Since You Asked

Be vigilant: see and avoid

Dear Rod:

I just started my first lessons at a small but busy nontowered airport. I love the instructor and was pretty comfortable with the airplane on my first try, but my biggest fear is hitting another aircraft. I heard of a midair collision around my airport last year, and worry that it could happen to me. When we go out to train, I can see other aircraft in the area, but some of the other pilots don't really communicate on the radio. I can't seem to shake the feeling that I'm going to hit another airplane, or one will hit me. Is there anything I can do to ease my fear of that and stay excited about flying?

Krystine M.

You and I worry about the same thing. I've always been concerned about hitting another aircraft, too. The only difference between you and me is that I know from experience that if you scan for traffic properly, often enough, and at the right time, you'll avoid other airplanes. You don't know that yet, but you will. We can see and avoid other airplanes if we're trained how to do so. While I can't possibly list all the items you need to know here, I would suggest that you do a simple Web search on "collision avoidance" and start reading. You might begin by reading the AOPA Air Safety Foundation's Safety Brief on collision avoidance. Trust me when I say that as long as you stay "see and avoid" vigilant, you'll be a perfectly safe pilot.

Climb and descent profiles

Dear Rod:

I'm a private pilot who recently took my first flight review with a school heavily involved in training those who want to fly airliners. During the review, the instructor insisted that we fly the airplane in ways that I suspect you'd fly an airliner. We were flying a Cessna 172 and I was instructed to use two different climb profiles, two descent profiles, as well as use V1 speed, rotation speed, initial climb speed, and cruise climb speed for every takeoff. I'm a little confused. Is this the recommended way to fly an airplane?

Roger

The school you flew with uses these procedures to help inculcate airline-like behavior in its students. Outside that context, believe me when I say that this isn't the way to fly a small single-engine general aviation airplane at all.

From a safety perspective, there is just no practical reason to fly a small airplane this way. Doing so might, in fact, make you less safe. You could be so busy following takeoff, departure, cruise, and descent procedures that you might not look outside the airplane for traffic, much less maintain the necessary situational awareness. Remember, an airliner has two, perhaps even three pilots who provide an additional set of eyes and brains for just this reason.

Over the years I've flown with many pilots who were taught to fly this way. In my opinion, they work far too hard for way too little benefit. One fellow I flew with was so busy worrying about his departure and cruise climb profile and checklist that he never looked outside the airplane.

What's the right way to take off? How about accelerating until the airplane is ready to fly, then pointing the nose upward a bit and holding there? That's it.

This is a case where the good intentions of some instructors don't necessarily produce good results for the general aviation pilot flying a single-engine airplane. So please, let your propeller remind you that you're in a Cessna, not a Boeing 777.

When is a Skyhawk not a Skyhawk?

Dear Rod:

I am a student pilot learning to fly in a Cessna 172 at a nontowered airport. In announcing my position in the pattern at any nontowered airport, should I identify my aircraft using the term Skyhawk or should I identify it using the term Cessna (for example, "XYZ traffic, Skyhawk Eight-Five-Six-Bravo-Papa is downwind for 19, XYZ")?

My instructor suggests using Skyhawk on the theory that there are several different models of Cessnas, and by saying "Skyhawk" other pilots will know what to be looking for in the pattern. Another pilot says I should just use Cessna, and not say the model name Skyhawk.

Section 4-2-4 (3)�of the Aeronautical Information Manual says that pilots should state the "aircraft type, model, or manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters," et cetera. This would seem to imply that you can state the name of the model or you can state the name of the manufacturer and be OK. So, what do you think?

Joe

I think it's better to identify yourself by the manufacturer's name. The reason is that some folks may not know all the different models of airplanes and can hardly tell the difference between a Skyhawk and a Skylane when they're parked side by side, much less on the downwind leg. On the other hand, most people can tell the difference between a Cessna and a Piper aircraft. Traditional Cessnas are high-wing airplanes, and Pipers are low-wing airplanes. This helps inexperienced pilots to more easily identify airplanes in the pattern.

When I enter an airport I don't say, "This is P-210, Two-One-Three-Two-Bravo, downwind." I say, "This is Cessna Two-One-Three-Two-Bravo, downwind." I just think it's a bit better to use the manufacturer's name when possible. Then again, if you're flying a Breezy, the aircraft's name is self explanatory. The airplane is essentially a pilot's seat hooked to the front end of an airframe.

When to move up?

Dear Rod:

I received my private pilot certificate after 50 hours. I currently have 72 hours with approximately 22 hours in a Cessna 172. My school has a 182 RG that I�am considering getting�checked out in. What would you consider an acceptable experience level for low-time pilots to fly complex/high-performance airplanes?

Mr. R.

Greetings Mr. R.:

Actually, I take a very liberal position on pilots moving up to higher performance or complex airplanes, even if they don't have a great deal of flying experience. The most important factor in making the transition to bigger airplanes is a pilot's basic stick-and-rudder skill and common-sense judgment, not necessarily his or her total flight time. I've known many low-time pilots who were more than capable of handling higher performance or complex airplanes, but I've also known some who were hard pressed to keep ahead of a Cessna 152 during taxi. If your instructor thinks you have what it takes, then have at it.

Then again, I can assure you that the FBO's insurance company won't care what I think on this issue. It may require you to have a minimum number of flight hours and/or a specific number of instructional hours with a flight instructor in the 182 RG before allowing you to fly it on your own. Check and see what the insurance requirements are. If it looks like you meet or can easily meet these minimums, then take all the training necessary to feel comfortable flying the airplane. Don't skimp here.