Pilot after pilot has died from spatial disorientation, yet the F-16's autopilot disengages when the landing-gear handle is lowered. This was addressed 20 years ago, but it was decided that autopilots weren't trustworthy, as if pilots suffering severe disorientation are. Last I knew, the Air Force hadn't caught up to the FAA. I won't fly my twin in instrument meteorological conditions without an autopilot. At least one regional carrier flies turboprops that aren't equipped with autopilots. I don't fly that airline. As I used to tell young F-16 pilots, when it gets really bad, trust the best pilot in your cockpit, and that ain't you.

Col. Ron Moore AOPA 1386770
U.S. Air Force, Retired
Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Slip-sliding away

While reading " Turbine Pilot: Slip-Sliding Away" by Vincent Czaplyski (February Pilot) I recalled an incident at Clover Valley Naval Air Station on Whidbey Island (Washington) and I had to tell someone. This was in the very early days of development of the naval air station. The runway was really just barely long enough and culminated on a bluff overlooking Puget Sound. U.S. Navy Lt. Like and I were making trips to Burbank, California, to pick up new Lockheed-Vega Ventura PV-1s and fly them to Whidbey Island for the squadrons organizing there. On this particular trip, snow and ice fell at Clover Valley. The runway was covered. Lt. Like brought in the airplane in a power-on stall, chopping power as we crossed the fence (yes, it was barbed wire). We landed on the first foot of the runway well below any flying speed. The airplane did not slow at all and the brakes were worthless. It became apparent that we were going for a swim in Puget Sound. Some-how, mostly by teasing the engines, Lt. Like got us into what would have been a ground loop on dry turf. This was in very slow motion and, when we were sliding backward, Lt. Like opened the engines and brought us to a stop close to the edge of the bluff — a very alert action that was not preplanned and was well-executed. We missed our icy swim!

T.J. Mayfield AOPA 630254
Gorman, Texas

Around the world

Although I'm not always comfortable expressing my thoughts about articles I read, Barry Schiff's three-part series in AOPA Pilot was excellent (" Proficient Pilot: Around the World, Chapter Three," February Pilot). Over the years I've noticed that a few writer-aviators tend to reserve their creativity for the skies, exercising a modicum of restraint in their writing. I realize that a more conventional form, or perhaps a journalistic style, of writing might better enable one to drive a point home. Yet there is also a place for prose that can evoke an emotional response, taking the reader beyond the pages and print to live vicariously through the eyes of the writer. I may never fly around the world, and I know I'll never etch contrails through the sky, but your story gave me the opportunity to feel a particle of pleasure normally reserved for those who actually live the experience.

Doug Atherton AOPA 5200727
Colbert, Washington

I just finished the latest AOPA Pilot magazine and I really enjoyed Barry Schiff's article, especially the part where he described his difficulties to understand those European air traffic controllers. As an immigrant, I learned to speak English abroad. It is my second language. And so far, I experienced your kind of problem, but only the other way around, especially in the southern part of this beautiful country of ours. In the federal aviation regulations it is clearly stated that air traffic controllers must "be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language."

There is no exception for controllers residing south of the Carolinas. Reading, writing, and understanding didn't appear to be a problem, but if these Southern controllers are in fact able to speak English, I've always wondered why they don't just do it and speak English to me. So I have to admit I was somewhat gloating over learning that I am not the only one experiencing such kind of trouble, even if it was in an unexpected way.

Yours humorously,

Juergen Klicker AOPA 4081636
Akron, Ohio

Wish list

Mark R. Twombly's " Pilotage: Wish List" (February Pilot) was interesting reading, but I'd encourage him to take his landing technique to the next level. I cringed somewhat at his statement, "Either you can attempt to land short or you can attempt to land smooth, but you cannot attempt both."

Yikes. Why not? What if we made touching down right where we planned to (at the right speed and attitude) our most important objective? As we get better at this, let's work on being soft and smooth while still landing on that same spot. This is more of a challenge but that's what a lot of us like about flying. I know it works in light airplanes, DC-9s, MD-80s, Airbus A300s, and the Boeing 747, so it must work in a lot of other airplanes, too. Harder? Sure it is, but Jonathan Livingston Seagull sure would be proud.

Emerson R. Allen AOPA 539422
Lincroft, New Jersey

I know Mark Twombly will get lots of "suggestions" for the fulfillment of his first "goal" for the new year. Here's how to start a hot Lycoming IO-540: Crack the throttle, mixture full lean, mags on, and hit the starter. As the engine fires, go to rich on the mixture. Worked every time on the two IO-540s I've owned and the Lycoming TSIO-540s in Piper Navajos I've flown. The trick is finding the amount to "crack" the throttle. On one Piper Comanche it was about half-throttle, on the other about an inch. Here's some applause, Mark.

Rich Clover AOPA 794304
Evanston, Wyoming

Mark Twombly's wish to consistently land two different airplanes well really made me smile. Currently, I fly a Super Decathlon and a Stearman; learning to consistently land the Super D with grace and style would qualify as an accomplishment, while just keeping the Stearman on the runway qualifies as reason for celebration. (But I am slowly getting better!)

As for smooth versus short landings, Randy Sohn once related an adage given to young pilots flying the line that went something like this: "If you make a rough landing on the first third of the runway, everyone in back will tell the first person they see about your terrible landing. If you waste a lot of runway while finessing a perfect landing but then run off the end of the pavement, no one in back will ever remember the landing. Thirty years from now, however, they will still be telling the story about the time they were in an airplane accident."

Dave Russell AOPA 1276411
Mattawan, Michigan

Mark, as a part owner of a Piper PA-30 for seven years, I empathize with your landing experiences. As you know, forward speed has little to do with a smooth runway contact whereas vertical speed has everything to do with it.

I believe that if there is a "secret" to consistently better landing performance, it is carrying a bit of power into the flare. Even if you have reduced thrust to minimum for approach control purposes, judicious use of power as the flare progresses reduces the angle of convergence to the runway.

In addition to some increase in elevator authority, this provides the time to manage the runway contact with minimum vertical speed. This is particularly important in constant-chord wing aircraft, such as pre-Saratoga Piper PA-32s and Aztecs.

I believe the worst mistake, and probably the most common, is to substantially reduce (chop) power near, but not yet in contact with, the runway. The instant change in trim/elevator effectiveness, and the prompt increase in vertical speed, makes it difficult to negotiate a smooth contact.

I have heard it said that the PA-30's positive attitude at rest contributes to landing difficulties. It may contribute to the results of a "bad landing," but it is irrelevant if vertical speed is controlled.

Dick Lewis AOPA 119753
Madeira Beach, Florida

'Professional' pilots

I enjoyed AOPA President Phil Boyer's column on professionalism (" President's Position: 'Professional' Pilots," February Pilot). Any pilot can be professional, from student to airline transport pilot. It is simply a choice. The public thinks all pilots are highly trained and skilled, and professional fits right into that description. Which segues into the definition of professionalism that I like best — professionals do not need to be policed. A professional pilot and his peers are a self-correcting and self-monitoring group. This develops trust between the public and all pilots, from general aviation airports nestled in neighborhoods to major commercial airports.

Jeff D. Mitchell AOPA 1005420
Leesburg, 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 number on all correspondence, including e-mail. Letters will be edited for length and style.