Get extra lift from AOPA. Start your free membership trial today! Click here

Letters

From our September 2017 issue

Tom Haines’ first solo 40 years ago took many readers down their own memory lanes.

I was unable to attend ground school the evening that dealt with navigation and my wife, Sandy, took my place. Getting around has always been a challenge for Sandy, but she came back from class and announced with great enthusiasm that “VORs are our friends!” Sometime later, after progressing up to the club’s 172 with a King GPS, Sandy flew with me and with equal enthusiasm declared that “GPS is a better friend.” Now with a Bluetooth GPS unit and ForeFlight on the iPad, we have the “world’s best friend.” Can’t wait to see what she says about ADS-B In. -Walt Slazyk, AOPA 1132744, Downers Grove, Illinois

The half-day solo

My shirttail is still hanging at Princeton Airport in New Jersey (39N). My instructor was Dave Narwocki, who went on to fly heavier iron. There were almost exactly 15 hours in my logbook when he jumped out of Cessna 152 N4717B and told me to give him three full-stop landings.

I remember thinking as I turned downwind and saw the field at my 10 o’clock, What am I doing? Followed by There’s no turning back now. A few more names have been added to the walls since then, and more than a few have my name as the CFI at the bottom, since I went through the ratings ladder here, bumping around in 152/172/172RG trainers. And accumulated, part-time, more than 800 hours of dual given, two former students flying for our armed forces, a couple active CFIs along the way, and a rolodex of lifelong friends.

I just returned to instructing after an eight-year absence thanks to BasicMed, and while the composition of the student population in the area has changed due to shifting demographics, the look of wonderment and, yes, joy, as they discover the beauty of flight hasn’t changed a bit. And isn’t that truly part of our job? Thanks for a great column.

Bryan Boyle
AOPA 938923
Morrisville, Pennsylvania

Back in the mid-1960s when I was instructing, if I didn’t have a student soloed by eight hours the boss would be asking why. We had a guaranteed private pilot course for $490 in (then) brand-new Cherokees.

My daughter is learning now (a fellow CFI teaching, not me). She logged about 13.5 hours prior to first solo. I didn’t think that was bad since students have to be exposed to much more than we had to do way back then. A few days later she happened to have the log sheets from the airplane, so I was curious and started adding the times for comparison—since we used to teach and get paid on tach hours versus Hobbs time.

Lo and behold, even though she logged 13.5 Hobbs hours prior to solo, the tach time was 8.1 hours, which surprised me.

Bill Darby
AOPA 366975
Midland, Texas

Number crunching

Richard McSpadden’s observation that more stalls occur on takeoff and climbout made me think (“Safety Spotlight: Number Crunching”). I have not done the in-depth research of the facts of those accidents; however, I suspect the majority could have been avoided on the ground before the flight. I suspect most occurred because the aircraft were heavier than they should have been, on runways that were compromised by conditions such as a higher density altitude, being too short, too wet, obstructions at the end, sod fields, et cetera, for the performance of the aircraft at the takeoff weight in which the takeoff was attempted. As the takeoff progressed, the effect of these conditions caused the pilots to lift at too slow a speed and take a higher angle of attack to get out of the uncomfortable takeoff—only to place themselves in the deadly position of stall/spin.

Pilot handbook specifications are made at ideal conditions with new aircraft and professional test pilots. A vast majority of these factors are not our reality. Using at least 25 percent—and preferably 50 percent—safety factors in our everyday aircraft and flying would eliminate many of the takeoff and climb stall/spin accidents before they start.

Bob Hoover himself could not have escaped a 200-foot- above-ground stall/spin if he found himself in that position, so I know I can’t, and almost 100 percent of pilots can’t, either. The trick is never put yourself in the position where your inclination is to lift early and at a higher angle of attack than can be sustained.

Richard Woodward
AOPA 1066432
Tallahassee, Florida

By the book?

In “P&E: By the Book?” Mike Busch states “doing them [scheduled tasks in the aircraft manufacturer’s maintenance program] often is at best a waste of the owner’s time and money, and at worst creates a problem where none previously existed.” My experience in more than 12 years of aircraft ownership has been that performing recommended maintenance, even if not required by the FAA, is generally a good thing if you have a good mechanic and use OEM parts. For example, several times I found components that had worn more than might have been expected. With that in mind, I read the rest of the article to find support for the statement and found none. Where is there mention of a study of a quantity of airplanes where a mechanic performed a repair that was not required by the FAA, and even one of the aircraft crashed as a result of the repair?

Jack Shackelford
AOPA 5862177
Midlothian, Texas

Fees chase away

I would like to explain a few facts that seem to go unmentioned in regard to landing fees at privately owned public-use airports such as Rancho Murieta Airport (RIU), the subject of the letter “Fees Chase Away”(September AOPA Pilot).

First, to clarify, the $25 landing fee mentioned is waived when 15 gallons of fuel or more are purchased while at the airport. Also, any transient parking fees are also waived with the purchase of fuel. In addition, what is never mentioned or discussed in any of these types of letters that ridicule an airport for charging landing fees is that privately owned airports like RIU don’t receive federal grants to do improvements or maintain the existing facilities, including all improvements to the airport—like maintaining the runway, ramp, runway lighting, fuel dispensing facilities, and annual maintenance—but bear the same costly federal and state bureaucratic expenses associated with all the compliance and regulations required to keep an airport operating within the mandated guidelines, both on a monthly and annual basis.

In 2016 alone, Rancho Murieta Airport spent in excess of $300,000 to resurface the runway and still has another $150,000 in required improvements needed to the ramp and taxiway area to be done before the end of last year. Again, all of these expenses are borne by the airport ownership without the assistance of federal grants that are available to municipal and county-owned airports. The landing fees of $25 mentioned in the letter are used to create a fund for the maintenance of the airport, and no profit whatsoever is derived from these fees.

When is the last time you went to a golf course and they didn’t charge green fees to play the course? It is one and the same.

Bradley F. Beer
AOPA 1515835
President, Rancho Murieta Airport Inc.
Rancho Murieta, California

Related Articles