The Salinas, California-based aviation nonprofit focuses on inspiring at-risk youth to  engage in STEM education. The program has a Cessna 152 and Redbird Flight Simulations FMX AATD, which allow students to pursue a private pilot certificate. 

• READ MORE: Paying It Forward

The program also offers students an opportunity at completing ground school utilizing the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) high school curriculum.

The foundation’s $1.5 million donation, which was funded by Tom Siebel, Craig McCaw, and David Leushchen, also includes operational support for the aircraft and guaranteed job interviews for program graduates with industry partners Cirrus, CubCrafters, and Game Composites.

• READ MORE: Bob Hoover Academy Gets Redbird Simulator

“This donation is about providing hope and tangible opportunities for a better future,” Siebel said in a statement. “Salinas is a city where many young people face daunting challenges daily. We are honored to support the Bob Hoover Academy led by impassioned aviator Sean D. Tucker. They are changing lives through the magic of aviation combined with a solid education.” 

The post Donation to Expand Bob Hoover Academy Fleet appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

They will drop out of flight training when they run out of money or when life gets in the way. It can also happen with ground school—they miss a class here or there or don’t have time to study. More often than not, it is more of a slow goodbye when they become overwhelmed. 

It is a learning plateau of sorts, and a good CFI will be watching for this and be ready to reel the learner back in.

Instructor Attitude Sets the Tone

It starts with attitude. If the instructor doesn’t want to be there, neither will the learners.

To the CFIs: Ground school shouldn’t be treated like a chore or a necessary evil. 

To the learners: Yes, it will help you pass the knowledge test, but it is also there to prepare you for your time in the air. Put some effort into it, and with the help of your instructor, do flight lessons that help you better understand the concepts you learn about in class.

To the flight schools: Find a CFI who excels at and enjoys teaching ground school. Nothing turns off a learner quicker than a lazy CFI who reads slides off a screen or passages out of a book and tries to call that teaching. They need to be engaged in the delivery—and that needs to be memorable for learning to take place.

Some flight schools pay their CFIs to create and teach a 10-week course with the caveat that the participants who miss a class can drop in on that particular class in the next 10-week course for free. Give the participants a six-month window to do these makeup classes.

This works best when the ground schools are run several times a year, provided they have enough learners to make it economically feasible for the flight school. I have taught classes with as few as five and as many as 12 learners.

The pace of the class should be to accommodate the slowest learner. It will take the CFI about two weeks to determine who that is.

To the CFI: Be ready to give that person extra assistance (privately) if needed, as there are fewer worse feelings than being left behind academically. Understand that talking is not teaching any more than throwing food at someone is getting them to eat.

Ask questions of the learners to see if the message delivered is the one received. If it isn’t, be ready to rephrase

Train the trainers 

It can be beneficial for CFI candidates to shadow the lead CFI, and open this opportunity to the inexperienced CFIs or even a commercial soon-to-be CFI candidate.

The CFI who is leading the course assigns the student-teacher a topic—for example, weight and balance or hazardous weather. The leading CFI is still in charge and will oversee the lesson to make sure all the elements are addressed, but it is a great opportunity for an up-and-comer to gain teaching experience.

Take the Initiative to Teach Ground

If your flight school does not have an established face-to-face ground school class, perhaps you can take the initiative and create one?

You don’t have to hold a CFI certificate to do this. You can become a ground instructor by passing the advanced ground instructor (AGI) knowledge test.

There is a basic ground instructor certificate, but if you want to pursue Gold Seal certification (the FAA’s way of saying you know your stuff), you will need to have an AGI, so why not get it now? The material on these tests is similar to that required of the private pilot and commercial pilot candidates. Once you pass the AGI exam, you can begin teaching ground school.

This nugget of knowledge comes from Greg Brown’s The Savvy Flight Instructor. Brown was flight instructor of the year in 2000 and inducted into the Flight Instructor Hall of Fame in 2021.

Brown became my mentor after I heard him speak at a convention. His book is required reading for all the CFI candidates I work with, because it provides guidance on how to achieve professionalism and to market and prepare yourself to be an aviation educator. If you are on the instructor track, read this book.

Initiative: Master Level

When you don’t have a CFI certificate or experience as a teacher, it can be difficult to find a location that will hire you as a ground instructor. Don’t let that stop you.

Have some business cards made and market yourself as a tutor for those in pursuit of their flight review. The ground portion can often be very daunting if it has been a few years since they were involved in aviation.

This is how I started my instructor career. I began tutoring a friend in a Starbucks on Saturday mornings. I carried a small whiteboard, a sectional, an E6-B, etc. Another customer who recognized the tools of the trade asked if I would tutor him for his flight review.

This continued, and soon I had a small ground school going in the corner on Saturday mornings. I would tip the baristas in advance, and everyone would order coffee for the two hours we were together. It helped pay for my CFI flying lessons and develop my teaching skills.

The post The Art of Ground School appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

It’s been the catch phrase used everywhere the last few years, and it has become the gold standard of top quality aircraft or those so realistic and so well designed that you could study them to obtain actual type ratings and pass an initial course.

Most add-ons are of simpler design and varying levels of quality, but over the years, these study level aircraft for the Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS20) and X-Plane 12 (XP12) platforms have grown in numbers.

I am old enough to remember the old fighter sim called Falcon 4.0 in the late 1980s and early ’90s. It came with a thick paper manual that felt like a novel. I miss those days of real boxes, manuals, and reading material.

Some of the most detailed aircraft add-ons come loaded with PDFs to study, and some have nothing at all, leaving it up to the customer to go online or just obtain the actual real aircraft’s study manuals. It seems lazy to not bother to publish a manual for an aircraft release, but then again, if it’s so realistic that the only PDF says “go obtain a real Airbus A320 POH” for more information, I’m sold. If something is that good and complete, then I think the developer is allowed to be lazy, or perhaps a bit big braggish.

Most commercial pilots, or experienced aviators in general, were dismissive of flight sims at home. Twenty years ago, I was embarrassed to come out of the sim closet for I’d be a victim of skepticism or at least a target of laughter. “No flight sim can do anything close to what ‘real pilots’ deal with in Level D sims,” I was often told. Or, I’d hear, “Oh, yeah, that little Microsoft Flight Simulator, I played with it once. It looked like a cartoon, so that won’t help anybody.”

• READ MORE: Turn Up the Heat in Sims With Density Altitude Games

This is what every older-and-bolder, gray-haired retired airline pilot said when seated to my left.

Now that I have gray hair, I am all too happy to encourage the younger generation to get active with sims when they aren’t flying the real thing. It’s also accepted among almost all real pilots I know as a really useful tool now that photorealistic graphics are everywhere and far exceed the quality of a $20 million sim the FAA approves. For as little as $2,000, you can rival those simulators at home.

I am not going to mention every study level aircraft available—that would require a book.

Yet over the years before and even right through MSFS2020 and XP12, several come to mind and most are quite famous and have been around for a long time:

Precision Manuals Development Group

The company has been around since the early 1990s. It’s the longest add-on group ever for any sim, and in my opinion, the finest. Everything about it is study level.

Its entire Boeing products are the gold standard of what an add-on should be, and nobody has rivaled it in producing a Boeing 737NG, 747-400, or 777. Now since the release of MSFS2020, we have been enjoying the entire 737NG set, including BBJ. Almost every system, failures, controls accuracy, autopilot, performance, switchology, sounds, visuals, etc. have all been reproduced perfectly.

• READ MORE: The Art of Simulated Long-Haul Flying

Years of development for just one airframe. You’d ace a type rating in the real aircraft after spending time with PMDG products. I wish I could go get a 737 type rating just to test this theory myself. I feel I know no other aircraft as well as this one, due to my years with PMDG 737s. Now, we are about to get its 777 finally after years of waiting patiently. It will be released this year and continue the outrageous quality and realism we all crave from a company that really only releases masterpieces.

Fenix

This company is a new entrant that stormed onto the stage just last year with its completely detailed A320 for MSFS2020. Upon release, it quickly became accepted as the most detailed Airbus for any sim platform.

In my opinion, the early release suffered from performance and frame rate issues as it couldn’t compare to the smoothness and fidelity of the PMDG lineup. But a year later, with all the refinements and the recent release of the update or Block 2, it is now a masterpiece. Detailed systems right down to individual circuit breakers are modeled. Engine modeling and accuracy is key. All that has been done, and now the IAE version is included, each with its own systems, sounds, and realistic performance.

• READ MORE: Taking Risks at a Trio of Mount Rainier Airstrips, Virtually

Some say it has blown past the PMDG. Whatever the opinion, I share the zeal. It’s smooth, precise, and many real airbus pilots online tout it as basically perfect. A true study level that you’d absolutely use during type rating school. I’ve enjoyed flying it now, as much as I have over the years with the PMDG lineup.

SimMarket

This company sells the Maddog MD82 for MSFS2020. I am not as familiar with the older airliners, so I will defer to the majority of sim fans online holding this up to the level of the Fenix.

For MD fans, this is also a real keeper. It represents a blend of systems modeling and accuracy all from the later ’70s to later ’80s replicated at a high level. In a battle for the top, this is often referred to as the best airliner ever made for MSFS2020. I’ll have to learn it better to give my own opinions, as I have used it little, never being a Maddog fan. But I see the reviews touting it as in the top few airliners ever released.

X-Plane

It has the outrageously in-depth Felis 747-200 series for the X-Plane sim. It is one of the most complete jetliner simulation add-ons I have ever used—from nose to tail. This is one of the reasons I still use XP12.

I cannot say enough about this masterpiece other than I wish it was available on MSFS2020 as well. You need to be three pilots at once to handle this beast. Setting up view points is key, as you’ll not only be pilot and copilot but flight engineer as well, often manipulating the systems as you sit sideways. You can feel the quality, heaviness, and momentum.

X-Aviation

The company sells the most renowned and sought-after bizjet for any sim, the Hot Start Challenger 650. This completely study level jet is once again simulating entire circuit breakers from head to tail. Setting the bar so exceedingly high, it’ll be what all future bizjets are compared to.

Sadly, only X-Plane 12 has it, but again, that’s another reason I still use it. The accuracy, realism, handling, etc. is all spot on. I fly a similar aircraft in real life and find this exceptionally close to the real thing. Again, it’s a type rating quality example to learn from. Many have called it the best jet ever designed for any sim, and it’s impossible to disagree. It certainly rivals the airliners above in total quality and experience.

Flysimware

It has a Learjet 35A that was recently released in “early access.” I have featured this in many an article so far, and it is well on its way to what I would call an honorable mention study level aircraft.

Its blueprint quality visuals, scaled parts, and cockpit clarity make this a winner right out of the gate. I’ve never seen such a beautiful reproduction in an early access or beta-style release. The flight quality, accurate avionics, sounds, and more make this a really promising product when the final version comes out.

It is the best pure bizjet built specifically for the MSFS2020 lineup so far. Let’s leave the jetliners behind now, as accuracy and study level can go down a category and be just as advanced.

A2A Simulations

The company has the 1960s Piper Comanche 250 featuring its coveted Accu-Sim 2.0 technology to bring a living, breathing aircraft to your desktop. This example must be run as gently as a real one, maintained and babied, or else face what real owners face: expensive repair bills.

You can damage and destroy the airplane if you’re a ham-fisted pilot. The aircraft requires a full preflight and walk-around inspection. You can test the fuel and do everything a real pilot would during a flight.

Continually monitoring its wear and tear, systems, and cleanliness is all part of this intensely realistic model that keeps its constant state alive, meaning it will remember its health on a continual basis, even if you fly something else in between on different days. You even get to perform an overhaul and other yearly tasks.

This airplane has quite a following and has been labeled by many as the best general aviation aircraft ever designed for any sim. I believe A2A is leveraging its AccuSim technology to future releases, and it certainly has captured the immersion of owning, operating, and maintaining a personal airplane like no other.

Conclusion

These are all my experiences with what I own and fly in the sim world. Your opinions may vary, especially when you get into the smaller airplanes as it’s much easier to simulate a simple single-engine in study level than an airliner.

In some ways, many of the default or add-ons for GA are close to this namesake already. A basic default Cessna will accelerate any new student pilot right to the top. The graphics of MSFS2020 and XP12 aircraft are good enough and photorealistic enough to permanently lodge in the brain of anyone learning to fly and stay current.

It’s a great time to study and learn in today’s flight sim environment. Compared to what we had in 1981, everything now is study level.

This feature first appeared in the Summer 2024 Ultimate Issue print edition.

The post Ultimate Issue: Taking Sim to a New Level appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“Thank goodness you use paper,” he said, going on to tell me that he wanted to learn using paper sectionals and navlogs, and once he mastered those, he might move into using an electronic flight bag (EFB).

He said he wanted to learn to use analog tools because that’s how he processed information best. Also, he said he knew devices could fail or go missing, and if you don’t have an analog backup, the mission would be over. He worked in the tech industry (space flight), where equipment and technology failures are planned for.

I have no problem teaching with paper. With primary learners, I prefer it, as learning to flight plan the “old-school” way provides a good base on which technology can be added at a later date.

According to multiple CFIs and DPEs I know, many pilots who are solely training using EFBs and an app for their cross-country planning are often weak in the elements of a VFR flight plan because they never learned how to do it beyond putting information into a computer and letting the app do its magic. They often do not understand where the data comes from, which makes it difficult to know if it is corrupt or incorrect for the given situation.

The Airman Certification Standards (ACS) note that the EFB is permitted, as the focus of that portion is that the applicant “demonstrate satisfactory knowledge of cross-country flight planning.” That includes route planning, airspace, selection of appropriate and available navigation/communication systems and facilities, altitude accounting for terrain, effects of wind, time to climb and descent rates, true course, distances, true heading, true airspeed and ground speed, estimated time of arrival, fuel requirements, and all other elements of a VFR flight plan.

It’s difficult to learn this past rote memory when the computer does all the planning for you. This is why many CFIs opt to teach both methods, and often begin with the basics, a paper sectional and looking out the window before adding in the use of the EFB. 

Analog Cross-Country Flight Planning

Flight planning begins with a paper sectional, navlog, plotter, and mechanical E6-B. I’m a fan of the E6-B because the wind side is very useful for determining crosswind components.

The instructions for the use of the device are printed on it. All the calculations are basically math story problems, and the instructions walk you through the process. The plotter also has instructions printed on it. The informational boxes on the paper navlog are labeled so you know where to put the information.

The lesson begins with reading the empty navlog. The CFI explains the terms true course, variation, magnetic heading, deviation, and compass heading. Now flip over the E6-B to the wind side, where the formulas for calculating this information are printed. Identify the directions for determining ground speed and wind-correction angle, noting that process is also printed on the device. 

• READ MORE: How To Use a E6B Flight Computer

Now it’s time to spread out the sectional and get to work, picking landmarks to use as check points for pilotage, determining the true course, finding the deviation, etc. The filling out of the navlog begins with the recording of the checkpoints and measuring distances between them. Put this information in the appropriate boxes. Always do this process in pencil and have an eraser handy.

Make sure the destination meets the definition of a cross-country flight for the certificate you seek. For private pilot airplane, it is 50 nm straight-line distance, and for sport pilots, 25 nm. Be sure you are using the correct scale on the plotter. 

I walk the learners through the first two lines of the navlog. This takes them from the departure airport to the top of climb, and then the first leg of the flight. Once the navlog is filled out, we go to the performance section of the POH to determine true airspeed (TAS), fuel burn, and time to climb. 

• READ MORE: Make Friends With the E6B

The wind side of the mechanical E6-B  is used to determine the wind correction angle. Pro tip: if you will be using more than one set of wind values for the flight, give them distinct symbols on the E6-B, such as an “X” for the winds at 3,000 feet and a “dot” for the winds at 6,000 feet.

Make sure to note the winds and the symbol on the navlog and do not erase the wind marks until after the completion of the flight. This is important, because if you need to divert (and you will have to demonstrate this on your check ride), you don’t want to lose time re-marking the wind dot on the E6-B.

Many learners find analog flight planning fun. There certainly is a sense of accomplishment after you’ve learned what makes a good checkpoint, how to measure the distances, determine aircraft performance and— the big kahuna— how to “spin the winds” on the mechanical E6-B to determine ground speed and time en route. Yes, those instructions are printed on the face of the device.

Applicants, please make sure you can navigate when technology—particularly the GPS—is taken away. By the way, DPEs are permitted to fail devices during the check ride. Fair warning: Don’t be the applicant who pulls out a second iPad or cell phone as backup because you’re missing the point. 

Putting all your eggs in the tech basket isn’t going to help when the iPad overheats, there is a signal outage, or the device is otherwise rendered unusable. If you don’t have the ability to navigate by pilotage or the compass, are you really qualified to be in that cockpit?

Benefits of the EFB

The EFB is more environmentally friendly than paper charts and sectional because you don’t have to cut down trees to get the information. Updating the information is easier as it can be done with a keystroke rather than a purchase, and it creates a more organized cockpit as the tablet stores the information and it can be accessed with a swipe of a finger rather than doing an advanced yoga pose in flight to reach for your flight bag.

The tablets come in several sizes, and there are many options for mounting them, including yoke or kneeboard. I’m not a fan of the suction-cup-on-the-windscreen method as that blocks part of your view outside.

If you opt for a yoke-mounted unit, make sure it doesn’t interrupt the travel of the yoke or stick or put the aircraft in a permanent bank. There are some tablets that are just too large for the cockpit. If you opt for a kneeboard-mounted device, make sure your kneeboard holds it securely and the kneeboard stays in place.

• READ MORE: Who Wins the Battle of the Aviation Kneeboards?

As far as  data plans for navigation applications, you may find that the annual cost is competitive with that of replacing the paper sectionals and chart supplements.

The EFB is a wonderful tool, but like all tools it can be misused. It shouldn’t become a crutch for the pilot who has forgotten how to read a sectional because of disuse. Don’t be that pilot who becomes so reliant on technology for navigation that you forget to look out the window. 

The post The Wisdom in Not Putting All Your Eggs in the Tech Basket appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In 1935, the major airlines in the U.S. had a problem. They had contributed $100,000 each for Douglas Aircraft to develop a four-engine successor to the two-engine DC-3. But it was clear that the new DC-4 had problems and would be delayed. So they dropped out of the program and TWA (Transcontinental & Western Air) approached Boeing Corp. to see if it could adapt its promising new B-17 bomber into a passenger plane.

Keeping the B-17’s wings, tail, engines, and landing gear, Boeing designed a new cigar-shaped pressurized fuselage, and the result was the Boeing 307 Stratoliner. I’m here at Chicago Midway Airport (KMDW) in June 1940, where one of the five brand-new Stratoliners just delivered to TWA is preparing for the next leg of its regular service from New York to Los Angeles.

For anyone acquainted with the silhouette of the famous B-17, the Stratoliner should look strikingly familiar.

Because of its wider fuselage, the Boeing 307 has a slightly larger wingspan (107 feet, 3 inches versus. 103 feet, 9 inches), with exactly the same length (74 feet, 4 inches). The wings are metal and contain three fuel tanks each, carrying a total of 1,700 gallons. The flaps are also metal and powered electrically. The ailerons, however, are fabric over a steel skeleton to reduce the physical force the pilot has to exert to move them. The elevators and rudder are the same. They are all entirely mechanical controls that rely on the pilot’s physical strength to manipulate—no hydraulics.

The prototype of the Stratoliner actually stalled and went into a spin in March 1939, crashing and killing 10 aboard. The problem turned out to be the tail, which was redesigned and incorporated into all subsequent B-17s from that point on.

The landing gear—the same as on the B-17—are raised and lowered by the hydraulics system, which also powers the brakes. When raised the wheels still protrude enough from the bottom side of the wing to cushion a belly landing.

Just like the B-17, the Stratoliner is powered by four Wright GR-1820 Cyclone air-cooled 9-cylinder radial engines with a supercharger to perform at higher altitudes and variable-pitch propellers. They produced slightly less horsepower (1,100) than the variant used on the B-17.

The Stratoliner’s five-person crew consists of a pilot, copilot, and flight engineer, along with two flight attendants. There is also a fourth seat for a navigator in the cockpit. Directly in front of the pilot and the copilot is a typical “six-pack” of instruments, though the arrangement is not yet standardized. To the left is a radio altimeter to gauge agl—helpful when flying over mountainous terrain.

On the overhead panel are radio navigation instruments and the switches for starting the engines and turning on lights. At bottom left, an anachronistically modern autopilot had been installed. We won’t be using the modern autopilot, but instead the Sperry Gyropilot appropriate to the period, located in the center of the center panel. Above it are the engine gauges showing manifold pressure and rpm, and below are the engine temperature gauges.

The power controls—in fours, one for each engine—are on the central pedestal, where both pilots can reach them. Black is throttle, red fuel mixture, and blue propeller rpm. The large white knob locks the tailwheel in place, and the small white one turns on the Sperry Gyropilot.

The Stratoliner was one of the first civilian planes to have a dedicated flight engineer. His panel allowed him to monitor the engines, regulate the flow of fuel from different tanks (to prevent the aircraft from becoming unbalanced), and control the climate in the pressurized cabin.

The cabin could maintain a pressure of 8,000 feet—similar to a modern airliner—up to 16,000 feet. It gradually increased, however, to the equivalent of 12,000 feet when cruising at 20,000 feet—not as comfortable as today’s airliners but enough to avoid the need for supplemental oxygen.

The Stratoliner’s pressurized fuselage required extensive testing. Designers would gradually increase the pressure, covering the outside of its metal skin with soapy water and looking for bubbles indicating a leak.

Now that we’re all checked out, we can head to the main terminal to refuel and load our passengers.

This is TWA Flight 7, the “Super Sky Chief,” with cross-country service from New York LaGuardia (KLGA) to Union Air Terminal (KBUR) in Burbank, California, with three stops along the way. The entire cross-country journey takes about 15.5 hours westbound, 13.5 hours eastbound, depending on winds—about two hours faster than previously in a DC-3.

It was an overnight flight, but I’m doing it during the daytime to enjoy the scenery. It’s midmorning, and we’ve reached Chicago after starting out early from New York.

In theory, a fully fueled Stratoliner could fly a maximum range of 1,300 miles. In reality, a Stratoliner filled with passengers and luggage could only take on half that amount of fuel, significantly reducing its range. The fuel is 100-octane gasoline, exactly like a GA plane uses today.

Passengers boarding the Stratoliner enjoyed unprecedented luxury.

The sound- and vibration-proof cabin was furnished by Marshall Field’s and featured reading lights and call buttons. Separate men’s and women’s washrooms had hot and cold water. A galley in the back served hot food.

In 1940, a one-way ticket from New York to California cost $149.95, equivalent to $3,363.90 today. But a seat in one of these alcoves, which folds down to a sleeping berth, cost an extra $119.95, which works out to a total of $6,054.80 today.

Once everyone is on board, we’ll use an external power unit to start the engines one at a time to avoid draining our own battery. One by one, they roar to life.

The runway in this 1930s version of Midway is 4,925 feet long—but only half of its length is paved. At full throttle, I’m going to need almost all of it to reach my 100 mph liftoff speed. A fully loaded Stratoliner, weighing in at 45,000 pounds (20.5 tons), doesn’t soar into the air—it lumbers, not unlike the heavy bomber it’s based on.

Setting the four throttles back to 30 inches of manifold pressure and the prop levers back to 2,250 rpm, I settle in for a sustained climb. At lower altitudes, in denser air, I can maintain a climb rate of 1,000 feet per second.

The Sperry Gyropilot is simpler than a modern autopilot, but once in a climb (or in level flight), I can set to hold it. I can also indicate a desired heading and instruct the plane to bank toward it. This is the same autopilot used in the B-17 that could be linked to the bombardier’s Norden bomb site to guide the plane to its bombing target.

My target cruising altitude is 20,000 feet. As I climb in altitude, the air thins. Normally this would reduce the power produced by my piston engines, but the supercharger compresses the air to give them a boost. But the supercharger can’t completely compensate, and I begin to notice the manifold pressure, even under full throttle, starting to weaken above 10,000 feet.

I have to pull my climb rate back to 500 feet per minute to avoid a stall. I was unable to find any detailed instructions on how to lean the fuel mixture of a Stratoliner—or a B-17 for that matter—so I left the handles on “auto-rich.”

The Stratoliner is capable of climbing up to 24,000 feet, but at that altitude it would be unable to maintain a comfortable cabin pressure and passengers would need supplemental oxygen. So I’m leveling off at 20,000 feet and pulling the throttles back to 23 inches of mercury and rpm back to 2,000. At first I’m a little perplexed by the indicated airspeed—just 160 mph. But then I adjust for air pressure and temperature, and my true airspeed is 225 mph—right on target.

Technically, the Stratoliner didn’t reach the stratosphere, a layer of the atmosphere that begins around 33,000 feet above the continental U.S. But it flew a lot higher than previous airliners.

Without a pressurized cabin, a DC-3 carrying passengers could only cruise at 8,000-10,000 feet above sea level. At twice that altitude, the Stratoliner was able to avoid much of the turbulence encountered flying so low over the Rocky Mountains. Even so, the Super Sky Chief followed a southern route that avoided the highest mountains.

Our course is set for 240 degrees west southwest—next stop Kansas City, Missouri.

It’s midafternoon now, and after stopping at Kansas City we’re on our way to Albuquerque, New Mexico. We’re back at 20,000 feet above sea level, but the land below us has risen several thousand feet in elevation. We’re comfortably above the summer rain clouds that have formed over the plains of eastern Colorado. A DC-3, in contrast, would find itself flying right through them—a jostling experience.

The Stratoliner can’t fly over all weather—major thunderstorm clouds can rise to 30,000 or 40,000 feet. But since we can easily fly over the relatively lower mountains on this southern route, we don’t have to fear that the mountain passes a DC-3 must take will be blocked by storms.

At 7:30 p.m. local time, with the summer sun nearly setting, we reached the outskirts of Los Angeles with the Pacific Ocean visible in the distance. We’ve flown for 15.5 hours but gained three hours heading west.

I pull back the throttles to descend, while pushing the prop levers full forward, in case of an emergency go-around. My target approach speed is 140 mph. Putting in the flaps reduces my stall speed, so I can land at around 90-100 mph. But it also adds a lot of drag, as does lowering the landing gear. I find I need to add back significant throttle to maintain speed.

Over the runway, I pull the throttles back to idle and flare to a gentle three-point landing. I make sure my tailwheel is locked, so I don’t wobble all over the runway. I’m landing on the modern runway at Union Air Terminal, now Hollywood Burbank Airport (KBUR), and it’s 5,800 feet long. I need almost all of it for my brakes to bring me to a complete stop.

As I mentioned, TWA bought five Stratoliners for service. Howard Hughes, the aviation-obsessed oil and Hollywood tycoon who bought control of the airline in 1939, purchased another Stratoliner all for himself for a reported $315,000 ($6.5 million today’s). It was actually the first Stratoliner delivered to a customer in July 1939.

Originally Hughes planned to use it to beat his own record flying around the world, set the previous year in a Lockheed Super Electra. But the outbreak of war in Europe scuttled his plans.

Hughes put the plane into storage, and then after the war—on the advice of actress-girlfriend Rita Hayworth—converted it into a private luxury airliner, the first of its kind, dubbed The Flying Penthouse. He tried to sell it to another tycoon, but the deal fell through and Hughes ended up stuck with it.

The cabin of The Flying Penthouse was luxurious, the forerunner of today’s private airliners owned by Arab oil sheiks. However, as Hughes drifted into eccentricity, the plane was rarely flown, and in 1965 it was damaged in a hurricane. Someone bought it for $69 and turned the fuselage into a boat.

Eventually a Florida man ended up living in it as a houseboat, dubbing it the Cosmic Muffin. In 2016, the houseboat owner donated the fuselage to the Florida Air Museum in Lakeland. But plans to refurbish it ran into difficulties, and it is currently still looking for a home.

Besides TWA and Hughes, the Stratoliner had a third buyer. Pan Am ordered three Boeing 307s to augment its “Clipper” service across Latin America. While Pan Am in this era is famous for its “China Clipper” flying boats across the Pacific, the core of its business stretched across the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, as this colorful route map from 1940 illustrates.

The toughest parts of the network involved flying (via Lake Titicaca) to La Paz on Bolivia’s high plateau, and the link between the two southmost destinations (Santiago, Chile, and Buenos Aires, Argentina) over the Andes.

We’re taking off from the modern-day airport at Santiago to find out what made that latter route so challenging.

There were three Pan Am Stratoliners: the Clipper Rainbow (NC19902), the Clipper Comet (NC19910), and the one we’re flying, the Clipper Flying Cloud (NC19903). These three Pan Am Stratoliners, along with TWA’s five, Hughes’ personal plane, and the original prototype that crashed, make for a grand total of 10 Boeing 307s ever produced.

Why so few? Well, as we’ll see, first of all World War II intervened, disrupting civilian air travel and creating new, competing priorities. But even before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941, the Stratoliner was running into trouble.

For all its advantages, the Stratoliner was expensive. It cost three times as much to buy as a DC-3 but could only carry a handful more passengers. TWA actually defaulted on its initial order for six, which is why the deliveries were delayed until 1940. The financial dispute actually contributed to Hughes snapping up the airline cheap and keeping one of the six planes for himself. 

Once purchased, the Stratoliners were expensive to maintain and repair. Their advanced systems were new and complex. They guzzled fuel. It cost a fortune just to insure them. Even though TWA saw a 50 percent increase in passenger traffic in 1940, and won headlines setting speed records with its Stratoliners, it still lost money on the service.

Dutch airline KLM considered buying as many as 18 Stratoliners but ultimately declined due to cost. Then the war broke out in Europe, and sales there were off the table completely. Pan Am initially planned to buy six Stratoliners, which it dubbed “Strato-Clippers,” but the shift to military production by 1940 made that impossible. It received just three.

Pan Am had a real use for the Boeing 307. The lowest pass between central Chile and Argentina reaches 12,566 feet and is flanked by peaks reaching 22,841 feet and 21,555 feet, respectively. No unpressurized airliner could cross this range without passengers facing serious discomfort.

The superchargers on the Pan Am Strato-Clippers were only single-speed, compared to the two-speed versions on the TWA versions, making it more challenging to reach and maintain 20,000 feet. Even at that altitude, my clearance above the peaks below is only a few thousand feet.

This would be more reassuring if I wasn’t being constantly buffeted by strong updrafts and downdrafts from the powerful winds winding their way around the mountains. I have to hand-fly the whole way, because the Stratoliner’s autopilot isn’t responsive enough to make all the quick adjustments needed to prevent a stall.

Even in a pressurized cabin, I wouldn’t want to be a passenger on this flight. 

Fortunately, we’re over the mountains and descending toward Mendoza. The airport there is at 2,310 feet, which means I need to lose a lot of altitude pretty quickly. Still, I saw I was coming in high and fast, and had to circle once to slow down and descend farther before I could make a proper approach.

The trip has taken a little over an hour and just 143 miles as the crow flies. But for all the plush furnishings, I doubt any of the passengers will be eager to repeat it anytime soon.

When the U.S. entered WWII, Pan Am continued flying its Strato-Clippers on strategically important routes in Latin America but under the direction of the U.S. military. TWA, in contrast, sold all five of its financially struggling Stratoliners to the U.S. Army Air Forces, where they were redubbed the C-75. The airline then operated them under contract for the Army.

The planes’ cabin pressurization system was removed to save weight. The expensive furnishings were torn out and replaced with simpler bunk beds and work tables. Extra fuel tanks were added to almost double their range to 2,400 miles.

Early in the war, with these modifications, the C-75s were the only planes the U.S. possessed capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean carrying any significant payload, Tough to carry passengers in any comfort, they’d have to cruise at a lower altitude. 

In February 1942, the newly converted C-75 made its debut, flying to Cairo via Brazil to deliver ammunition and spare parts to British forces fighting German general Erwin Rommel in Egypt. In March, a C-75 flew top U.S. generals, including George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower, across the North Atlantic to London and back to begin planning Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of North Africa.

Over the following months, C-75 flights over the North and South Atlantic picked up pace, ferrying VIPs and urgent cargo where they were needed overseas.

The heavier loads that the C-75 was expected to carry in military service—up to 56,000 pounds gross weight—further reduced its climb performance and put great strain on the engines, sometimes sparking fires. By 1944, the U.S. had developed newer four-engine aircraft—the C-54 (DC-4) and C-69 (Constellation)—that could do the same things, but better.

No longer needed, the Stratoliners were sold back to TWA, which refurbished them back to their luxurious former state.

After the war, however, the airlines discovered the same thing—that there were new airliners available that could fly farther, faster, and cheaper than the Stratoliner, which had shown the way. In 1951, Pan Am sold one of its Strato-Clippers, the Comet, to a local airline in Ecuador, AREA, which renamed it the Quito, to provide service between Ecuador and Miami. It later sold it to Quaker City Airlines in the U.S. for unscheduled charter flights. Plagued by maintenance issues, it was being converted to a crop duster in 1958 when it caught fire and was destroyed.

In 1951, French airline Aigle Azur bought the Pan Am Strato-Clipper Rainbow and all five TWA Stratoliners to service routes in the Mediterranean and Indochina. We’re taking off from Nice in southern France, reregistered as F-BELU, after it was assigned to the Aigle Azur subsidiary Airnautic in 1955.

Aigle Azur removed some of the fancier fittings to increase the Stratoliner’s passenger capacity from 33 to 48. While the surroundings may have been glamorous, by the late 1950s the planes were handling mainly chartered flights.

Flying conditions in Southeast Asia, as the Vietnam War raged, were dangerous and difficult. One by one, the once-glorious Stratoliners fell prey to crashes and mishaps, and were put out of commission.

Finally, there was just one.

In 1954, Pan-Am sold the Clipper Flying Cloud, which we flew over the Andes, to Haiti, which used it as its president’s version of Air Force One. Later it hauled freight back in the U.S.

In 1972, the National Air and Space Museum bought it and Boeing helped restore it. But it nearly didn’t make it to the museum. In March 2002, it ran out of fuel during a test flight and ditched in the bay off Seattle. No one was injured, and the airplane was repaired.

Today you can see it on display at the Smithsonian’s Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles International Airport (KIAD)—the last intact survivor of the 10 Stratoliners built.

If you’d like to see a version of this story with more historical photos and screenshots, you can check out my original post here.

This story was told utilizing the “Local Legends” Boeing 307 Stratoliner add-on to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020, Red Wing Simulation’s “1935” series of airports and sceneries, airport add-ons purchased from Orbx, LVFR, and Vuelosimple, and liveries and scenery downloaded for free from the flightsim.to community.

The post The Bomber That Created a Bridge to Modern Airliners appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I looked off the extended centerline hoping to see the landing light of the twin. No joy. The skies were hazy due to forest fire smoke, and the light was flat because it was late afternoon and, frankly, it was difficult to see anything.

The C-172 pilot reduced engine power and configured the aircraft for a descent. Normal procedures called for losing 200 to 300 feet of altitude then turning base when the runway was at a 45-degree angle to the aircraft.

“Do you see the twin?” I asked, because I still didn’t have a visual. 

“Nope,” the pilot said, stopping the descent. “I’m not turning base until I see him. I’m not going to do a Watsonville.”  

• READ MORE: Avoiding Mid-Airs: Safety in the Practice Area

We continued on an extended downwind for another 10 seconds, then the pilot of the C-172 decided to break off the approach and depart to the west. He told me he planned to reenter on the 45. As he rolled wings level to the west, we finally saw the twin—on short final. 

Watsonville

“Watsonville” refers to an August 2022 midair collision between a Cessna 152 and a Cessna 340A at Watsonville Municipal Airport (KWVI) in California. Three people and a dog were killed.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released the final report on the accident earlier this year. All accident reports present an opportunity to learn. What I learned from this one is that in aviation you can be doing everything right, but if someone else does something wrong, you can still get hurt. 

Deconstructing Watsonville

According to the NTSB, on August 18, 2022, around 3 p.m. PDT the pilot of the C-152 was in the pattern for Runway 20 as the pilot of the C-340A was attempting a straight in. It was a VFR day. Both pilots were communicating on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF).

The pilot of the C-152 was flying in the traffic pattern of the nontowered airport and making position reports on the airport’s CTAF. The pilot of the twin made an initial radio call 10 miles from the airport announcing his intentions to perform a straight approach for Runway 20. The pilot of the C-152 was flying the pattern for Runway 20. He made position reports as he turned on each leg of the pattern—as a well-trained pilot does. 

I listened to the  recordings of the CTAF on LiveATC.com after the event. The C-152 pilot’s radio calls were concise and informative.

Just after the pilot of the twin reported a 3-mile final, the pilot of the C-152 announced he was turning left base for Runway 20. Around 19 seconds later, the twin pilot reported that he was a mile from the airport. The last transmission of the C-152 pilot noted how quickly the larger airplane was coming up behind him and announced he was going around. 

The Cessna twin hit the C-152 from behind. The aircraft collided less than a mile from the runway at an altitude of approximately 150 feet above ground. There were several witnesses on the ground, and the collision was caught on security cameras near the airport.

The Aftermath

Investigators using ADS-B data determined the twin was at a ground speed of 180 knots, more than twice that of the C-152 on approach and considerably faster than the normal C-340A approach speed of 120 knots. 

The examination of the wreckage revealed the twin’s wing flaps and landing gear were both retracted at the time of the collision, which is consistent with the pilot’s failure to configure the airplane for landing. Normal flap extension speed for the C-340A is 160 knots, and the landing gear extension is 140 knots. Investigators noted that the faster speed reduced the pilot’s time to see the smaller aircraft. 

Witnesses on the ground reported the twin veered to the right at the last second, but it wasn’t enough to avoid the smaller, slower aircraft.

The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident to be “the failure of the pilot of the multiengine airplane to see and avoid the single-engine airplane while performing a straight-in approach for landing.”

Applying Lessons at Home

That Watsonville accident was talked about for weeks at my home airport as there are a few light twins based there. These airplanes often do straight-in approaches, or fly the RNAV 35 in VFR conditions. It is legal for them to do so. 

One of the lessons I impart is for the learners to pay attention to the make of aircraft as well as their distance from the runway during position reports. “Cessna twin” tells me that it is faster and larger than the Cessna 100 series aircraft I normally fly. Conversely, if I hear “yellow Cub,” I know to keep looking for slower traffic.

Right of Way

Clearing the area before you turn is one of the first lessons a pilot learns. It is the aviation version of look before you cross the street.

One of my best learners, an Army helicopter pilot going for her fixed wing add-on, had this down cold. She was used to flying in a multicrewed environment so she would say, “Look left, clearing left, coming left,” then make the turn. If there was another aircraft, she’d announce, “Not clear to the left, not sure if he sees me,” then she would turn to avoid the other aircraft, often taking us in the opposite direction or changing altitude. This was even if we technically had the right of way, per FAR 91.113.

FAR 91.113 states: “When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.” It is difficult to avoid the other aircraft if you don’t see them—and don’t count on ADS-B as a crutch, as some aircraft are not equipped with it. You still need to keep your eyes outside.

The details of FAR 91.113 state which aircraft have right-of-way over others. Basically, the least maneuverable, such as a glider (no engine for go-around) or airship (those things are slow), have the right of way over an airplane, unless the airplane is being towed, refueled, or is in distress. 

FAR 91.113 also states that the aircraft being overtaken has the right of way—as the C-152 did in Watsonville. But the rules don’t help if the pilot of the other aircraft doesn’t see you. 

Instead of potentially putting yourself in front of a faster, larger aircraft, take precautionary evasive action, even if you do technically have the right of way. There are a lot of rights worth dying for. Right of way is not one of them.

The post Remembering Right of Way and Steering Clear of a ‘Watsonville’ appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The student was seriously injured but survived.

The board highlighted all the precautions that flight schools and instructors should observe before sending a new pilot aloft for the first time and reminded pilots, regardless of experience, “of the importance of being vigilant upon landing to quickly detect any signs that a go-around is required, and to be able to initiate the go-around at the appropriate time.”

A video also shows just how quickly a stall/spin can develop. The report noted this airplane was only 45 feet above the ground and crashed vertically into the infield.

The student was enrolled in a first officer’s program at Orizon Aviation and had done eight touch-and-goes before the instructor got out. The student landed nosewheel first and bounced before veering off the runway.

It was at that point the student tried the go-around and barely got off the ground. An attempt to make a turn with the plane in very slow flight stalled the left wing.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post Pilot’s First Solo Ends With Stall/Spin at 45 Feet appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Since I got back into home flight simulation, I look forward to the winter as the cold weather guarantees a few more weekends that I get to spend indoors, guilt-free. The winter makes it easier to schedule a weekend afternoon flight in my flight simulator, no matter what the real weather is doing outside.

One goal I set was to begin the BVARTCC WINGS series of training flights, which are self-paced and available to be flown whenever there are live air traffic controllers from the VATSIM service controlling the Greater Boston airspace online.

To help complete the WINGS program, I set the secondary goal of learning to use the G1000 for IFR flying, with the BVARTCC WINGS flights serving as an ideal live training environment. The volunteer VATSIM air traffic controllers watch and assess each WINGS flight and issue a pass or fail rating at the end, turning each into a mini-check ride, all from the comfort of your home  simulator. The WINGS flights also require that pilots follow the correct communication and navigation procedures for transition in and out of the airspace in the Greater Boston Class Bravo.

Although many sim pilots have flown the full series of BVARTCC WINGS flights, I am always surprised at how few real-world pilots are aware that this program exists and can be completed with only a basic flight simulator.

The BVARTCC WINGS training program is broken down into six VFR flights, typically flown first, and then 24 IFR flights, all designed to be flown sequentially. As stated in the introductory reading, a BVARTCC club member may fly the flights in any order, and skip flights, but you must eventually fly all 30 flights to become a WINGS graduate.

In summer 2022, when I began the WINGS VFR flights, I decided to fly each of them in order, predicting that I would enjoy the learning and preparation required to successfully pass them. Each flight features increasing levels of difficulty requiring some studying and preflight planning before launching on them.

I found that the WINGS VFR program was an enjoyable way to knock the rust off my VFR Class D, C, and B airspace and communication skills as I prepared for the start of the WINGS IFR program. My relatively slow pace fit my learning goals and available free time, but if you take up the challenge of the WINGS program, you can choose the speed that works for you, provided you fly each flight when there are controllers actively managing the airspace.

BVARTCC publishes a schedule of controller coverage and updates its discord channel when volunteer controllers are working the airspace so you can plan ahead for your flights. When flying in the BVARTCC, you are expected to set your simulator to the live weather conditions.

Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS) and X-Plane (XP) will reference current METARs based on your departure airport, which are updated roughly every 15 minutes, and will build the weather conditions in the simulator to match the real world. Each flight simulation program has its strengths and weaknesses concerning the execution of live weather in the simulation. Your experience will vary.

• READ MORE: Here Are 2 Quick VFR Flights to Try on Your Home Flight Simulator

However, one benefit of METAR-based live weather is that you can use ForeFlight or Navigraph on your tablet or secondary screen to check the weather at your departure and destination and have confidence that you’ll experience those conditions when you are flying in-sim. Accurate winds and barometric pressure settings are important components to using live air traffic control services like VATSIM so that weather conditions you’re experiencing in the sim are the same as the controllers are referencing when assigning runways for takeoff and landing.

I also set the simulator to the current time of day so that daylight changes realistically over the course of my flight. There are some additional basic hardware and software items you should have on your PC to get the most out of flying in the BVARTCC with live air traffic control. See the “Introduction” and “Getting Started” tabs of the WINGS section of the BVARTCC website for more information.

WINGS IFR 1: Introduction to IFR

The WINGS IFR 1 is aptly titled the Introduction to IFR flying. It is the IFR equivalent to a trip around the traffic pattern at KBOS.

To successfully pass the flight, one must file and fly the LOGAN4 departure, with vectors expected to bring the aircraft around to intercept the ILS approach back to the active runway for landing. All of the taxiing and ground movement must be done correctly as well, requiring full attention from startup to shutdown. Making a major taxiing mistake would fail the flight, so my iPad running ForeFlight was prepped with the aircraft checklist, map (zoomed in for taxiing) and the ILS chart for the active runway preloaded onto the “Plates” tab.

KBOS ranks well within the top 10 busiest airports in the VATSIM system measured by total aircraft movements per year. In the real-world, KBOS is typically just inside the top 30 for all international airports, but in VATSIM, KBOS is well-liked for its dynamic New England weather and challenging wind conditions.

It also is a popular destination for sim pilots who depart from Europe and fly across the Atlantic ocean and time their flights to conclude when there’s live ATC coverage from VATSIM controllers at KBOS. Someday I hope to make that cross-ocean journey, once my IFR and widebody jet operational knowledge is at the requisite level for the undertaking.

• READ MORE: Our Pilots of the Future May Share Sim Stories

With cross-ocean goals in the back of my mind, my journey into IFR flying began at the Signature Flight Support ramp on the northwest side of KBOS as it is the main parking area for general aviation aircraft. The winds were 19kts, gusting 28kts (above my personal minimums in the real world) and the Cessna 172—the recommended aircraft for this flight—was rocking in its chocks when I began the engine start procedures.

MSFS models wind noise, and I could hear the wind blowing and the airplane creaking while I started working through the checklist. With the engine running, I checked the ATIS, dialed in the correct frequency to request my IFR clearance and patiently waited my turn to key the mic.

The volunteer controllers do a great job managing “the weekend rush” of flight sim pilots seeking to fly while the airspace is live and I did my best to bide my time between the pushback requests, taxi instructions and other sim pilots opening their IFR flight plans. There aren’t always enough volunteer controllers to completely staff a given airport or airspace, so we all do our part to share this valuable resource as the controllers often have to stretch themselves across the clearance, ground, and tower communication roles.

Sometimes there are waits to get started but I’m always comforted by the fact that no real avgas is being burned. The busy communication frequencies offer the added challenge of being succinct on the radio when it is your time to push to talk.

After 10 minutes, I found my opening, asked for and then nervously read back my clearance, certain that all the other sim pilots could hear how green I was. As instructed, I filed my flight plan before starting my flight so that the controllers had my virtual flight strip on their display ahead of time. Soon I was following the taxiing toward Runway 9 following at least six aircraft taxiing ahead of me, holding at various intersections, with more sim pilots receiving their permissions for pushback from their respective gates. I could see three aircraft in the air on final for Runway 4-Right.

Until this point, I had never experienced such a busy live flight sim environment, and it was really exciting and immersive. The frequency was jammed with controllers conducting the symphony of aircraft movement, and from listening I could tell that there were pilots from all across the world taking part in this flight simulation experience.

• READ MORE: Highlights From FlightSimExpo 2024

Accents from the United Kingdom and the southern United States mixed in with pilots from New England, the Midwest, Latin America, and Germany as well. The international and domestic mix of pilots felt and sounded just like the real KBOS on a normal day.

Passing intersection Charlie on taxiway Bravo, my Ground controller offered me a takeoff from Runway 4-Left. I fumbled for the LOGAN4 departure chart on ForeFlight to verify the amended takeoff instruction, a quick reminder that the simulated IFR flight environment can be dynamic and that I must also be ready for a change of plans.

The 4L takeoff prevented me from waiting in the growing line of airliners cueing for Runway 9. Soon I was cleared for takeoff and lifting off from 4L, fighting the gusty conditions, keeping focused on my departure heading and altitude while awaiting my first turn to heading 090. Being vectored through the busy airspace was even more exciting than my usual flight sim adventures as I could hear and see the aircraft I would be joining shortly on final approach.

The visual resolution of other traffic is not what you are accustomed to in real-world flying. Still, it is usually easy to see the navigation lights and a distant but somewhat blurry shape of the aircraft near you making see-and-avoid relatively easy. I had been handed off to Boston Approach and was soon given my final vectors to intercept the localizer for 4R.

Switching back to Boston Tower, I received my clearance to land and tried to keep my approach speed up to minimize the impact of the traffic needing to slow behind me. On short final, I could see one airliner in the air and three aircraft waiting to takeoff on Runway 9.

There would be a small audience for my landing, but I needed to shift my focus to the lateral and vertical guidance of the ILS on my G1000 PFD while trying to maintain the centerline amid a blustery winter afternoon. Although it wasn’t the smoothest landing, I was happy to be back on the ground and safely clear of 4R. Departures on Runway 9 resumed and the controller let me know I had passed the WINGS IFR 1.

Being careful to follow the taxi instructions back to the ramp at Signature, I was excited and relieved to have my first IFR flight in the books. The busy and short flight in the IFR system required my full attention, and was a fitting introduction to IFR flying. I was grateful the live weather was VFR and not at minimums.

I couldn’t have known at that time, but my next IFR flight, the WINGS IFR 2, was going to be flown in actual instrument flight conditions and would really test my rookie IFR flying skills and sim pilot decision-making.

WINGS IFR 2: VOR Navigation

To begin the WINGS IFR 2 flight, I loaded into my Cessna 172 G1000 at the Signature Flight Support ramp at Boston Logan where my WINGS IFR 1 had concluded. The weather for the afternoon flight was 3 miles visibility, light rain and ceilings around 1,000 feet, with winds at 16 knots, gusting 27 knots.

Today’s flight would take me from Boston to Providence, Rhode Island (KPVD), via the TEC route found in the FAA’s preferred route database. The purpose of the flight was to build experience navigating with the VOR radio and then land at Providence using the ILS approach onto the active runway.

Per the instructions, I filed the LOGAN4 departure, received my clearance and began my taxi. Preemptively this time, I asked the tower controller if I could depart off 4L, which would keep me out of the snarl of airliners waiting their turn for takeoff. I quickly double-checked the departure instructions, received my takeoff clearance and was soon climbing up into the soup, fighting to stay on the correct heading while being pushed around by the winds.

After a few vectored turns I was given the ATC instruction “Direct to PVD,” and turned the CRS knob on my G1000 PFD to select a radial to follow to the PVD VOR. The CDI “needle” allowed me to finetune my course to the PVD VOR, and I was on the way to Providence.

Climbing to 4,000 feet, my filed altitude, I was mostly in the clouds, occasionally getting glimpses to either side or a quick look at the sky above. It was an airborne mess of conditions I had heretofore avoided as a private pilot and as a sim pilot. The late afternoon winter sun was breaking through the clouds and the light rain on the ground at KBOS had turned to freezing rain.

I made small lateral changes to try and avoid going through thick clouds where I anticipated the rain becoming more intense. There was turbulence to contend with, and it moved the airplane around a lot, but I decided to keep hand-flying the 172 for the practice of juggling the simultaneous responsibilities of aviating, navigating and communicating with ATC.

The westerly winds I was flying against were slowing my groundspeed and the freezing rain was starting to adhere to the outside of my 172, creeping up onto the windscreen and attracting my attention. I switched on the cabin heat and pitot heat and thought about what options I had if the icing proceeded to get worse.

With the sunlight changing the color of the clouds above me, I estimated the top of the broken layer to be at 4,500 feet and figured I was one request away from a climb out into clear air, which represented my best chance for the ice to sublimate off the surfaces of the 172. ATC surprised me, letting me know there was traffic transitioning at 5,000 feet and I would need to manage at my current altitude.

I knew I had the option to declare an emergency but that would have concluded my WINGS IFR 2 flight early, without a passing grade. The icing had covered about 50 percent of my windscreen, but it was not immediately getting worse. Looking left and right, I couldn’t see a significant amount of buildup on the leading edge of the wing and still had normal control authority, so I decided to hang in there, hoping that the forecast of 5 miles visibility and a 3,000-foot ceiling at Providence was going to hold up.

The ride was not improving, and I was constantly chasing my heading and altitude in moderate turbulence. No physical discomfort in my sim cockpit, but the aircraft was moving around a lot, more than I had seen before. Having never flown in clouds for an extended amount of time, I was keeping focused on my basic instrument scan of the G1000 PFD, which included watching the attitude indicator, the altitude, the vertical speed tape, the turn coordinator arrows, and the CDI/needle of the VOR. Coming in and out of the freezing rain and into the momentary gaps of sunlight made for dynamic visuals and enhanced immersion caused by the high-fidelity winter weather modeling.

After about 30 minutes en route, I had flown over the Providence VOR and was now south of Quonset State Airport (KOQU). I was out of the cloud bank now and being given vectors to intercept the ILS for Runway 5. I had the chart loaded onto my iPad and I switched my nav radio to the correct frequency. I was vectored back to the ILS about 12 miles south of KPVD and used the extra time to think ahead of the airplane and I quickly briefed the anticipated turns and descent required to pick up the final approach course.

ATC cleared me onto the approach and then quickly cleared to land since I was the only aircraft in the area. With clouds behind me, and a low cloud deck over the Providence Airport, it got significantly darker and the wind blew my 172 all over the approach. Although the freezing rain had stopped, the cloud deck over Providence was lower and the visibility was less than what the METAR had reported before I left Boston.

The icing on my windscreen hadn’t melted and turned the approach lighting to Runway 5 into a fuzzy blur ahead of me. Fighting the wind gusts, I kept my focus on the localizer and glideslope, with occasional visual checks through the windscreen ahead.

On final approach 1.5 miles out and 500 feet above ground, I kept my speed up and my flaps at 20 degrees as I encountered low-level wind shear causing large changes on the vertical speed tape and my aircraft to shudder noticeably. Clearing the “fence” just before Runway 5 at Providence, the gusty surface winds pushed the 172 back and forth across the centerline as I tightened my grip on the yoke and worked corrections on the rudders. 50 feet above the runway, I pulled back on the throttle and tensed for a brisker than normal landing.

Once I made contact with the surface, it took a lot of rudder input to keep the airplane on the cement as I had a roughly 30-degree crosswind and wind gusts that threatened to push me into the grass. Finding an opening on the frequency, I made my clear-of-the-runway call and the controller let me know I had passed the WINGS IFR 2.

In my parking spot on the ramp in front of the Atlantic Aviation FBO building, I reflected on the strain and challenge of the 40-minute flight from Boston as the wind whipped over the control surfaces of the just shutdown 172. It was my first short cross-country flight in the IFR system, my first encounter with simulated icing conditions in the clouds and it was a challenge from start to finish with the moderate turbulence and gusty winds. Also, I was challenged to rely on VOR navigation as my main navigation source, not having done that since my private pilot training.

Admittedly, the G1000 PFD in CDI mode offered some additional situational awareness compared to a traditional steam gauge instrument and I was also running ForeFlight on my iPad.

I justify the ForeFlight map as it really aids in situational awareness since my flight simulator is connected to a single 4K TV and does not provide the peripheral vision you have in a real airplane. I use the moving map in ForeFlight to help supplement what I would normally see outside the airplane. I had made the flight more challenging by deciding to hand-fly it but I wasn’t confident that I could manage the automation provided by the autopilot and the other variables.

In future WINGS IFR series flights, I’ll need to be able to use the autopilot proficiently, so I noted this as an area for additional practice. It is one of the many features of the G1000 that I will need to better understand before getting deeper into the WINGS program.

The weather en route provided the biggest challenge, and I now had my first minutes of simulated IMC under my belt. I also contemplated how close I came to a very serious icing situation in the 172, knowing that it had no Flight-Into-Known-Icing capability. I’d like to think that I would never have found myself in that situation in a real airplane, but I was glad to have experienced it in my simulator first. Also, I’m careful to make sure the experience doesn’t build any false confidence, the images I have seen of the real icing lead me to believe that I narrowly avoided a situation that could have doomed my flight.

The MSFS2020 experience was all in the digital world, but the fidelity of it was impressive and the decision- making it prompted resulted in real stress and discomfort from the task saturation I encountered.

This feature first appeared in the May 2024/Issue 948 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Earning Your Winter WINGS appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I ask my private pilot candidates this when the weather is unstable or marginal VFR and falling. If they determine the weather does not support the mission, they need to explain why they came to that decision.

Developing personal minimums and learning to make the go/no-go decision is an essential part of their training. Developing that skill set can be tough to do when you are being pressured by a CFI intent on accumulating hours or a flight school with a policy that seemingly requires flight operations that would be below personal minimums for many pilots.

For example, a recent weather cancellation policy memo from L3Harris Flight Academy, based at Orlando Sanford International Airport (KSFB) in Florida, started burning up the blogosphere, as it dictates that the weather must be below certain criteria before a flight can be canceled or penalties would be levied.

The cross-country flight minimum of visibility of 3 sm and the ceiling of 2,000 feet stated in the memo is generating the most discussion, due in part to the definition of Marginal VFR as ceiling 1,000 to 3,000 feet and/or visibility 3 to 5 miles inclusive. The minima in the memo puts the aircraft in MVFR and well below the minimum altitude for 91.159 VFR cruising altitudes. The chance of a collision with other aircraft and obstacles down low increases because it puts the cross-country pilot down among those doing maneuvers. 

There are L3Harris minima published for the cancellation of IFR flights as well. If the weather is equal to the lowest approach minimums at KSFB (there are three ILS approaches, so the aircraft can use those minimums that would take the aircraft down to 200 feet above ground) the flight is supposed to take place.

L3Harris is a Part 141 school and a pilot pipeline, ostensibly designed to create airline pilots as quickly and efficiently as possible. If the airplanes are not in the air, they don’t generate revenue, and the learners don’t progress in their training. It is frustrating and wasteful when a client no-shows or cancels at the last minute, but pushing these minima, and having the CFIs push them as company policy may be counterproductive to the creation of safe pilots.

FLYING was provided with a copy of the L3Harris memo from pilots concerned about it “sending the wrong message” and “encouraging scud running,” in addition to creating an atmosphere of extra pressure for both the pilots in training and the instructors.

The June 12 memo said: “To accurately predict equipment availability and efficiency in the schedule, we are adopting a new cancellation policy. If the weather conditions are at or better than the limitations, a cancellation is considered non-excusable.”

According to social media posts from people representing themselves as former or current clients or CFIs at L3Harris, the school allegedly requires the pilots to arrive at school an hour before flight time, and cancellations must be done in person, or the client is charged a $250 no-show fee. 

The memo continues by encouraging the pilots to “be creative in your plan of action,” such as “changing routes to avoid deteriorating weather or thunderstorms. Be sure to use all available weather resources including but not limited to: local news reports, aviationweather.gov, ForeFlight, etc. In the event your flying proficiency does not meet the current weather, please speak with your Training Group Manager concerning a plan of action.

“No flights shall be flown in the area of a convective SIGMET without the approval of the chief flight instructor or their designee. All thunderstorms must be avoided by a margin consistent with safety. All severe thunderstorms should be avoided by at least 20 nm.”

Thunderstorms are often a daily occurrence in the Sunshine State yet “severe thunderstorms” was not defined. Last September in Kentucky we saw the fatal result of a CFI continuing a flight into approaching thunderstorms. Departing an airport in marginal weather limits the pilot’s options should the weather begin or continue to deteriorate.

• READ MORE: NTSB Preliminary Report on Kentucky Fatal Crash Released

The memo has been the topic of discussion at FAA safety meetings. The most common question was, “Is this legal in the eyes of the FAA?” 

FLYING contacted the FAA and the agency replied: “VFR weather minimums are in Parts 91.155 and 91.157. Flight schools operating under Part 61 must comply with these minima. Flight schools operating under Part 141 may have additional minima established by their FAA Flight Standards District Office as part of their training curriculum.”

Legally, the L3Harris memo complies with FAA regulations. Is it an exercise in good judgment and aeronautical decision-making? I don’t believe so, and I am not the only one. 

“Imposing mandatory weather minimums for student flight dispatch—to expedite flight training efficiency and protect profit margins—is both dangerous and counterproductive to building essential weather judgment,” said David St. George, executive director of the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators and a DPE. “This industrial flight training methodology, to improve dispatch rates, destroys the central focus of the FAA ACS—personal risk management.”

Added Karen Kalishek, chair of the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI): “NAFI has two primary areas of concern regarding L3Harris Flight Academy’s published weather policy regarding non-excusable cancellations: One, There are many instances in which weather quickly deteriorates, and the L3Harris stated weather minima provide little margin for pilots to escape potentially decreasing ceilings and/or visibility, and two, imposed weather minimums are inconsistent with the FAA’s intent that pilots should develop personal minimums that reflect their individual levels of proficiency and experience.

“The policy provides for a pilot to assess their personal proficiency and speak to a manager for an alternative plan of action. However, the ‘non-excusable’ terminology supports application of the default minimums.”

Attempts to find out if L3Harris operates with “additional minima established by their FAA Flight Standards District Office” were not successful, despite sending multiple emails and placing phone calls to the local FSDO and David Krug Jr., who signed the memo as the L3Harris chief flight instructor/head of flight training. 

When FLYING reached Krug, he said he was aware the flight academy weather cancellation memo was a topic of conversation in the pilot blogosphere, adding, “I cannot speak to internal information. I am not going to say anything. We are addressing it internally. I understand the situation.”

There were multiple posts on social media from individuals who contacted the Orlando FSDO to report the perceived safety issues. A few posted the emails they received from the FSDO in reply, stating that their concerns were logged and an investigator had been or would be assigned. A check of the signature on the email corresponds to the Orlando FSDO employee directory.

According to the FAA, the agency does investigate safety concerns but “does not confirm or comment on investigations.”

Risk Part of Flight Training

Flight safety is about managing risk. The FAA’s Risk Management Handbook explores how pilots should evaluate risk, and that includes establishing personal weather minimums.

In Chapter 2, it states, “federal regulations that apply to aviation do not cover every situation nor do they guarantee safety,” noting that “pilots who understand the difference between what is ‘smart’ or ‘safe’ based on pilot experience and proficiency establish personal minimums that are more restrictive than the regulatory requirements.”

Flight instructors are often the gatekeepers of personal minima—done in the form of limitations on a learner’s solo endorsement.

For example, the initial solo endorsement I give lists weather for flight in the pattern as 3 miles visibility and a 3,000 foot ceiling, and for the practice area, 5 miles of visibility. A weather briefing is a requirement as well. Crosswinds are limited to 6 knots, and that limitation is lifted and increased as the learner’s experience grows.

For the initial cross-country flights, visibility increases to 10 miles and the ceiling to 5,000 feet. After I review their flight plan, the trip-specific endorsement includes noting “weather checked as of (insert time).” 

I wouldn’t feel comfortable or responsible sending a learner out solo on a cross-country flight with 3 miles visibility and a 2,000-foot ceiling as noted in the L3Harris minima. 

There Is a Time and a Place

Personal weather minima is a fluid concept. It’s good to go out and stretch those skills from time to time with a CFI onboard. It can be a beneficial learning experience.

Weather minima are often dictated not only by the pilot’s experience but also proficiency and the mission. You probably wouldn’t take your non-flying, airplane-shy significant other up on a day with gusting crosswinds or turbulence.

A CFI (personally or by virtue of company policy) shouldn’t be pressuring the learner into making the flight, but it happens. Especially when the CFI and or company only gets paid when the propeller is turning.

Sometimes, the decision not to fly is the best choice. But it needs to be a choice and not something the client is financially penalized for.

The post Weather Minimums Memo at Florida Flight School Generates Controversy appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

This time of year I find myself thinking about Josh Dierks, killed on July 10, 2006, while flying a Piper Navajo. We worked together as CFIs. He wanted a career at the airlines, so he took a job flying cargo to build his multiengine time. Dierks was flying from Spokane, Washington, to Seattle when, as he approached the Cascade Range, he informed ATC that he was experiencing an uncommanded loss of engine power in both engines.

Lacking the power to get over the Cascades, Dierks diverted to Easton State Airport (KESW), a turf runway measuring 2,640-by-100 feet at an elevation of 2,226 feet. The airport sits next to an interstate and is surrounded by trees. There are homes scattered around the airport, basically under the traffic pattern.

There were several witnesses to the accident. One said the engines didn’t sound right, the aircraft’s landing gear was down, and the aircraft was very low and fast on downwind and the winds were squirrelly—an estimated 20 knots from 270 then jumping to 18 knots from 090. He was attempting to land on Runway 27. Although eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, I hope the assertion that Dierks swerved at the last minute to miss the houses is correct. The aircraft’s wing struck a pine tree with a 10-inch trunk, then hit the ground inverted, exploding in flames. Joshua Alan Dierks died just two weeks before his 27th birthday.

Most of us at the flight school learned about the accident within an hour of the event, when the local NBC-TV affiliate showed still photographs of the aircraft burning out of control on the evening news. We had two former coworkers flying for that cargo outfit.

There is always a desire to get more information about what happened. It won’t bring the person back, but it’s part of the grieving process. As we were not family, we could not receive any information from the authorities. I swapped my CFI cap for my reporter hat and tracked down the person who took the photos for an interview. He’s the one who told me Dierks swerved to miss the houses.

The Aftermath

If there is an accident and it involves someone you know or your flight school, it may be difficult for you to get back into the aircraft—at least for a time. That’s OK. We’d rather have you standing down while you process what’s happened than be distracted in the air. Flight training is not the last chopper out of Saigon.

Many flight schools have protocols when there is an incident or accident. Don’t speculate, and don’t talk to reporters or other pilots about it. Some go so far as to lock the doors, ground the fleet, and not answer the phone.

If your flight school has rules like this, obey them.

It may be a few days before you venture back into the cockpit, and that is understandable. You will probably find yourself wondering how you would react if you had been in the pilot’s seat. That is normal, but don’t let it eat you up.

Your best course of action is to receive more training to improve your skills and proficiency. You may just want to fly as a passenger with a more experienced pilot at the controls just to get some air under your butt again.

Don’t Be a Troll

These days, the preponderance of social media and smartphones makes the time between accidents and public release of images and information quicker than it has ever been before.

Some pages have rules about posting information and images or releasing names of those involved, especially when it involves a fatality. How would you like to learn via social media that someone you cared about was killed? Or have your loved ones learn about you that way? You may have already had this experience. I have. You can look up a tail number and find the aircraft owner—and then someone posts their name online. I appreciate the moderators who remove these posts.

On YouTube, sometimes both experienced and not-so-experienced pilots will dissect accidents and offer their opinion on what happened. Unless they were there to witness the event and on board the aircraft, what they are saying is speculative entertainment and often polarizing. The more clicks they get, the more revenue they acquire. Don’t feed the beast.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigated Dierks’ accident for the better part of two years but was unable to determine the cause of the loss of engine power. Other accident investigations are more definitive, and the agency makes recommendations to the FAA designed to make aviation safer.

Use the NTSB reports as a learning tool. The analysis offered in the preliminary and final report can be instructional, as accidents are usually caused by a chain of events when the “holes in the Swiss cheese” line up.

Hindsight being 20/20, you can see the choices the pilot made and think about what actions you might have taken were you in the same situation.

The post What to Do When There’s an Accident appeared first on FLYING Magazine.