I had already adopted that practice in my airplane at the recommendation of my brother (who flies 767s for a major airline), and teach it to all my students, as well. We do almost all of our two-way communication using Com 1, monitor 121.5 MHz on Com 2, and toggle over to the Com 2 standby frequency to listen to ATIS/AWOS as need be. Com 1 is for transmitting and receiving; Com 2 is used mostly for listening.
Unfortunately, I know of very few other pilots who comply with this notam. In addition to immediately knowing if your own ELT has been activated, you may well hear someone else's who is actually in trouble. Also, if you mistakenly get on an incorrect frequency, ATC might try to contact you on this frequency if they can't locate you otherwise. Additionally, I read in a Boeing publication that controllers could even potentially use 121.5 MHz to warn an aircraft approaching a temporary flight restriction. And in the event that the fertilizer really hits the ventilating device in your plane, you can simply and quickly flip over to Com 2 and know that a whole bunch of good people, both on the ground and in the air, are there to help you.
So yes, checking 121.5 before shutdown is a good idea. But a much better plan is keep the #2 com radio tuned to the frequency throughout the flight.
Craig Kozak
Fort Collins, Colorado
Push
Julie Boatman's article "Push" (April 2007 AOPA Flight Training) is thought-provoking. It is quite true that it is difficult to set up a realistic training scenario that replicates the power-loss-on-takeoff problem and the accident reports verify that pilots with many hours of experience can be vulnerable. For the stall usually taught and practiced (power on or power off) it is the common experience that a very modest relaxation of the back pressure required to enter the stall will suffice to end it, normally with minimal altitude loss. For the loss of power on takeoff, at VY or even worse, VX, the situation is startlingly different, requiring an aggressive forward push and sacrifice of altitude to maintain flight.
On takeoff, as speed reaches VY, students are generally taught to pitch to maintain this speed if obstacle clearance is not an issue, and this becomes the standard takeoff procedure for many. In this manner the time for which return to the airfield is not possible is minimized. I would suggest that the margin of safety added by allowing the aircraft to accelerate to at least 10 kt above VY and pitching for this speed would far outweigh the disadvantage of a slightly longer time in the vulnerable altitude range.
It is demonstrably easier to maintain controlled flight at this speed when sudden power loss occurs, and I believe that if takeoffs were so taught we would see fewer of these disastrous stall/spin accidents.
Dave Twining
Corvallis, Oregon
Check that climb rate!
I enjoy your magazine and the helpful hints it has for budding pilots. I'm just getting around to reading the March 2007 issue and found an error in the story on page 14 by Mark Twombly. Talking about errors in vertical speed indicators he notes the instrument is still useful, just note the error on the ground and apply the necessary adjustment. Unless I'm missing something, I believe the example he used applied the adjustment in the wrong direction.
He said if the VSI shows a 100-fpm descent while at rest, then establish a 600-fpm climb if what you're really after is a 500-fpm climb rate. However, if it shows a 100-fpm descent at rest then it's indicating 100 fpm less than reality. If you want to establish a 500-fpm climb rate the indicator in this example would actually show a 400-fpm climb rate. If he is correct and I'm missing something in the explanation I'd appreciate an explanation.
John A. Ferko
U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado
Several alert readers caught this mistake. The VSI would show a 400-fpm climb rate, not 600 fpm as stated.--Ed.
Erratum
Airline Transport Professionals was referred to incorrectly in "Preflight: Avionics Evolution" (March 2007 AOPA Flight Training). We regret the error.
