http://www.rjma.com/flight/airwaves/1205.htm

X	Never let any mistake cause you to stop believing in yourself. Learn from it and move on. -- Norman Vincent Peale

Dear Pilots and Aviation Enthusiasts:

Great news . . . according to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the number of piston-powered airplanes manufactured worldwide during the first three quarters of 2004 increased 5.5 percent, from 1,272 in 2003 to 1,342 so far this year. Overall, general aviation industry billings increased 15.9 percent to $7.8 billion. The total number of shipments went up 7.7 percent. In other segments of the industry, turboprop shipments rose 19 percent and business jets 10.4 percent.

General aviation is beginning to rebound . . . despite a lackluster economy. What's going on?

Lot's of things. Among them could be the traveling public's demand for alternative transportation choices. Frustrated by oppressive airline gate check-in security measures, high ticket prices for non-competitive routes, tight seating configurations and, frankly, some pretty scary looking passengers, many folks are taking a serious look at piloting their own airplanes to business appointments and vacation sites.

This is precisely why I purchased my Cessna 210. Instead of standing in long airport lines, partially disrobing at security check points, and squeezing into tight seats between overweight and cantankerous strangers, my family and I board our 190+ mile per hour, six-seat aircraft, climb high above most of the weather, and arrive at places like the Orlando, the Bahamas, and New Orleans in less time (when considering check-in times and connecting flights), and more comfortably than our airline flying friends.

Like everything else in life, however, there is no free lunch. Flying oneself safely in the national airspace system requires far more than recreational piloting skills. It requires frequent recurrent training, practice, and attention to detail. Most of all, it requires frequency . . . or flying frequently in the system, in the clag, and in and through very busy airspace.

The price of lunch is high for those of us who want to mix it up with professional pilots operating heavy kerosene burners in a "take-no-prisoners" air traffic control system. Yes, the price is high . . . but not as high the cost of a single oversight or mistake in the cockpit. If we, as general aviation pilots, are ever to come close to the remarkable safety record of the airlines, we must begin looking at our flying skills with suspicion and skepticism. We must question who trained us and how we were trained. More importantly, we must question how we are maintaining and improving upon whatever skills we now have.

We must adopt a zero-defect attitude. Like NASA since its last shuttle disaster, the general aviation community can no longer afford to have even one of its airplanes capture media attention. Considering the fact that we still experience about 100 serious GA accidents a month, we've got a long way to go! If we are going to reduce this number, every one of us must begin taking our recurrent training more seriously. Flight instructors must begin earning the trust that their students place in them . . . not only from a safety perspective, but from a realistic skills development perspective as well.

If we do this . . . and do it consistently, the general aviation world will not only become safer, it will become far more utilitarian as well.

According to AOPA's Air Safety Foundation, the number one cause of all weather related fatal accidents is continued VFR flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). When a VFR-only pilot inadvertently enters the clouds, there is a 90 percent probability he will not survive the event!

FAR 61.109 stipulates that a private pilot candidate must receive three (3) hours of instrument training. Far 61.105 requires that the private pilot candidate also be able to recognize critical weather situations from the ground and in flight, windshear avoidance, and the procurement and use of aeronautical weather reports and forecasts.

That's it . . . some ground training on critical weather avoidance and three hours of instrument flight - likely under the hood or, in part, in an approved flight simulator. It's little wonder why VFR-only pilots continue to die in the clouds!

Preparing a private pilot to safely extricate himself from an inadvertent cloud penetration by putting him under a hood or in a flight simulator simply does not work. AOPA's Air Safety accident statistics clearly supports this conclusion. So why do we continue training pilots like this????

A much more effective way to prepare private pilots to survive IMC penetration is to actually take them into IMC. Duh! Take them just below the cloud bases, ask them to close their eyes for a moment, then slowly climb into the clouds (with an IFR block altitude clearance, of course). Then ask them to open their eyes.

Repeat the process by climbing above the tops. Have them close their eyes, then descend slowly into the clouds. Then ask them to open their eyes.

Lastly, have them close their eyes, and fly directly into the clouds. Then ask them to open their eyes.

These three effective exercises teaches students that there are three possible ways out of the clouds. (1) going down; (2) going up; and (3) turning around.

Flight schools and CFIs who believe the best way to prevent continued VFR flight into IMC conditions is by telling their students to fly only in good weather is one of the leading causes of this very problem. Despite forecasts . . . weather changes, and it sometimes changes very fast - particularly around the Great Lakes. A sudden two to three degree reduction in air temperature, brought about by a wind shift, can quickly collapse the temperature/dew point spread. This will turn five miles of visibility into IMC conditions in a heart beat!

I recently conducted a pre-private pilot checkride flight review for a student who was being trained elsewhere. His logbook revealed that he had received over 130 hours of dual instruction . . . and not one instructional hour in the clouds! Realistically, what would be the life expectancy of this fellow if he were to suddenly find himself in IFR conditions?

[Note: If an instructor were to answer this question by saying, "He has no business in IFR conditions in the first place," run . . . don't walk in search of a more weather-savvy CFII. This would be a person who understands human factors and vagaries of weather. In other words, even good VFR pilots with a healthy respect for weather can find himself inadvertently in IMC conditions - particularly here in the Great Lakes region.]

Nobody . . . not even Chuck Yeager . . . can learn how to maneuver in the clouds with just three hours of instrument training! Private pilot students should receive a minimum of 10 hours or more of solid IMC training experience. If done properly, this will NOT lengthen the total instructional time. You simply combine instrument (IMC) flight with other private pilot instructional tasks, e.g., constant speed and constant rate climbs, descents, and turns. Do your VOR training in the clouds. Be sure to include IMC experience on your dual cross-country flights.

Frankly, I would much rather have private pilot students more skilled in IFR flight than in pilotage-based navigation, or in turns around a point, or S-turns over a road. Again, look at the accident statistics.

If you are a VFR-only pilot and you have less than 10 hours of solid IMC experience OR if you haven't penetrated the clouds in the past six months . . . . run, don't walk . . . to the nearest qualified CFII and get some meaningful IMC flight experience. It could just save your life!

Spin your clock of memories back to the time when you were about eight years old. If you were like me, you had already logged about two years on your two-wheeler. By age 8 or 10, your bike riding skills had reached a point where you could safely remove your hands from the handlebars. You shouted those famous words . . . "Look, Mom, no hands!"

Racing down the street on your bicycle with your hands resting proudly on your hips was a sign of accomplishment. You mastered your vehicle. You were the king of the world!

Learn to fly your airplane the same way . . . with no hands on the yoke or stick

One of my favorite flight training exercises, used at all rating levels, is to have students climb up to a safe altitude, set the power at 2,200 RPM, then trim the airplane for level flight. From that point forward, I prohibit them from touching the yoke or control stick. While doing this, I explain that the control yoke or stick was added to the airplane by the marketing department, not the engineering department. It was put there to make the transition from automobile driving to airplane driving less stressful for the new pilot!

Once properly trimmed for level flight, I ask the pilot to climb 500 feet. Most pilots attempt to grab the yoke and give it a tug. "No, no, no," I say. "You can't use the yoke!"

If you are in trimmed, level flight at 90 KIAS with 2,200 RPM dialed in, simply advance the throttle to full power. Most light singles will respond with a 500 foot per minute climb . . . at 90 KIAS. Upon reaching the desired altitude, bring the power back to 2,200 RPM (don't touch that yoke!). The airplane will return to level flight . . . still at 90 KIAS.

Next, I ask the student to descend 2,000'. Again, all he needs to do is reduce power by 300 RPM. No yoke input is required. This reduction in power produces a 500 foot per minute descent rate.

While some traditionalists may disagree, gentle rudder pressures without yoke input will produce standard rate, coordinated, turns in any desired direction. Remember, if you are not turning, you are not banking. Again, no yoke or stick inputs are required. Yikes . . . this sure sounds like I'm recommending uncoordinated flight . . . because "everybody" knows that turns require both rudder and yoke input to prevent adverse yaw!

Check again, Sherlock! Go out and make standard rate turns using rudder only. You'll quickly see that in most airplanes the ball stays firmly positioned in the center of the little tube.

The fact is - and one that causes failed spin recoveries - many poorly trained pilots only use the pedals to steer the airplane on the ground!

In summary, when beginning with a properly trimmed airplane, you can make constant speed climbs, turns, and descents using throttle and rudder only.

What do you do when you live on Skaneateles Lake, located in the heart of New York's Finger Lakes? You buy a float plane!

Most people would be happy to own just one airplane. John now owns two. He also has part interest in a Cessna 210 which he keeps at the Syracuse Airport.

"This one is entirely for fun," says John. "I use the Cessna 210 for long distance travel." John is a commercial real estate broker in Auburn, NY. John and his wife, Connie, an elementary school teacher, are on the go almost every weekend. Their children are raised and out of the house so they are free to do what they want and when they want.

John and Connie have the time, the resources, the skill, and a desire to see and do all they can. Now they can walk right out their back door, untie the float plane, and enjoy a picnic lunch on a remote Adirondack lake. [Click the photo to enlarge.]

It's 85 degrees outside. The relative humidity is 82 percent. You are making your base to final turn for landing. Suddenly you begin to lose power. You mash the throttle in . . . nothing happens. Trees and power lines begin to fill your windshield. The rest of the story appears in the morning newspapers.

What happened? It couldn't be carb ice . . . it's too hot outside! How can this be???

Did you know that your carburetor is a little refrigerator/freezer? Incoming (induction) air is compressed as it enters the carburetor throat, then it instantly expands in the throttle plate chamber. This process lowers the temperature of the incoming air by as much as 60 degrees F.

We know that the amount of moisture that air can hold is determined by temperature, e.g., hotter the air, the more moisture it can hold. This is what causes our carburetor problem. Warm, moisture-rich air enters the carburetor and is suddenly cooled below freezing. No longer able to hold its moisture, the water vapor precipitates out and coats the carburetor throat and throttle plate where it instantly freezes (see illustration - left). The more moisture, the greater the ice build up, eventually choking off the amount of air entering the engine.

Fortunately, carburetor ice seldom, if ever, occurs at high RPM settings. The airflow through the carburetor is simply too fast to allow water vapor condensation to occur inside the carburetor. It's at the lower power settings, typically below 2,000 RPM, where carburetor icing becomes a serious issue.

The First Sign of Carburetor Ice is a Reduction in Engine RPM: Just as the throttle plate controls engine RPM by metering the amount of air mixing with the fuel, an ice-constricted carburetor also controls (limits) engine RPM. This carburetor ice-induced reduction in engine RPM may be followed by engine roughness as pieces of ice literally break off inside the carburetor and enter the engine as water.

You Prevent Carburetor Ice by Heating the Incoming Air: If the carburetion process reduces incoming air by as much as 60 degrees F., all we need to do is heat the incoming air to 93 degree or higher (93 - 60 = 33 degrees F.) We do this by pulling the carburetor heat knob. This action diverts the incoming air around the hot engine exhaust manifold where it is heated well above 100 degrees or more.

The Good News . . . and the Bad: The good news is . . . the incoming moisture-rich air to too warm to allow icing to occur during the carburetion process.

The bad news occurs in two forms. First, when we pull the carburetor heat knob, we allow the incoming air to by-pass the induction air filter. Thus, any airborne particulates in the air are allowed to enter the engine. This is one VERY IMPORTANT reason why we should NEVER taxi with carburetor heat turned on. Similarly, we should limit the pre-flight testing of carb heat to only a second or so. Remember, a swirling propeller pulls up any sand or dirt on the taxiway.

Second, heated air is less dense, e.g., has fewer air molecules per unit of volume. Thus, injecting heated air into the carburetor results in a marked power reduction. While not a problem on landing, it can become a serious problem should you find it necessary to "go-around." Taking off with carburetor heat ON may not give you the climb performance you need to clear obstacles.

Answer: Turn on the carburetor heat . . . . and leave it on until: (1) the problem clears up or, (2) until you land.

Click HERE to see an excellent article on aircraft icing prepared by AOPA's Air Safety Foundation.

Note: If you have comments or questions regarding this article, please send them to me by clicking HERE.

If there is one thing aviation does, it makes learning real. This is what Andrew Smith, age 17, from Lancaster, NY, discovered after completing his first solo flight earlier this month.

I watched the look on Andrew's face as I stepped out of the airplane, knowing he was ready to leave the nest and take to the air by himself. His face displayed both confidence and anxiety.

As he taxied off for his first solo takeoff, Andrew left behind his childhood and suddenly entered the real world of life. All the teaching and reading suddenly came together in a very meaningful way. He was on his own and now he had to perform. This was no practice exam or dress rehearsal. This was the real thing and Andrew knew it. He flew flawlessly.

Flight training is a tremendous way to excite and engage high school students in science, math, and technology. They see and learn, first hand, outside the traditional classroom, the relevance of academic study to the world around them.

Andrew is following in some pretty big footsteps in the name of Jason Geddes and Gina Lamendola. Jason began his flight instruction at age 12.

I finished him up two years ago. Today, Jason is a Midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. He will soon begin Naval flight training with the goal of flying F-18s. Gina completed her private pilot certificate with me in five months and is now working on her multi-engine rating while attending Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida.

As for Andrew, he is focused on becoming an airline pilot after college. Right now, he is doing the things necessary to excel academically in order to get into his college of choice. He has also has the three necessary ingredients necessary for success. These are: (1) desire and commitment; (2) excellent instruction . . . . hmmm, and (3) supportive parents who encourage him all along the way.

Have you ever wondered why they put those little approach timing boxes in the ILS approach plates? Does this mean pilots are supposed to start the timer when passing the ILS final approach fix (FAF) inbound? If you answered no to the second question, congratulations and welcome to the post-moving map era of instrument flight!

Curiously, many instrument pilots, CFII's, and designated pilot examiners (DPEs) incorrectly believe and teach that timing an ILS approach is necessary should the glideslope suddenly tank, thereby converting the ILS to a nonprecision localizer approach.

This is more than an academic question or a topic for lively hangar debate. Instead, it speaks directly to the incredible workload requirements of the instrument pilot shooting an ILS to minimums. Anything that adds to this workload, such as timing the FAF-inbound leg, takes away from other critical tasks that must be performed with consummate precision.

Taking a look at the real world of IFR flight, what should the proficient pilot do if he or she suddenly lost the glideslope when inbound on the ILS? As cited above, many pilots - including CFII's and DPEs would incorrectly (and illegally) convert the procedure to a localizer approach and proceed accordingly to published localizer minimums. That is why they say having a timer going is necessary.

Take a look FAR 91.123. It says, "Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised." This means that if ATC clears a pilot for an ILS 2-81.jpg (11343 bytes)

approach, he must fly an ILS approach . . . . not an ILS approach with the glideslope out of service. Thus, if the glideslope flags on the approach and the pilot wants to fly a localizer-only approach, he must break off of the approach, fly the published missed approach procedure, then secure a new clearance to come back around and fly the localizer-only approach.

Back to the original question . . . Why Do They Include Timing Data Boxes on ILS Approach Plates?

Answer: To save paper! The ILS and the Localizer are two entirely different approach procedures. They have different final approach fixes (FAFs), different missed approach points (MAPs), and different minimums. To fly both at the same time (ILS with Localizer timing) generates an excessive workload requirement on the pilot and should not be done.

Click HERE for a detailed description of the Instrument Landing System (ILS).

The unimaginable happens at 8,500 feet above Western New York. Your arms start tingling; you feel numbness in your finger-tips. Cold sweat starts pouring from your forehead. The BIG ONE is happening. All those years of eggs, cheese, and sirloin steaks have caught up with you. You swear at the recently departed Dr. Atkins as you try to regain your composure. Then you lose consciousness!

Sitting beside you is your wife of many years. Things happened so fast you couldn't even say good-bye. Yeah . . . it may be too late to save you (maybe not) . . . but what about her? Like they say, life insurance is not for you; instead, it's for those who you leave behind!

Let me borrow your wife and your airplane for three three-hour training sessions (you can ride in the back seat if you like). I will provide her with the skills to not only land your airplane safely, but how to insure that the cardiac-care ambulance is waiting for your arrival to wisk him off to the nearest hospital. Actually, any qualified CFI can provide effective pinch-hitter training.

My approach to this important training is to keep it fun, keep it light-hearted (no pun) . . . for the primary purpose of creating an interest in further pursuit of flight training.

Aside from that, however, my aim is to fulfill a line in Rudyard Kipling's famous poem titled, "If."

Effective pinch-hitter training is the ultimate in stress-management training. It teaches the untrained pilot to remain calm while they methodically perform several important cockpit tasks. One by one, your faithful partner will do those things that will return her, you, and your precious airplane safely back to earth.

I was aghast beyond words recently when an instrument student revealed to me that his flight instructor refused to launch when the ceiling was below 600' and the reported visibility was less than two miles! And this restriction didn't just apply to him. This policy was enforced for all of his students!

"Wait a minute," I said. "You're an instrument student. When you complete your training, will the FAA be stamping a restriction on your instrument ticket that says, "Not valid in low IMC weather?"

All pilots have their personal minimums. Instrument instructors, however, should be prepared to provide their students with the skills, confidence, and real-world, actual experience necessary to land his or her airplane in minimum conditions that the FAA maintains are safe and prudent for instrument-rated pilots? Just what is this poor guy or girl, who paid good money for training he did not receive, going to do when the weather at his destination is worse than forecast?

How prevalent is this problem? Bruce Landsberg, executive director of AOPA's Air Safety Foundation writes, "There will be a few schools in certain parts of the country that will need to radically change their approach to ensure good IMC training. Impractical? Some may think so, but there is nothing more impractical than a dry instrument ticket despite investing good time and money for an experience you didn't get."

There are all kinds of restrictions that limit where, when, and how a pilot can fly. They include: "Day - VFR Only," "No Night Flight Permitted," "Must wear corrective lenses," etc. None say, "Not valid in low IMC weather."

I am not advocating that a newly minted instrument pilot run right out by himself and shoot approaches to minimums, but he darn well better be ready and able to do this. He should know, based upon first hand, real (not simulated) experience with his CFII on board, how fast the localizer/glideslope needles swing when he is just 200 feet above the surface. He must internalize the fact that a one-tenth of an inch error in his altimeter setting could put him 100 feet below his Decision Altitude (DA). Most important, he (or she) should have the confidence to know that he can safely perform approaches to minimums in real, not simulated conditions, because he has done them before . . . many times.

Sadly, I fear, my instrument student friend is not alone in the world of incomplete IFR training. I do not mean to criticize my very talented flight instructor colleagues because most of them are doing the job correctly. However there are a number flight instructors who are contributing to this problem. For example, many young, inexperienced CFIIs who, themselves, were the products of incomplete instrument training are reluctant to train in minimal weather conditions.. Other CFIIs received their training from big iron, multi-engine airplane drivers who . . . per their own belief systems say, "I'd never fly in low IFR in a single engine airplane!"

Then there the CFII graduates of the Arizona and Florida-based flight schools who, God bless'm, could never find low IFR weather to train in if they wanted to! Then we have the CFII or organized flight school who practices "defensive flight instruction." This is the fellow or gal who believes that there are ambulance-chasing attorneys standing behind every gas truck waiting to extract the hapless CFII's net worth should one of his students bend metal.

Next, we have the "rating builders." These are the folks who pursued one rating right after the next . . . seldom ever leaving the practice area and who have little or no real world, in-the-system experience. What about the airline pilot "wannabees?" These are typically young, nervous-types who have little interest in teaching . . . but who need to teach to build incident/accident-free hours to qualify for an airline interview. They're so cautious about teaching (to prevent any sort of career-killing incident) that they would do all the training in a simulator if they could! Then there are the "Timid Toms." These are CFIIs who, themselves, never ever became comfortable in the clouds . . . and avoid actual IFR whenever and wherever they can.

Lastly . . . there are the "7 to 10 Day Wonder" intensive instrument training programs that guarantee that you'll pass your instrument checkride (that they give) or you'll get your money back. [Okay . . . if you can acquire the necessary instrument skills in 7 to 10 days, and you receive your training in actual IMC conditions, I'll accept them. Otherwise, you're wasting your money.]

According to the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI), an excellent organization that all CFI's should belong to, there are 85,000 currently certificated flight instructors in the U.S. Of these, only about 11,000 instructors are believed to be actively teaching. The remaining CFIs go through the hoops to keep their certificates active, but do not actively use them. A surprisingly large number of CFIs are what NAFI calls, "pass through" instructors. This means they acquired their CFI rating while passing through the various ratings necessary to qualify for an airline job. In other words, they acquired the rating and never used it . . . or, worse, they use the rating to build logbook hours primarily to qualify for that airline job.

You and I are not going to change the way flight schools and flight instructors teach - OR DO NOT TEACH. But we can control what training and experience we receive. In doing this, here's a couple of important points to consider:

First, if you have never descended to published minimums on an instrument approach in real, not simulated, conditions with a CFII by your side . . . DON'T TRY IT BY YOURSELF!

Second, if you have not descended to published minimums on an instrument approach in real, not simulated conditions, by yourself within the past six months . . . you have two choices - either:

The operative word in this question is "plan." We all know that weather forecasts are nothing more than horoscopes with numbers, particularly around the Great Lakes in this winter months. A sudden snow squall blowing across the final approach course can reduce in-flight visibility to 1/2 mile in seconds. Similarly, a 700' ceiling can be reduced to 200' with the unexpected passage of low stratus clouds.

"Go around," you say! Hmmmm . . . how about that ice on the wings you picked up over the outer marker? Do you really want to try another approach or fly in the cold clouds to your alternate? Landing to minimums may be your only reasonable option. Are you prepared for it . . . in terms of training and currency? Shouldn't be in icing conditions, you say. Let's get real - stuff happens that wasn't predicted or that we didn't expect. As every proficient pilot knows, there is a big difference between the training environment and the real world.

Another Question . . . I only use my IFR ticket to occasionally punch up through a thin cloud layer. Are you saying I should tear up my instrument ticket?

Well . . . yes. Any time you fly with an instrument clearance, ATC assumes you are current and qualified to perform as they deem necessary (within the limits of your airplane's capability) to separate traffic and to keep the system moving. Aside from category II and category III landing endorsements, there are no gradations or differential skill levels associated with the instrument rating. In short, bluffing works in poker . . . but not in the instrument world.

I recall making several early morning flights to Long Island's Farmingdale Airport when the pre-dawn fog was predicted to lift by my planned arrival time. Guess what? When I got there, the fog hadn't lifted! Despite a forecast for improving weather, every airport within the fuel range of my airplane was still at or below minimums. I had no choice but to shoot the ILS approach to minimums. Fortunately, I had the training and experience to do this successfully.

Last Question . . . Isn't it dangerous to descend to published approach minimums?

There is a risk to any instrument flight. But like everything else in aviation, risks are known and they are manageable. The most significant risk management tool we have when descending to published minimums is - the "missed approach procedure." This tool is activated any time the performance requirements of the published approach procedure are not met. In other words, if you are not stabilized on the approach, with needles centered by the 1,000' AGL point on the approach, my practice . . . and the practice used by most airlines is . . . apply power, climb and follow the published missed approach procedure.

If you are stabilized at the 1,000' AGL (generally just inside the final approach fix), flaps and gear down, speed set, and trimmed, the remainder of the approach - right down to published minimums - is a "walk in the park!" If not - GET OUT OF DODGE - NOW! Call missed and fly the published or previously issued missed approach procedure.

There is only one last thing to maintain . . . and that is your HEAD! Armed with the confidence that you've been properly taught and you are current, your mental stress level will be minimal . . . in fact, calm if you are REALLY current! If you do not have this confidence, for reasons cited above, then get it - or apply that black magic marker to the reverse side of your pilot certificate!

Would you like to receive Over the Airwaves at BOTH your home and office? Simply click HERE and add a second address. That way, Over the Airwaves will be waiting for you wherever you go!

This is a new section of Over the Airwaves that will be devoted to debunking some of the things we pilots believe or do . . . for no reason other than this was the way we were told to do it. Aviation is filled with Old Wives' Tales (OWTs). Most are harmless, but others are actually harmful. Examples include: (1) never running over square . . . which pertains to manifold pressure and RPM; (2) operating engines too lean . . . this one is a real troublemaker; (3) using only Airman's Breathing Oxygen (ABO) instead of less expensive welders' O2, and (4) performing engine run-ups into the wind!

Let's take a look at # 4: Performing Engine Run-ups into the Wind: This OWT is easy to spot. The hapless pilots pulls into the run-up area, then turns his airplane into the wind as he performs his pre-flight check. Why: Whoever taught him to do this?

There is simply no logic or data to support the wisdom of turning into the wind before doing the run-up. When asked why they do this, pilots often say, "Well . . . it helps to cool the engine." Others say that "it keeps stones and other debris from kicking up into the spinning prop."

Huh?? Did you ever stand behind an airplane doing a run up? The prop wash blows at least 70 miles per hour. This is far faster than any wind blowing over the airport! Any cooling the engine receives comes from the prop wash . . . not the wind blowing across the airport. As for stones or debris, if there are stones and debris under the spinning propeller, they'll be kicked up into the prop regardless of the wind direction.

I've even heard some say they turn into the wind to avoid placing undue stress on the spinning propeller caused by diverging winds on the ramp! Whoa . . . if these divergent winds are so great to bend a spinning propeller . . . you better bolt the airplane to the ground instead of flying!

The only possible source of this OWT could be from a light, tail-wheel airplane pilot who, as a matter of necessity, must keep his airplane pointed in the direction of excessive winds. But this behavior has little to do with run-ups into the wind.

If you point the airplane into the winds when doing a run-up, you're likely to be sitting with your back to the landing traffic instead of the arrival end where you can and should be viewing inbound traffic. The only time I want my back to the arriving traffic is when I'm on the take off roll. See the hazards here?

Here's a worse problem. Imagine waiting in line for take-off when, suddenly, your control yoke smashes you and your co-pilot in the chest. This happened to me several months ago at a small airport in Virginia. When I looked around to see what caused this unnerving event, I saw another Cessna 210 up close to my tail, but facing in the opposite direction (into the wind). The prop wash from his 300 horsepower engine doing a run-up caught my elevator, rudder, and ailerons with attention getting force! Talk about road rage. If I wasn't next in line for departure, I can assure you we would have had words!

Perhaps there is some basis for this OWT. If you know of one, or you are a practitioner of this procedure, please enlighten me. I'll be sure to pass it on to our readers.

Just a Word About Your Prop Wash: Did you know that a pilot is responsible, financially, for any damage caused by his prop wash! If your prop wash causes an object to blow across a ramp and smack into another airplane . . . or person, you can expect to pay for the damages!

Note: If you have comments or questions regarding this article, please send them to me by clicking HERE.

Okay . . . if you are cyberspace-savvy enough to be reading this, you REALLY need to be using AOPA's Online Flight Planner for your next trip. Powered by Jeppessen, the is the most sophisticated, yet highly user-friendly computerized flight planner available anywhere . . . and it's FREE!

It takes about 30 seconds to download the necessary software (using a high speed connection). It automatically places an icon on your desktop. Fire it up, enter your pilot and airplane data along with your DUATS username and password. That's all there is to it.

When you are ready to take a trip, click on the flight planner icon on your desktop. Then click on the new flight plan button. Enter your departure and destination airports. A full color flight map will appear on the screen. Hit the weather button and you'll receive a printable weather briefing, AND you can watch the current weather appear on your route map. Click on the File Flight Plan button and instantly file your flight plan. A printable navigation log will give you all your fuel burn, time enroute and ETA information.

Click HERE to obtain your free DUATS username and password (necessary to use the AOPA Online Flight Planner).

You need to be an AOPA member to use this software. Membership is just $39/year. This is one of the best bargains in aviation. Click HERE to learn more about AOPA membership benefits.

I recently inherited a primary flight student from another local instructor. As I always do, I asked him why he decided to switch flight instructors. His reply was nearly identical to my other inherited students. He said, "I started taking flight lessons because I thought it would be fun. Instead, we spent the entire first lesson in the instructor's office. He lectured me about the basic principles of flight . . . . when all I wanted to do was fly!"

Upon further inquiry, this student summarized his first few actual flight lessons. He said, "My instructor took me into a practice area where he drilled me on various flight maneuvers. I felt like an adolescent piano student being drilled on basic exercise scales!"

How sad, I thought. This poor fellow quite reasonably expected to ENJOY the process of learning to fly. Instead, his instructor beat him up on theory and dull exercises. Fortunately, this disappointed flight student elected to switch flight instructors instead of quitting altogether . . . .

Don't get me wrong . . . there is a great deal of theory to be learned and basic maneuvers to be mastered, but the process can be made enjoyable. For example, instead of conducting the first lesson in the office, my first flight with a new student is typically a cross-country flight to an airport with a nearby restaurant. We try to do as much sight-seeing along the way . . . with the student at the controls the entire time. We swoop down low along the lake shore, circle over Niagara Falls, and with a tower enroute clearance (TEC) , we climb up through overcast skies and feel the warmth of bright sunshine.

Upon landing at our destination airport, we talk theory as we walk to the restaurant . . . have a hamburger or whatever, and continue chatting about why he or she decided to take flight lessons. My sole objective during this first lessen is to reinforce the new student's expectation that learning to fly is fun! I know that as long as he or she sees the learning process as fun, he will successfully complete the training process and receive his certificate. More importantly, he or she will become a life long pilot-learner. He or she will pursue advanced ratings and ultimately become a highly skilled, proficient pilot - rather than just a collector of ratings.

I cannot say that I've never lost a student prematurely . . . but it is a rarity! By keeping flight instruction fun, the student finds it difficult to distinguish between actual training and enjoyment. Circling Niagara Falls is an effective way to teach steep turns. Swooping down low along the lakeshore imparts a better understanding of minimum safe altitudes. Punching up through the clouds on "Lesson One" illustrates the importance of the instrument panel. More importantly, it instills the importance of the instrument rating.

Fun learning works with the Instrument and Commercial Ratings, Bi-Annual Flight Reviews (BFRs) and Instrument Proficiency Checks (IPCs) as well. . .

Every training flight should have entertainment value. Hey . . . we're not preparing military pilots for combat! We use airplanes to go someplace . . . rather than turning circles in the practice area. Our training flights go to Cleveland Hopkins Airport, JKF International in New York, Greater Pittsburgh . . . or Dayton, OH to visit the U.S. Air Force Museum.

If YOU are not enjoying your flight training, discuss this short article with your instructor. If he or she refuses to change, then seek alternative flight training options. It's your money - you call the shots. Never forget that!

Truth time . . . when you pre-flight your aircraft for winter IFR flight, do you regularly switch on the master and pitot heat switch, then get out of the airplane and walk around to the pitot heat tube to feel the heat? Do you know how hot it should be?

If you answered "NO" to either of these questions, you'll find the NTSB crash investigation report, below, to be of chilling (no pun) interest!

The aircraft was on an IFR clearance and climbing through a cloud layer when it broke up in flight following an in-flight upset.

The weather conditions included multiple cloud layers from 4,000 to 13,000 feet, with a freezing level around 7,000 feet msl. An AIRMET was in effect for occasional moderate rime to mixed icing-in-clouds and in-precipitation below 18,000 feet. As the airplane began to intercept a victor airway, climbing at about 2,000 feet per minute (fpm), and passing through 6,700 feet, the airplane began a series of heading and altitude changes that were not consistent with its ATC clearances. The airplane turned right and climbed to 8,600 feet, then turned left and descended to 8,000 feet. The airplane then turned right and climbed to 8,500 feet, where it began a rapidly descending right turn.

At 1034:33, as the aircraft was descending through 7,000 feet, the pilot advised ATC "four Juliet victor I just lost my needle give me..." No further transmissions were received from the accident airplane and the last radar return showed it descending through 3,200 feet at about 11,000 fpm.

Ground witnesses saw the airplane come out of the clouds in a high speed spiral descent just before it broke up about 1,000 feet agl. Examination of the wreckage showed that all structural failures were the result of overload. The aircraft was equipped for flight into known icing conditions, with heated pitot tubes (left and right sides), static sources, and stall warning vanes.

During the on-scene cockpit examination, except for the pitot heat switches, the cockpit controls and switches were found to be configured in positions consistent with the aircraft's phase of flight prior to the in-flight upset. The right pitot heat switch was found in the ON position, while the left switch was in the OFF position. The left pitot heat switch toggle lever was noticeably displaced to the left by impact with an object in the cockpit. With the exception of the left pitot heat, the anit-ice and deice system switches were all configured for flight in icing conditions.

The pitot heat switches, noted to be of the circuit breaker type (functions as both a toggle switch and circuit breaker), were removed from the panel and sent to a laboratory for examination and testing. Low power stereoscopic examination of the switches found that the right switch was intact, while the toggle lever mechanism of the left switch was broken loose from the housing. Microscopic examination of the left switches housing fracture surface revealed imbedded debris and wear marks indicative of an old fracture predating the accident. The electrical contact resistance measurements of the left switch varied between 0.3 and 1.4 ohms, and was noted to be intermittently open with the switch in the ON position.

Both switches were then disassembled. While particulate debris was found in both switches, the left one had a significant amount of large coarse fibrous lint-like debris. The flexible copper conductor of the left switches circuit breaker section had several broken strands, and the electrical contacts were dirty. The laboratory report concluded that the left switches toggle was bent to the left in the impact sequence; however, the housing fracture predated the accident and allowed an internal build-up of large coarse fibrous lint-like debris. The combined effects of the broken housing, the resulting misalignment of the toggle mechanism, the dirty contacts, and the large coarse lint debris prevented reliable electrical switching of the device and presented the opportunity for intermittently open electrical contacts. Continuity of the plumbing from the pitot tubes and static ports to their respective instruments was verified. Electrical continuity was established from the bus power sources through the circuit breakers and switches to the heating elements of the pitot tubes and static sources. The heating elements were connected to a 12-volt battery and the operation of the heating elements verified.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: the pilot's loss of control and resulting exceedence of the design stress limits of the aircraft, which led to an in-flight structural failure. The pilot's loss of control was due in part to the loss of primary airspeed reference resulting from pitot tube icing, which was caused by the internal failure of the pitot heat switch. Factors in the accident were the pilot's distraction caused by the airspeed reading anomaly and spatial disorientation.

Comment: Read the probable cause(s) again, carefully. Note that (1) pitot tube icing caused an airspeed reading anomaly, that (2) caused the pilot's distraction, that (3) led to spatial disorientation . . . then (4) the crash. Here is a classic "accident chain of events" that, if any link in the chain had been broken, the accident could have been prevented.

What was the first link in this accident chain? You're right. It was the pilot's failure to physically confirm that the pitot heat was actually working during his exterior, pre-flight inspection of the aircraft.

How about the second link in the accident chain - pilot's distraction. Airplanes fly perfectly well without an airspeed indicator. We know that airspeed is controlled by pitch and power setting, and not by the airspeed indicator.

And accident link three - spatial disorientation. This is the one that really caused the accident. Once the pilot lost his awareness of his surroundings, he was done for. Rather than properly interpreting his remaining instruments, this poor fellow began depending upon his internal senses to control the airplane . . . . right to the ground!

Click on this photo to see the full impact of this powerful weather beast bearing down of Florida this past October.

Taken by a passing weather satellite, this image reveals the enormous size of this killer hurricane.

A pilot with a "dry" instrument ticket is a pilot who has little or no experience flying in low, wet, turbulent clouds - or in any clouds at all! Instead, he or she received their instrument training "under the hood" or in a flight simulator. Plain and simple, such pilots with dry instrument tickets result from incomplete flight training.

It's one thing to buy a defective refrigerator or toaster, but it is an entirely different thing to purchase defective flight training! The bad refrigerator or toaster experience will cost you a few bucks. Defective flight training, on the other hand, could cost you your life.

The problem is, how is a student pilot to know the difference between incomplete or defective and quality flight instruction?

Answer: They cannot tell the difference . . . and this could be a major contributor factor in the 72.6 percent of all general aviation accidents that are attributed to pilot error!

I believe we can see a marked reduction in the GA accident rate by appealing to the conscience of flight schools and independent flight instructors. What they teach and how they teach it will have a direct impact on flight safety. For example, if the majority of the instrument instruction occurs with the CFII serving as a VFR safety pilot and/or simulator operator, he or she is setting their students up for failure. Strong words, yes . . . but the accident data bears them out.

A quick look in your own logbook could be revealing. If the vast majority of your instrument training was simulated (either on under the hood or in a flight simulator), you could be the victim of incomplete training!

One of the greatest joys pilots experience is leaving the drab, cold, wet drizzle on the ground by climbing up through gray clouds and emerging into clear blue sky above with the warm sun filling their cockpits. In most cases, this requires just a couple of minutes in the climb to achieve. Once there, they can fly in absolute comfort, high above the nasty weather below. Sadly, however, many instrument rated pilots are too timid to do this. Instead, they either remain on the ground or they accept the hazards of scud running through the low level, low visibility mist.

Find a qualified CFII who will provide you with a solid, in-the-clouds training experience. Get out and practice instrument approaches to published minimum weather conditions. Get down and dirty to 200' on the ILS. Experience what an 1,800 foot RVR (Runway Visual Range = 1/4 mile) really looks like. Get comfortable executing FOR REAL missed approaches.

You will learn more in three hours of solid IFR experience than you did in 20 hours of simulated IFR flight!

I know several homebuilders who are rock-solid VFR-only pilots. They never, ever intend to fly in the clouds. In fact, the airplanes they built do not have even rudimentary IFR flying instruments, e.g., needle, ball, and airspeed only.

Truth be told, these VFR purists are just as vulnerable to getting caught in the clag as anybody else. So what should they do?

Answer: Same as everybody else. Go beg, borrow, or rent an IFR capable aircraft and hire a CFII for some serious instrument training. They'll take you in the clouds and will cover up all the IFR instruments . . . leaving you only with needle, ball, and airspeed. They'll show you how to keep your wings level in the clouds using only your wet compass and how to change altitudes in the clouds using your tachometer. Most importantly, he will show how to keep your cool until finding VFR conditions.

Below are several comments received from readers concerning the most recent past issue of Over the Airwaves:

Bob, concerning check lists and flow patterns or "flows." I'm with FedEx now and have been with other Part 121 carriers as well. When the pilot flying calls for a particular checklist the crew members will do their own particular "flow" by memory and then the pilot not flying (2 man) or flight engineer (3 man) will read the check list, item by item to confirm every thing has been done. -- Dave Cidale, Federal Express Pilot

Another very thoughtful issue.. thanks, Bob; keep up the good work! -- Jeff Meyers, Executive VP, AOPA.

Hi Bob, and thanks for continuing to send "Over the Airwaves" to me. I get many different periodical concerning aviation, but yours is the one that I look forward to the most. I believe it's because what you write has a more personal aim toward me, rather than a generic all-inclusive magazine that I never read cover to cover, because of articles that just don't do a thing for me. I don't think I'll ever fly a helicopter or a Lear jet, so I'm just not interested in reading about them. I do however absorb all that you write. Thanks again, and please keep them coming. -- Jim Pawlicki, Private Pilot

#1, Vol 14 . . . best yet, Bob. -- Max Bennett, pilot

I am a retired Marine Corps Major General Naval Aviator with over 5000 hours in fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft. I received my wings in 1955 and flew most MC aircraft and helos from the easiest to the most complicated. For example; from the SNJ to the AV8B Harrier and from the Bell Bubble to the CH-53E. A friend passed the web address to me and I shall pass it on to others. There is plenty of good information on flying and safety precautions. Congratulations on the site. -- R M Cooke

For more reader endorsements of Over the Airways, click HERE.

If this issue of Over the Airwaves was forwarded to you by a friend, you can order your own free future copies of this e-publication by simply clicking HERE and completing the very brief signup form.

Over the Airwaves is not intended to be your typical training, official news, or club-type social journal. Instead, its intent is to stimulate thought, enhance aviation critical thinking skills, to encourage the strong pilot, and to disturb the weaker pilot. With this breadth of scope, Over the Airwaves will evoke a number of reactions. Please feel free to share these reactions with me by clicking HERE.