Since You Asked

It's OK to question unsafe behavior

Dear Rod,
I have found myself as a passenger in situations with pilots who are more seasoned and with advanced certificates. Of concern to me is flying VFR with pilots who are instrument-rated or better. There seems to be a collective train of thought that it is OK to "punch through" clouds while flying VFR, to fly in lowering clouds (because we are soooo close to the destination airport), to fly in marginal VFR without using flight following if available, and not be vigilant watching for other traffic. Being the peanut-gallery passenger, I have questioned these actions. The answers I receive are usually one of the following (paraphrasing, of course):

1. You aren't a pilot, so how dare you doubt my decisions?
2. I am instrument-rated (or better), so I know how to fly in the clouds.
3. What are you going to do, turn me in for violating VFR cloud minimums?
4. I'm flying at the correct VFR altitude, so I don't need to look for traffic.

What is your opinion?
Thank you!
Diane

Greetings Diane:
To be frank, you seem to have a lot more safety sense around pilots than the pilots who are flying you around.

Here are the facts. No, it's not OK to punch through clouds when flying VFR; it's not OK to fly into clouds because one is so close to the destination airport; it's not OK to relax your vigilance for traffic at any time except when the airplane is parked and tied down--and maybe not even then.

On the other hand, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with flying in marginal VFR conditions (defined as a 1,000- to 3,000-foot ceiling and visibility of three to five miles) without using flight following. Flight following is useful in many cases, but there are times when it can be sufficiently distracting that it keeps you from performing the duties of pilot in command. The PIC has to make this call.

Regarding the responses to the questions you asked of these pilots, well, it's hard to believe that they would actually respond the way they did. However, I do believe you, so here's what I might say in return.

1. You aren't a pilot, so how dare you doubt my decisions. My response to this would be, "OK, then perhaps you can explain why an NTSB judge has the right to doubt your decision and possibly punish you for it when he probably isn't a pilot, either? The fact is that you don't need to be a pilot to be able to compare the behavior of competent pilots with those who demonstrate reckless, arrogant, and otherwise foolish behavior."
2. I am instrument rated (or better) so I know how to fly in the clouds. My response would be, "OK, but do the pilots who are in the clouds legally know how to properly bounce off your airplane without getting hurt?"
3. What are you going to do, turn me in for violating VFR cloud minimums? My response would be, "Well, I should turn you into something. Perhaps I'll turn you into a house that's located in a neighborhood full of burglars. That way you'll know what it's like when people are inside you without permission to be there."
4. I'm flying at the correct VFR altitude, so I don't need to look for traffic. My response would be, "Eminence, your wisdom is deep. How could I not have known about the ballistics law that says it's impossible for objects at the same altitude to converge and collide when both are both coming from the western hemisphere (both flying a heading between 0 and 179 degrees) or the eastern hemisphere (both flying a heading between 180 and 360 degrees)?"

Too high on final

Dear Rod:
I am frequently too high on final. Using simple trigonometry, I figured that for a 3.5-degree glideslope, one's height above the ground on final should be roughly 10 percent of the distance from the runway. Actually, it works out to 6 percent, but because mental arithmetic is difficult on final approach and it s better to be a little high than low, I rounded up to 10 percent. Do you think my reasoning is sound?
Thank you,
No Name

Greetings Mr. Euclid (I just took a guess at your name):
You can certainly use higher math for determining how low to go, but you are trying to quantify what's essentially a hand-eye coordination challenge, and there are a number of problems with that approach.

If someone says to me that their airplane has a tendency to overshoot the runway, I know it's not an airplane problem. It's a "slowing down" or "landing sooner" problem. Your situation is similar. If you say "I'm too high on final," then I say, start down earlier than you have been. But that's not too much help, so let me give you an easier way to think about the problem.

Let's assume that there's no one else in the pattern. When you're abeam the landing threshold on the downwind leg, you're a certain distance laterally from the runway. Let's say this distance is a half-mile. Flying downwind, you'll eventually reach a point where the runway threshold is 45 degrees behind you or halfway between your left wing and the tail (left traffic assumed here).

At this point, you should turn base. You'll have about a half mile to fly before turning final, and then you'll fly about a half-mile final to the runway. The geometry should be pretty easy to visualize here, even if your expertise is trigonometry. Considering that most traffic patterns are about 1,000 feet above ground level, you'll need to lose about 500 feet on base and 500 feet on final if you want to land near the beginning of the runway.

You now have an immediate clue as to whether you're high or low as you turn final a half-mile out. In other words, when you turn to final, if you haven't lost at least half your altitude, then you may be a bit high. Of course, this is only a rough method of estimating the descent because your distances, mileage, airspeed, pattern and groundspeed will vary. But it's a good place to start thinking about descending.

When I'm flying a traffic pattern, I never think about being at the right altitude, or any specific altitude, on base. I never even look at the altimeter. Instead, I'm looking at the runway (and checking for traffic most of the time). I just start down on base leg at about 500 feet per minute.

About halfway through the base leg and before I turn final, I'm evaluating my height in relation to the runway. This is how pilots develop their skills at making emergency landings when the engine has gone kaput.

Before I turn final, I have a basic idea whether or not I'll be high or low. When I turn final I have a clear idea about the amount of descent required to reach the runway. This is how you want to think about flying a pattern.

Learning to fly by eye should be your goal. It's the best way to put your hypotenuse to use.

Record-keeping rules

Dear Rod:
Just a quick question about FAR 61.189. Is it a requirement to keep a record of flight reviews or instrument proficiency checks?
Thanks for your time,
E.L.

Greetings E.L.:
As a flight instructor you are only required to keep a record of two things:

1. The name of the person whose logbook or student pilot certificate you endorse for solo flight privileges and the date of that endorsement.
2. The name of each person you endorse for a knowledge or practical test, the kind of test, the date, and the results of that test.

You are not required to keep a record of flight reviews, IPCs, or any dual instruction you gave. On the other hand, you are not required to keep any Dean Martin records. So it's OK to get rid of these.

Rod Machado is a flight instructor, author, educator, and speaker. A pilot since 1970 and a CFI since 1973, he has flown more than 8,000 hours and owns a Beech A36 Bonanza. Visit his Web site.