Letters

I just read Mike Collins’ article, “Wii, Flight Sim, and Sky” (January 2011 Flight Training). This article resonates with me in so many ways. Like many, my normal life got in the way of my flight training and caused a six-year gap from hour 20 to hour 46, when I finally finished my checkride. In the intervening space I used Microsoft Flight Simulator X extensively to keep my skills sharp. There is no substitute for actually flying, but when that is not possible, the flight sim at home makes a dramatic difference.

I flew about 50 hours on my home flight sim (with yoke, pedals, and quadrant) before I contacted a flight instructor and got back into a real airplane. He was amazed at my proficiency after not taking to the sky in six years and having only 20 hours. I flew every lesson before and after each flight, and it really helped to sink it in. Now, before any flight, I fly it on the flight sim so I can get a feel for checkpoints, navigation waypoints, and how the destination airport looks from the sky.

Jeremy Best
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Mike Collins’ article on Microsoft Flight Simulator is spot on! Several years ago I had the pleasure of spending a weekend with Wayne Phillips at his Airline Transport Orientation Program (ATOP). One of the other attendees nailed both his approaches and amazed all of us, including Phillips, who advised the approaches were ATP quality. When asked, this gentleman said he had spent more than 1,000 hours “flying” the Boeing 737 using Microsoft Flight Simulator. Phillips further noted that almost all 737 pilots never set foot in the aircraft until they have displayed proficiency in the simulator. Simulators of any type have a place in flight training, from student to ATP. I have been recommending all my students purchase a copy and start “flying” the Cessna 172; lots of fun and reduces the cost of flight training.

John Miller
Spokane, Washington

Class C quandary

I wanted to point out an error I found in the “Final Exam” section of your January 2011 magazine. Question 4 asks the radius of the outer area of Class C airspace. The answer given was 5 nm, but the correct answer is really 20 nm.

According to the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM 3-2-4 a), it is the core surface area that usually has a 5-nm radius. AIM 5-2-4 c3 Note 4 provides some information about the outer area: “Though not requiring regulatory action, Class C airspace areas have a procedural Outer Area. Normally this area is 20 nm from the primary Class C airspace airport. Its vertical limit extends from the lower limits of radio/radar coverage up to the ceiling of the approach control’s delegated airspace, excluding the Class C airspace itself, and other airspace as appropriate. (This outer area is not charted.)”

Jon Moore
Monticello, Illinois

The question asks, “The normal radius of the outer area of Class C airspace is…?” We had a spirited debate about whether this was the outer shelf area or the outer procedural area, which is 20 nm. Either way, the question is vague enough to make the answer difficult. Where we erred is in thinking the outer shelf area radius is measured from the inner shelf limit, and not from the center of the airport. With this information, it’s clear that Moore is correct.