Locally, this topic has become widely understood as a "no-no" in flight training; for our most popular examiner will not accept this combination as meeting training requirements. Obviously there were a number of people who had a problem with it, and so the examiner is happy to hand over a copy of an e-mail from John D. Lynch in Oklahoma. This e-mail refers to the FAA interpretation of the requirements for private pilot flight training, which does not allow for the combination of flight by reference to instruments and night flight.
The interesting part of this is that both Cessna and Jeppesen have FAA-approved training courses with the combination included! At minimum, the night flight requirements should be met with reference to what the pilot can see outside the cockpit. Any amount of time after the three hours is fair game, under the hood or not. I believe that the hood time cannot be applied to day cross-countries either.
Danial Stalcup
Boulder City, Nevada
Dan Namowitz replies: The statement "Logging some of that required instrument time during the cross-country, and during introductory night dual instruction, can add to your night hours while reducing your total time spent meeting training requirements" does not mean to substitute instrument flying for the required navigational tasks. It means doing some hood work while en route, for example, to simulate having to handle an inadvertent cloud penetration--which could happen on any cross-country, day or night. Then the student would have to decide whether to turn back, divert, et cetera, while maintaining some kind of positional awareness.--Ed
Reducing cockpit workload
Thank you for Ralph Butcher's "Balancing Act" in the November 2007 issue. His techniques involving trim and hands-off, rudder-only control inputs really helped me to improve my flying confidence and virtually eliminated the bobbing and weaving that I occasionally create while referencing charts and flight logs. Ditto for his 300-rpm/500-fpm advice. It really works!
Joe Grimm
St. Louis, Missouri
Peer pressure and professional pilots
While I absolutely agree with Ralph Hood that pilots should take cockpit resource management seriously, there is another part of the problem he doesn't address ("Professionally Speaking: Peer pressure works," October 2007 AOPA Flight Training).
The airlines need to take flying passenger transport seriously. Pilots are not treated as valued professionals. Just because you can pay someone a pittance to do a job doesn't mean that you should; you can use the better wages to buy the best of the best in new pilots--pilots who are professionals and understand the enormous responsibility they carry. Speaking as a frequent passenger, not as a student pilot, I often cringe as a young, wisecracking, unprofessional pilot trots through the door and jumps into the cockpit. I don't think ill of the pilot; I think ill of the airline management that did the hiring without doing proper screening or new employee education.
Steve Bohn
Dayton, Ohio
Errata
"Career Pilot: Pilot Shortage" (November 2007 AOPA Flight Training) included out-of-date hiring minimums for American Eagle Airlines. At the time, Eagle required 800 hours total time and 100 hours multiengine; since then, they have been reduced to 600/100. AOPA Flight Training regrets the error.
Bob Bementz ("Why We Fly: Pilot on a mission," October 2007 AOPA Flight Training) raised $1,750 for a Vale, Oregon, resident's hospital bills, not $750 as reported.
Because of a production error, the November 2007 "Final Exam" inadvertently repeated questions 6, 7, and 8 from the October 2007 issue--without duplicating their answers. The answers can be found on p. 20 of the October issue.
We appreciate your comments. Letters should be no more than 300 words and must include your name and address. E-mail letters to [email protected] or mail to AOPA Flight Training, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, Maryland 21701. Letters may be edited and will be printed as space permits.
Related Articles
