I have two comments on the article “Park It!” in the June issue of Flight Training magazine.
1. Some mention should be made about hand signals. These are not emphasized enough and many pilots cannot follow them.
2. The tie-down “knot” described is a “nonknot.” I believe I have seen it in some official aviation publication. No rigger, sailor, mountaineer, or seaplane pilot would ever consider the illustrated example. It relies on tension in the standing part and will loosen and fall apart under vibration or slackening of the line. There are many suitable hitches for securing an airplane, but the one illustrated is not among them.
David Cowan
Kenmore, Washington
My quibble is about the length of the rope itself. The example is apparently a single line between the aircraft and the anchor. One end is secured on the anchor, then the rope is looped up and through the aircraft tie-down ring and then tied to the line leading to the anchor.
A better practice is a rope with a length at least three times the distance between the aircraft and the anchor. One end has a bowline. The other end is passed through the anchor leaving the bowline out about one third the distance between the anchor and the aircraft, then up and through the aircraft tie-down ring, then down and through the bowline and finally back up toward the aircraft. While holding the rope snug, apply the two double-locking hitch. You will then have two lines between the anchor and the aircraft. Why a rope three times the distance between the anchor and the aircraft? This allows for wear on the rope. It can be shortened as the wear near the ends becomes unacceptable. Making a bowline loop is a survival skill because the resulting loop will not close. One should be able to make a bowline underwater in the dark.
Michael L. Greedy
Carson City, Nevada
A shortage of the willing
Thanks for sending me Flight Training magazine; it is always enjoyable to read. Thanks for the insightful article on the pilot shortage (“A Shortage of the Willing,” July 2014 Flight Training)—most of it was spot on. However, the callout that reads “In order to pay brand-new first officers at the regionals a starting wage of $40,000 per year, imagine the cost of tickets and the hit to the airlines’ profit margins,” I found disturbing.
Let’s not imagine; let’s use some hypothetical numbers. Say Airline XYZ is already paying the training costs, insurance and $20,000 year in wage to a first officer, so all we are looking at is a $20,000 increase in wage. It is a regional, so a two-hour flight is about the maximum, so four to five a day is very doable. So hypothetically let’s say it can only do 10 flights a week; that’s 520 flights a year, with an average of 20 full seats per flight, which is 10,400 tickets per year. $20,000/10,400 = $1.92 extra per ticket to give a professional with a $100,000-plus education a roof, a full belly, a wife who might stick around, and maybe even a little dignity.
I bet if we asked the passengers boarding any aircraft if it would be worth an extra $2 to ensure that the pilots were focused on the flight instead of personal issues. it would be a no-brainer. Heck, if Republic with the 27 grounded jets that could hold 50 passengers added $1.92 to the ticket price, they could pay a first officer $60,000 a year without a hit to the profit margins, and then they wouldn’t have a pilot shortage and wouldn’t have to ground a single airplane. A $20,000-per-year wage increase for the pilots is minimal in comparison to a half-cent price increase in jet fuel. For $40,000 I would consider working for an airline, for $60,000 I would go drop some cash and get 100 hours of multiengine time and get my ATP to meet the minimums. If this industry is going to attract quality people, true professionals, this is where it has to start.
Sage Teichert
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Related Articles
