Transition advice stands
In your column in the September 2005 issue of AOPA Flight Training, you recommended that a 90-hour pilot buy a Bonanza. Have you lost your mind? I could give all sorts of analogies and examples of disaster, but you must have heard them all. Maybe you know this novice pilot to be of exceptional ability, but I don't think you know a thing about his ability. I think that the insurance company will have more sense than you and require he have at least 250 hours in a non-complex job before he will qualify for coverage.
J.M.
Greetings Mr. J.:
I checked the lost and found, and while they have several minds there, mine doesn't appear to among them at the present time. But I don't mind.
Consider this. When someone asks you a question, you should always try and answer that specific question. If you carefully read the letter from Dan ("Preparing for a Bonanza"), you'll see that he was asking about the best way to "transition" to a Bonanza as a 90-hour pilot who already has experience in a Bonanza and Aerostar. He wasn't asking about the total experience he'll need to get insured and fly this airplane as pilot in command. Therefore, the answer to his question is, fly a Bonanza.
Words are important, and the key word here is "transition." Some think all transitions must be made in baby steps. My experience says otherwise. Flying an airplane of intermediate complexity, such as a Piper Arrow or a Cessna 172 RG, isn't necessary in order for this fellow to start training in a Bonanza, in my opinion.
Over the years, I've introduced many pilots in this time range to higher-performance airplanes (including Bonanzas), all without ill effect. Not only that, I've also taught pilots in this time range to fly multiengine airplanes safely.
I doubt you could give me "...all sorts of analogies and examples of disaster" regarding pilots with 90 hours in a Bonanza. Why? Because nowadays you typically won't find pilots with that experience level flying one of these machines as PIC. That's why I told Dan, "If you think you can meet the insurance company's requirements without excessive burden, then find yourself a Bonanza and have fun."
It's true that most insurance companies will require an instrument rating and 25 or more hours of dual before insuring someone in this type of airplane. They might even require several hundred hours of flight time in a non-complex airplane, as you suggest. So what? That doesn't mean that a pilot with his experience is incapable of transitioning to an airplane like this, much less that he shouldn't purchase one now if he wants to (he might even do his instrument training, which is typically all dual instruction, in the airplane). This is for him to decide. As I said in my response, he needs to consider the insurance requirements when pondering his purchase. I'm not sure how I can make it clearer than that.
Sumps fuel a new pilot's concerns
Dear Rod:
Last Saturday, on my seventeenth birthday, I received my private pilot certificate. It was all over the local news. Two days later, I received a call from a very concerned fellow pilot who wanted to make me aware of a problem with water contamination in certain high-wing aircraft, including the Cessna 150, 152, and 172 that I fly. He explained that the three fuel sumps on Cessnas do not typically detect hidden water within fuel tanks. He also told me that the 13 sumps on the newer Cessnas were also not completely effective at draining fuel samples.
Now, this is something that a newly certificated private pilot flying one of those airplanes doesn't want to hear; it has put a damper on my enjoyment of flying and is even making me afraid to fly. This problem concerns me greatly, and I would like to know what your opinion is of this problem. I am considering changing the type of aircraft that I fly, but I am wondering if this might be too extreme a response. I appreciate any advice you might have.
Sincerely,
A.N.
Greetings A.N.:
Don't worry. The sky isn't falling, and neither are Cessnas because of water contamination. It is incorrect to say that water contamination is "typically" not detected at the sumps in these airplanes. This makes the issue sound far worse than it is. There have been a few instances where water contamination went undetected because of the particular characteristics of wing or tanks used in airplanes, and procedures have been developed to deal with it.
I've flown many different types of Cessnas for 35 years and for thousands of flight hours and have had only one problem that I can even remotely associate with water in the tanks (and I suspect that I didn't drain the tanks thoroughly, which caused the engine problem). As I see it, there is no reason to be concerned about water contamination as long as you drain all the sumps and gascolators carefully, as recommended by the pilot's operating handbook or company-issued safety bulletins.
There are, however, a few additional things to keep in mind. High-wing airplanes have a bit less wing dihedral than most low-wing airplanes, and this can make it a slightly more difficult for water to gravity feed toward the tanks' sumps. If you suspect or are concerned about water in the fuel tank, shake the wing slightly before sumping each tank (this is one of several different tank-sumping techniques recommended by some manufacturers on airplane models where water collection is a concern).
Before starting your engine in the morning to taxi to the fuel island for a fill-up, always drain the fuel sumps/gascolators. If you wait to refuel before draining these sumps, you might move water farther into the fuel lines during the short taxi.
Check for water in the tanks after every refueling. When I was a gas boy (i.e., a Fuel Service Management Engineer Nozzle Manipulator) I would often refuel airplanes, then see their owner/operators taxi off without draining the sumps. This isn't very wise for one important reason: If there were any contaminants in the fuel truck, these could easily end up in the airplane's fuel tank. While the FSMENMs (gas boys or girls) are supposed to drain the truck's sumps and clean its filters, this doesn't always get done at the proper time or in the proper way.
Don't let concern about water in the tanks keep you from experiencing even one minute of the pleasure and joy you should receive from flying, as long as you are willing to follow the recommended procedures for draining those sumps and gascolators. The fact that you're concerned shows what a safety-conscious pilot you are.
Rod Machado is a flight instructor, author, educator, and speaker. A pilot since 1970 and a CFI since 1974, he has flown more than 8,000 hours and owns a Beech A36 Bonanza. Visit his Web site.
Related Articles
