Thirty years later, as I have racked up thousands of hours flying business jets, fulfilling my cloud-popping dreams, I get to do the same on my home flight sim thanks to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS2020).

In the four years since MSFS2020’s release, so many improvements and features have been added to make its visual world more realistic. The weather modeling seems to improve almost daily. 

• READ MORE: Launch Date Set for ‘Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024’

MSFS2020’s live weather feature has always been fabulous and seemingly accurate. Yet with all its improvements, I still have an affinity for manually setting up the sky. I call this “skyscapes.”

Creating Skyscapes

I make my own skyscapes all the time now—and you can too. Or you can download them from others. It’s easy to do, tons of fun, and has become an artistic way of enjoying the sim.

It’s perfect for making coffee-table-perfect screenshots and also allowing overriding the live weather in case it’s interfering with your plans on that day. 

I enjoy modeling convection. The visuals of the cumulus clouds against a deep blue sky is intoxicating to me. Up until recently the cumulous model or thunderstorm was dead, with little or no turbulence. I would have to turn to X-Plane 12 storm modeling to be challenged. 

X-Plane has always done a superior job in convective modeling. But in the last two months until now I have noticed something in MSFS2020 has changed. 

Recently, I took a sim flight around Thailand testing out the new incredible PMDG 777-300 (pmdg.com), using my self made tropical skyscape. I programmed cumulus clouds with tops exceeding 30,000 feet, which suddenly started to upset the mega airliner as I flew traffic patterns. 

Near the cumulous, there were sudden upheavals, airspeed changes, and shear. It was rough. Some clouds did nothing, while others had winds gusting to over 50 knots in spots, varying on the direction, creating shear and moderate turbulence.

I tried numerous circuits around the area, with some 30 miles around the airport intentionally penetrating and circumnavigating the cumulous, some of which had grown to thunderstorms with lightning bolts. Adjusting the manual slider for customization I increased the lightning percentage and rainfall rates. The visual effect was spectacular, with visible rain shafts, downbursts, and rainbows.

Creating Sim Weather Themes

Creating your own weather themes is a breeze.

To get started, just untoggle the live weather button then manually tweak clouds, wind, visability, and temperature. Use the little icon to the upper-right corner to give it a unique name. That’s it, and it is saved forever for recall or to share online with others. I have started making many, based on real-world location and with the typical weather. 

Using manual weather offers the ability to deepen the blue sky to accurately represent areas that don’t have pollution, like the Pacific Islands or the Rocky Mountains in the U.S.

To do this, drag the humidity slider fully to the left. Moving it to the right creates more humidity, leading to a reduction in visibility or even fog if you keep going full right into a zero/zero type of world.

Temperature is self explanatory. Lightning is fun to tinker with, as is precipitation. By having high bases and no precipitation, you can simulate typical high altitude Rocky Mountain-style convection.

Throw in gusty winds in varying degrees with altitude or shear to simulate a day filled with thermals and convective winds. Dry base storms in the Rockies can be deadly, even without any precipitation falling. By adding a lot of precipitation you’ll get intense rain shafts and flooding.

By lowering clouds to under 3,000 feet msl, reducing visibility, and having intense rains, you’ll be creating a typical tropical-style setup. Make the winds light. The combinations are endless. 

The PMDG 777 is the epitome of a realistic, study-level aircraft. I am currently using an Asus ROG 18 (i9, GeForce 4090) laptop for all my flight simming sessions. 

As I fly the heavy jumbo, which in itself is a task, I wondered how the effects would affect a Cessna type aircraft. I booted up a brand new late model  Carenado Cessna 182T and flew over the intermountain western U.S. for testing using a similar weather model but raising the CU bases to about 7,000 agl and tops to near FL 400. 

It’s a random occurrence, but climbing near the bases resulted in some light chop and shear, though not as much as expected. After adding in more lightning and rainfall, I experienced some massive vertical spikes with winds gusting to almost 50 knots while in cruise at some places near clouds.

In preparing this article, I used a recently released add-on called SimFx by Parallel 42. It is available here, and includes other visual aircraft effects like wing fogging, tire spray, rubber trails, dirt, and much more. Some pretty cool premade “skyscapes” are included as well. 

Your home sim may not be able to replicate everything, but the amount it can do is staggering. The lack of motion is really about the only thing that stands out. Visuals are better than FAA-level D sims—and sound better too.

Hopefully you too will try making some of your own “skyscapes” in MSFS2020 and discover the fun of doing so as I have.

The post Skyscapes for Simmers appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Although it is common for learners to imprint on their instructors, the fact of the matter is that the training connection is a business relationship. There needs to be communication about goals, how to achieve them, progress made, what has been accomplished, and what needs to be done. 

When you are a novice pilot, it can be a challenge to determine if progress is being made. When it becomes clear that it isn’t, it is time to make a change.

Flying Once a Week—Or Less

To make progress you need to fly on a consistent basis. This can be a challenge given limitations on instructor availability, airplane availability, learner availability, or finances.

There is no way anyone can make progress when you fly just once a week or a few times a month. You need a minimum of two lessons per week, three would be better, for learning to take place.

If you don’t have the money or time to fly at least twice a week, now may not be the time to pursue flight training. Save up the money and carve out the time to train. 

Flight Lessons Longer Than Two Hours

Just as flying too little hampers learning, so does flying too much.

Flying is fatiguing both mentally and physically. The cognitive demands, noise, and vibration of the aircraft can wear you out. Learning will not take place if you are tired.

It is not uncommon for pre-solo novice pilots to book five-hour lessons in the aircraft thinking they can knock out huge chunks of training in one lesson. This usually doesn’t work due to the fatigue factor.

You will need to build up endurance in the cockpit just like you do when learning to play a sport. For flights out to the practice area and back, two hours of flight time might be on the ragged edge.

While the FBOs gladly take your money and the CFIs will rack up the hours, you probably won’t get much out of it after about an hour in the air. Flying is too expensive to become self-loading ballast, so consider keeping the pre-solo flights to the practice area and in the pattern no longer than 1.3 hours. When your endurance increases, lengthen the lessons.

Too Early for Ground School?

It is never too early. Most of what you do in the airplane is best taught on the ground in a classroom than practiced in the air. The rules, regulations, and airspace are best taught on the ground as aircraft make terrible classrooms. 

If the CFI doesn’t recommend ground school, insists you self-study, and/or doesn’t make time to review what you have learned, ask why they are reluctant. If you’re not sure about a concept or an aircraft system or how to use a piece of equipment like ForeFlight or the E6-B, and your CFI can’t show you, find someone else to work with.

The CFI Doesn’t Use a Syllabus

A syllabus is the best way to keep a learner on track as it lists the tasks to be performed for certification and the order the tasks are to be learned.

Flight instructors train their clients as they were trained, and sadly many CFIs don’t use a syllabus because the person who trained them didn’t. “No one here uses one,” is a tepid excuse and unprofessional.

Minimal Preflight and Post-Flight Briefings 

“Did you check the weather?” and “See you next week,” are not pre- and post-flight briefings.

The preflight briefing consists of what the planned lesson is, how it will be conducted, and completion standards. The post-flight briefing consists of how you performed on the flight, ways to improve if required, and what will be done on the next flight.

Reluctance to Teach Basic Navigation

If your CFI is all about GPS, and says that no one uses the VORs, magnetic compass, pilotage or ded reckoning anymore, know that this is not accurate.

The basic method of navigation is using outside visual references. You also need to be able to determine time, speed and distance calculations using the E6-B—either analog or electronic—rather than relying on an app to do the work. 

For your check ride, you will need to know how to perform a divert in midair, and it is likely the examiner will disable the electronic devices to test your skills.

Reluctance to Use Paper Charts

While the electronic flight bag is a marvelous tool and reduces cockpit clutter, it can overheat, run out of power, or disappear from your flight bag or airplane.

Learn to use paper as backup. Also, you may find it more expedient to use paper for certain operations, such as looking up an airport tower frequency.

Instead of tapping on multiple tabs, a quick glance at paper gives you the information you seek.

No Introduction to the FAR/AIM

The Federal Aviation Regulations/Aeronautical Information Manual (FAR/AIM) spells out the knowledge and experience required for every certificate and rating. Your CFI should tell you about this book on day one of your training and demonstrate how to use it. 

The FAR/AIM is a tool to be used to “trust but verify.” There are far too many learners going on flights that are more for the benefit of the CFI building their hours.

How many times have you heard about a low-time, pre-solo private pilot candidate doing an IFR flight or night cross counties at the insistence of their instructor? 

Remember this is your training, and it’s supposed to benefit you. If you ever feel like that has not happened, you are well within your rights to make a change.

The post When Flight Training Stalls appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Regardless of the program of study, Central Missouri students are exposed to all aspects of the aviation industry. 

Matthew Furedy, a 1999 graduate from university, returned to the school in fall 2015 as an assistant professor. Furedy presently teaches a variety of courses, with a focus on those  that are a part of the department’s airport management degree. 

Courses in the program range from airport planning and design to corporate aviation management, all of which prepare students to sit for the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) Certified Member (CM) exam. 

“I think that preparing our students and having them take this exam is a good thing,” Furedy said. “I know some other programs have that as an option, rather than a requirement, and I’m not sure how many actively make it part of the degree. [One of the other benefits of our structure] is we also require that students complete an internship. The more hands-on experience you can get, the better off you’ll be. So, I tell students that, if they can, to do an internship every summer that they’re here.” 

Presently, around 70 students are enrolled in Central Missouri’s undergraduate airport management program —which is the second largest in the department of aviation. While many students pursue careers as airport managers following graduation, alumni are employed in many different aviation disciplines.

“We have students that go through this program in order to go on and be an air traffic controller,” Furedy said. “Then we have those that work in airport ops or in management, at FBOs, working for the government, or as consultants. We even have some that go on to work at [OEMs]. There’s a very wide variety of jobs that students go off and do.”

Andy Multer began instructing at Central Missouri in spring 2020. During this semester, Multer passed the CM exam. This was an inspiration for a new program that he helped to create at the school, the airport management MBA. 

This online program was first offered in fall 2021 and currently has about 15 students. GMAT scores are not required for entrance into the MBA program, which costs less than $20,000 on average to complete. Most courses are eight weeks long, meaning that there are five start dates throughout the year. 

“The program is designed for junior- to mid-level airport employees that are looking to advance in their career,” Multer said. “You get well rounded airport management training with this degree, which is the only (AACSB accredited) airport management MBA in the world. We anticipate students to take two years to complete the MBA program because we really try to push it towards people that are working at an airport. We want this because experience is the most important part, and this program is to help you grow.

“Earning this graduate degree [in conjunction with three years of work experience] will ensure you meet all the requirements to take the AAAE’s AAE [Accredited Airport Executive] exam. Plus, students get their CM and two ACE [airport certified employee] certificates.” 

Both undergraduate and graduate students at Central Missouri are encouraged to be involved in a number of organizations to further their education. Some popular aviation groups include the school’s AAAE chapter, the Missouri Airport Managers Association, Women in Aviation International, and Alpha Eta Rho. Additionally, the department of aviation has an emphasis toward connecting students with opportunities to apply their coursework in the real world. 

“We own and operate our airport [Skyhaven Airport, (KRCM)] here,” Furedy said. “So, students have the ability to work at the airport, mainly in-line service, and we do offer internships, where they can shadow the airport manager at. That’s something that’s unique about the program, to be able to get out of the book and see the airport.

“In our airport certification class, we do go visit an airport and do an actual Part 139 inspection. We try to make it as real as possible and have been to a lot of different commercial services airports doing that. We’ve been to O’Hare [International Airport (KORD)] up in Chicago, Omaha [Airport (KOMA) in] Nebraska, Memphis [International Airport (KMEM) in Tennessee], Springfield-Branson National Airport (KSGF) south of us [in Missouri], and St. Louis Lambert International (KSTL).

“The big saying for the airport world is ‘if you’ve seen one airport, you’ve seen one airport,’ because even though there are standards on how to do things, each one does things a little bit differently.”  

The post University of Central Missouri Offers Multiple Aviation Career Destinations appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The training provider also introduced two new free courses—Drone Part 107 Regulations and Private Pilot Ground Reference Maneuvers— in addition to a new YouTube playlist, How to Become a Pilot.

“It has been a great privilege to play a part in people’s lives when they are learning to do something so important to them, learning to fly,” said King Schools co-founder Martha King.

“Learning to fly changes who you are and how you think about yourself,” said Kings Schools co-founder John King. “We want to encourage as many people as possible to embark on this fun, exciting, and life-changing activity.”

In addition to the discounts, King Schools also announced it will offer two scholarships for flight instructors—the Women in Aviation International Martha King Scholarship for Female Flight Instructors and the National Association of Flight Instructors/King Schools Scholarship for Flight Instructors. Both scholarships are valued at $15,000 plus an additional $5,000 in cash.

A revamp of King Schools’ Cessna Sport/Private Pilot Course, featuring over 130 new videos designed to be clearer, more concise, informative, and entertaining, was also announced during the news conference.

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

The post King Schools Marks 50 Years of Flight Training appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

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.