The September 2008 issue was one of the best I've seen. While most of the articles were excellent, I thought "Should You Sell Ongoing Training?" was superb.
I used to tell my students that short and soft don't mix. While I still have concerns about short/soft takeoffs, the article "Short and Soft" gave me a new perspective on landings. I also really liked the author's discussion of the use of slips, changing from a sideslip to a forward slip to lose altitude. Too many articles have treated the forward slip as a mechanical exercise, a Practical Test Standards item, that isn't really relevant. Often, the authors say to "put the rudder to the floor, and hold enough opposite aileron to keep the flight path in a forward direction." They are focused on slipping all of the way down to the landing and rarely do they mention using the forward slip to get back on the proper glide path. I instruct primarily in Cessnas. I find instruction in forward slips is more meaningful when combined with no-flap landings. With even partial flaps and the long, unobstructed runway at the majority of today's airports, it's hard to convince the student that slips are useful. Tell him that his battery has died and that he has to land without flaps and forward slips suddenly become much more relevant.
The one article that I strongly disagreed with is "Checklists Are Not Do Lists." Why do we have to teach everyone as if they are going on to the airlines? Teaching "flows" is certainly appropriate for those students who are going into an aviation career, but they are not appropriate for everybody. I'm not alone in this opinion. Although I've been a CFI since 1983, I didn't get my instrument instructor rating until this year. My CFII insisted that I incorporate "flows." While I was taking my practical test at the local FSDO, the FAA examiner asked why I was mentioning flows. He indicated that flows were appropriate for the "heavy iron" but weren't appropriate for the private pilot who is probably flying single pilot.
We need to meet the needs of our students with our instruction. For someone who does not want to go beyond private pilot, teaching the checklist as a "do list" is far more appropriate than trying to teach that person flows. The trainee isn't going to fly often enough to remember any flows he may have learned.
This appears to be one of the latest hot buttons. We need to go back to the FAA's Fundamentals of Instruction and re-read the portion that discusses knowing and addressing the needs of our students. One size doesn't fit all.
Terrance Godar
Dillsburg, Pennsylvania
Check your Gs
In the fifth paragraph of "Checklists Are Not Do-Lists," Mark Danielson states, "I was darting over the airfield in an A-4 and broke hard into a 60-degree bank, 4-G, 180-degree turn." You know as well as I that a 60-degree bank produces exactly two Gs, regardless of whether you are flying an A-4 or a Piper Cherokee, going 300 knots or 70 knots. AOPA Flight Training magazine is no place to misstate aerodynamic facts in order to make a story sound more exciting.
John Mitchell
Fort Collins, Colorado
Mark Danielson replies: Mr. Mitchell is correct that a level 60-degree bank turn requires two Gs to sustain level flight. However, in a tactical environment, the G limit is limited only by the aircraft's design. Also, in a tactical environment, bank becomes relative to your adversary, not the horizon.
I flew the A-4 for eight years teaching fighter pilots how to survive close-in air-to-air combat. By placing my lift vector on my opponent, pulling four to five Gs minimized my turn radius while minimizing my airspeed bleed-off at maximum power. However, pulling four Gs in a 60-degree bank over the airfield at idle power minimizes my turn radius and bleeds off 100 knots of airspeed so I can fly a normal downwind to land.
My reference to pulling four Gs over the airfield had nothing to do with making a story more exciting; it's merely aerodynamics and understanding lift over induced drag.
Time to change partners...again
Your publication is always so timely. The article "Same Dance, Different Partner" (September 2008) came in the mail the very day my instructor tendered his two-week notice. While uncomfortable, change can be a good thing as a means of growth and fostering independence, breaking the cycle of being emotionally tied on any one instructor.
We are also quite human, and must allow ourselves the freedom to grieve the relationship's end to an eventual acceptance. Mentors, support staff, and a quick change to another instructor can help this process immensely.
Peg Ballou
Bucyrus, Ohio
Erratum
The e-mail address accompanying Ken Wittekiend's "Should You Sell Ongoing Training?" (September 2008) was incorrect. To get a copy of the spreadsheet, e-mail [email protected].
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
