Flight Forum

Just finished reading Mike Collins' column in the October issue "Preflight: A New Approach". The Arizona flight school has got it right, but unfortunately a lot of other schools quietly discourage the use of simulators for some pretty shortsighted reasons. One, most young instructors are interested in building flight time, and have little or no interest in training people via the simulator. Two, the owners of flight schools do not want the airplanes sitting on the ramp not producing revenue when they could be flying.

The result is that they not only don't offer sim-based instruction, they often tell students that there is little or no value in it or the FAA would encourage it more. What's worse is that many students who are paying large sums of money toward desired work as professional pilots don't find out until their first job interview that they absolutely must pass a simulator checkride as a prerequisite to getting hired.

Any college or large flight training program will mandate a significant portion of a student's training to be conducted in the sim. More small flight schools should get on board with the concept of a combined private/instrument program geared at today's owner/pilot. Unfortunately some old beliefs are hard to change.
Dave Keck
Selma, North Carolina

Knowing when not to take off

I can relate to Dan Namowitz's article, "Forced to Fly". With my brand-new private pilot certificate (about 50 hours), I took a trip in a below-gross Cessna 172N to an airport in California's Central Valley, with a field elevation of about 50 feet and 3,500-foot-long runway. The winds were gusty and temps in the 70s.

For my return trip the takeoff roll didn't go so well. The throttle was full open and the airplane was otherwise in proper takeoff configuration, but I was only getting about 2,200 rpm. It was about halfway down the runway that I thought of aborting the takeoff, but the get-off-the-ground-itis must have won over because I decided to continue. I was lucky. The airplane got off the ground, and I got 200 feet per minute ascent-enough to clear the obstacles, though not by much.

I waited until I had some air beneath me before trying to debug the problem. I decided to try to lean the mixture at about 2,000 feet agl and all of a sudden the rpm came back up. To this day this still doesn't make sense to me because the density altitude was well below 3,000 feet. This scary situation taught me some lessons, and I'm lucky I didn't get hurt. The biggest lesson is to be willing to abort the takeoff as soon as a serious problem is detected.
Eric Thomas
Aurora, Colorado

The nagging doubt

With reference to Robert Montgomery's excellent "Learning Experiences" article in the October 2008 issue, I would add the following observation: Had he added the oil and flown the practice session without any engine-related incident, if he were like me, the nagging doubt would have been in his mind during the flight.

This needless distraction, at best, would have diminished the safety of the flight. Thanks for an article that will help to build the decision-making confidence of students and low-time pilots.
Steven Kuemmerle
Grayslake, Illinois

Dismal night visibility

In the October 2008 issue, Jeff Pardo writes in "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" that "the five-mile legal [visibility] minimum is better off doubled." This caught my attention, because recently I had to make the decision to overnight away from home or depart in the dark with four miles of visibility in mist, but otherwise clear skies. I opted to go, knowing that the minimum in FAR 91.155 is three statue miles of visibility. I double-checked the reported weather against my own observations: I could see the full length of the runway and the stars overhead. My home base was reporting clear and unlimited visibility less than 20 minutes away. And there were no clouds in the sky, just some patchy fog/mist in the local area.

Nonetheless, shortly after leaving the ground the sight picture was dismal with few good visual references. I quickly switched to flying instruments until reaching about 2,500 msl at which point visibility was essentially unlimited.

So while it may be legal to fly VFR in less than five miles of night visibility, I agree with Pardo that doubling the limit is prudent. The actual limit, however, is five miles only when at or above 10,000 feet (class E and G) and more than 1,200 feet above the surface (class G). Otherwise it is three statue miles (classes B, C, D, and night G).
Jason Hills
Kirkland, Washington

We appreciate your comments. Letters should be no more than 300 words and must include your name and address. E-mail letters to flighttraining@aopa.org or mail to AOPA Flight Training, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, Maryland 21701. Letters may be edited and will be printed as space permits.