WardHolbrook

When it comes to aviation weather training you can't do any better than this: https://avwxworkshops.com/index_guest.php As far as book learn'n goes it's pretty hart to beat these two - Weather Flying by Robert Buck and Instrument Flying by Richard Taylor. You'll want the most recent editions of both books. They're available on Amazon.

Here's a photo of a T-28 that looked pretty much identical to the one I flew. (It may even be the same one.)

Yes sir, that's pretty much what it looked like and believe me, there is a good reason why they're incredibly rare and not popular and it all has to do with the upkeep that a polished airplane requires.

This is where I went. I've been back there three times. You're in for a real treat.

A friend of mine had a polished T-28. He offered to let me fly the plane if I would help him keep it shiny. I've loved flying the T-28, but it was way too much work to keep it looking good. Nothing looks better than a polished classic airplane (Think Spartan 7W Executive) but nothing looks worse than a polished airplane that needs polishing. That T-28 attracted a lot of attention where ever it went and the people who saw it wanted to touch it. Which explains why he was willing to make the deal he did with me. That T-28 was one honking big single engine airplane and it took hours of work to clean up after that big radial engine and all of the finger and palm prints that magically seemed to appear every time we rolled it out of the hangar. Between the two of us, he definitely got the better deal. Polished airplanes are like women - they're sure pretty, but it takes an awful of of time and money to keep them that way. I'd much rather spend my time flying than polishing. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Dan, well said. Those are my feelings exactly. Come next month, I've been flying for 49 years and during that time I've lost several friends and acquaintances in aircraft accidents. You can pretty much name the type of accident and I can associate a name and a face with it. (Thank God however, I've never lost a friend to hypoxia.) Each time it has happened it's like someone sucker punched me in the gut. This is a terrible tragedy for everyone involved. However, it would be an even greater tragedy if it wasn't discussed and if we didn't learn from it. How much greater would the tragedy be if, heaven forbid, someone here had a similar experience because they didn't know? Aviation is truly one field where if we don't learn from the mistakes and misfortunes of others we will be bound to repeat them. There but for the grace of God go I. Rest in peace.

I'm sure some do, but simply having a backup plan won't matter if it's not a viable one. If you're flying up in the FLs and you backup plan doesn't include an emergency bottle and the term "emergency descent" it's not a viable one and needs to be rethought. I'd also bet that a significant number of pilots haven't really given much more than a cursory thought. For example, by the show of hands, how many of you who venture - even if only occasionally - into the FLs carry an extra O2 bottle complete with extra mask and regulator? (You don't need the emergency bottle for everybody, just the pilot.) Nowadays, most guys seem to have a pulse oximeter, but I'd also bet that there are more than a few that haven't even sprung for one of those yet. While we're at it, by the show of hands, how many have ever practiced an emergency descent in your Mooney? It's not as easy as you might think. Just saying. The altitude chamber was invaluable, in my case it showed me that I really don't notice that anything's wrong until I loose consciousness. I just set there feeling fat, dumb and above all - very happy. Because of this I check the PO frequently and I've also got a flow meter on the O2 tubing that I keep in my field of view. At FL250 I figure that I'd give myself about a minute to get the tubing back on the nib (about the only fixable O2 failure that I can think of) or I'd better be on my way down. We're not in a jet and we don't have quick-don masks so I'll break out the emergency bottle in the descent.

I don't know what happened to my original response to Bradp's question, but it didn't show up. I'll try it again... Brad posted this: "For those who know the systems well is water contamination a possibility? ..." I really doubt it. Back in the day there were various types of oxygen - welder's, aviators breathing, medical, etc. and if you used an oxygen with a high moisture content you could creat serious problems for yourself. Nowadays, it all comes from the same source and is drawn from the same tank. It's all the equivalent of aviators breathing oxygen and if they want to use it for medical purposes they'll run it through a bubble humidifier to get it moist enough. But as far as pilots are concerned, oxygen is oxygen. It's unfortunate, but this tragedy appears to be simply just another hypoxia related accident. There are many pilots who don't give flying in the mid and high altitudes much thought. The FAA requires precious little when it comes to training. It's the classic "What's legal isn't always safe" scenario. It's sad, because you really need to be on top of things (Pun intended) when you're up there. If you're up there and your supplemental O2 is interrupted - for any reason - you've got precious little time to either get it restored or to get down to a breathable altitude. (It merits declaring an emergency and beginning an immediate descent.) Meanwhile, while that clock is ticking, one of your physiological responses to the lack of O2 will likely be a heightened sense of well being - a pretty deadly response as we have seen time after time. Without supplemental O2 the "lights" will go out after a few minutes and then it's just a matter of time... There's really no excuse for not having the proper tools - a pulse oximeter, a standby, backup O2 bottle and chamber training. The last time I checked you could get a small O2 bottle, regulator and mask for around $400. It was about the size of a small thermos and provides about 20 minutes worth of O2 for one person - just enough to get your butt down to a breathable altitude. It would easily fit in a map pocket or between the seats where it could be immediately reached in the event it became necessary. Good pulse oximeters are dirt cheap and chamber training is available free for the asking, all you have to do is get to one.

I took a look at his past flights on FlightAware and on the longer ones he sure liked to fly his Acclaim at FL250. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but one needs to realize that you must be solidly on your A game up there. The past few years we're seeing more and more propeller-driven singles up in the flight levels and we're also seeing, on an increasingly more frequent basis, that any malfunction, mistake or neglect can carry a huge penalty. I'll echo what others have said about a small back-up O2 bottle to keep by your seat and pulse oxymeter. Anyone who can afford something like an Acclaim should be able to afford a pulse oxymeter and a back up O2 bottle; however, you need more than that. I believe that altitude chamber training would be a good idea for any pilot and it ought to be mandatory for anyone operating an airplane 10,000' msl. Chamber training is easily available at little or no cost. There really is no excuse for this. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

That's not at all what I was saying.

Wow, seriously. You're making my point for me.

What are your personal symptoms of hypoxia?

All you guys who are flying around in the upper teens and lower Flight Levels without ever having been through an altitude chamber course are making a dumb mistake. It's the classic example of "Just because it's legal doesn't make it smart!" If you're up above 14,000' or so you really need this training. Over the past 20 years I've attended two high altitude training courses at the University of North Dakota which involved altitude chamber "flights". Each one was a real eye-opener. They ran us up to FL250 and had us take off our masks. I was just sitting there fat, dumb, and happy with the pencil and paper making strange, illegible scribblings until they put the mask back on me. I told them that I was OK and was still good to go. It was actually pretty frightening once I came around enough to realize what my personal response was. Different people have different responses. Some people function like a ni-cad battery - they seem to doing well and then they simply go off the cliff. Others, like me just sit there fat dumb and happy with warm fuzzy feelings - totally oblivious to what's going on around them. Others I've seen crash pretty fast. You really need to have the chamber experience to see what your personal response is. It's just my opinion, but I don't think just reading about it is enough. As far as accessories go, you will want a pulse oximeter. Cannulas are only legal to FL180, above that you'd need (and want) a good quality mask. Above FL200 you'll also may want to consider a small back up bottle like this one that you can keep at your side and use to get down to a breathable altitude in the event of a failure in your main system. http://aerox.com/product/aerox-portable-oxygen-system-2-user-a-system-6-cu-ft Chamber training is readily available. I've received mine at UND at a reasonable cost and the FAA and military offers civilian chamber training at little or no cost as well. Here's a link to the FAA's course: www.faa.gov/pilots/training/airman_education/aerospace_physiology/ You can do an internet search for other courses and training providers, but bottom line, hypoxia is nothing to screw around with. It's one of the major pilot killers.

I'm with the "Always file IFR" crowd. In addition to all of the other reasons given, concerns about restricted airspace and TFRs pretty much go away.

You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with that the FAA has published. (Ref: Instrument Flying Handbook Page 4-6.) You're also diagreeing with the way the most precise pilot I know (Otto Pilot) flys any airplane he's in.

I was just trying to keep it simple. Most light aircraft pilots don't understand AoA and have never flown with one. That's why I referenced the Instrument Flying Handbook - The most precise method of controlling flightpath is to use pitch control while simultaneously using power (thrust) to control airspeed.

Even jets with autothrottles fly the GS using pitch and adjust power for speed. Your subscribed technique only works with the smallest of aircraft. Using pitch for glideslope and power for airspeed works for all aircraft from C172s to Boeing 747s.

All that proves is that aircraft will tend to maintain the last speed they were trimmed for. What if you adjusted pitch to maintain a constant altitude and pulled power? Airplane maintains altitude and airspeed decays. Therefore power = airspeed and pitch = altitude.

Hank, It's tough to hand fly an ILS approach any smoother than an autopilot can, unless you're using a flight director. In either case - autopilot or flight director - you track the localizer with the ailerons, fly the glideslope with pitch and speed is controlled with power. Personally, I think that method is the one to use regardless of what you're flying - from a Cessna 172 to a Boeing 747. Granted, doing it the way you were taught works OK in small GA aircraft, but if you ever get a chance to fly anything larger - twin turboprops and above - you'll find that that your method simply does not work very well. If you refer to page 4-6 in the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook, you'll find the following: Pitch/Power Relationship An examination of Figure 4-8 illustrates the relationship between pitch and power while controlling flightpath and airspeed. In order to maintain a constant lift, as airspeed is reduced, pitch must be increased. The pilot controls pitch through the elevators, which control the AOA. When back pressure is applied on the elevator control, the tail lowers and the nose rises, thus increasing the wing’s AOA and lift. Under most conditions the elevator is placing downward pressure on the tail. This pressure requires energy that is taken from aircraft performance (speed). Therefore, when the CG is closer to the aft portion of the aircraft the elevator downward forces are less. This results in less energy used for downward forces, in turn resulting in more energy applied to aircraft performance. Thrust is controlled by using the throttle to establish or maintain desired airspeeds. The most precise method of controlling flightpath is to use pitch control while simultaneously using power (thrust) to control airspeed. In order to maintain a constant lift, a change in pitch requires a change in power, and vice versa. If the pilot wants the aircraft to accelerate while maintaining altitude, thrust must be increased to overcome drag. As the aircraft speeds up, lift is increased. To prevent gaining altitude, the pitch angle must be lowered to reduce the AOA and maintain altitude. To decelerate while maintaining altitude, thrust must be decreased to less than the value of drag. As the aircraft slows down, lift is reduced. To prevent losing altitude, the pitch angle must be increased in order to increase the AOA and maintain altitude. This also answers Bob's original question. The answer to which is, "It all depends." Ward

If you don't know the correct answer to pitch/power question you need to ask your CFI for a refund. How do you guys fly an ILS?

Spin entries and recoveries prior to solo was quite common as well and most guys were soloed at between 6 and 10 hours. Yes, times have changed.

I've never once claimed to be a real pilot. I guess it's time to come out of the closet, I'm actually just a computer nerd... Seriously, it's been a few months since I last flew without one. The last airplanes I flew without a autopilot were the Decathlon and Citabria that we used during our company extreme upset recovery training. When it comes to autopilot usage, their usage in mandatory in RVSM airspace (FL290 through FL410) throughout most of the world, so yes, I spend most of my flight time droning away with the autopilot engaged. There are still those who actually say that real pilots don't use autopilots. That might sound good. but remember, there's no inherent virtue in avoiding the use of all available pilot aids including autopilots. They free up "mental bandwidth" that allow us to do other important stuff like keeping an appropriate watch out for other traffic and maintaining our situational awareness in busy airspace. The big issue with pilot aids is that if not careful, they become pilot crutches, but that's a training issue. If you've got the whistles and bells, you should use them. However, if you've got them you also need to be totally up to speed with how they operate and how ALL of the various modes work. This tends to be the weak point. Not a lot of schools or training centers teach this to the level required and you usually end up having to make an extra effort to seek out the appropriate training on your own. Inappropriate or incorrect use of automation can be disorienting and confusing. Confusion and disorientation in the cockpit is deadly. Properly implemented, automation enhances situational awareness and is worth it's weight in gold. Personally, as far as autopilot usage while IFR goes, I would like to believe that we can all hand fly all the various types of instrument approaches down to their respective minimums correctly and proficiently without any type of aid - flight director, autopilot, etc and it's something that we do each and every time we go to the sim. If a pilot cannot do that, then he needs to get more training or quit flying IFR - period. The autopilot is designed to be a pilot aid, not a pilot's crutch. That being said, aircraft owners spend great sums of money to provide redundancies for nearly every system on our aircraft - multi engines, dual this, triple that, etc., etc. Here's a question. When we hand fly an ILS approach down to minimums, what redundancy to we have in case of "pilot failure"? I believe that we should hand fly all of the "high and mid" minimums approaches we can, but when the ceiling gets below 500 feet and/or the visibility gets below a mile couple it up and let the autopilot do its thing. We then become the backup to the autopilot and we have injected an element of redundancy into the operation. In that rare case that the autopilot messes up and gets us sideways to the world, relief is only a click of the autopilot release button away. In the mean time, you have been able to watch and monitor the approach while covering the controls. If it ever becomes necessary, the transition is both instantaneous and seamless. OK, I'm climbing down off of my soapbox. Happy New Year everyone!

Man, am I ever late to this party. I just read Aaron's post on operating his J model over weight. In addition to the concerns that others have raised, I'd add that In the event of an accident - even something "minor" like a gear up landing or a runway excursion - one of the first things the Feds will do is take a hard look at is the aircraft weight and balance for the flight.The fact that later model Js are legal at 2900 lbs isn't going to carry a lot of weight in how they handle this pilot deviation. Aaron, I'm a little surprised at this. I thought you had better judgement than that. Note: I saw the date on Aaron's original post and for giggles went back and read some of his subsequent posts. I take back my comments about his judgement - apparently he has seen the light. There's no such thing as an "oopsie" when it comes to W&B. If the FAA ever checks into it they will expect you be in compliance. The ramifications of being found intentionally noncompliant with the regs are something that all of us would want to avoid.

Real pilots don't use autopilots.