Blog Elements : Flight Training Central

Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

Top off the airplane fuel tanks? Maybe…

September 14, 2015/in Tips and technique/by studentpltnews

During flight training most pilots get accustomed to filling the fuel tanks all the way up before each flight. As you begin to fly larger airplanes you’ll soon learn that topping off the tanks is more the exception than the norm.

A straight-in approach is safer than a standard pattern

September 3, 2015/in Tips and technique/by studentpltnews

Top off the airplane fuel tanks? Maybe…

September 14, 2015/in Tips and technique/by studentpltnews

A straight-in approach is safer than a standard pattern

September 3, 2015/in Tips and technique/by studentpltnews

Full Sized Blog Element (Big Preview Pic)

Top off the airplane fuel tanks? Maybe…

September 14, 2015/in Tips and technique/by studentpltnews

When I turned 16 and first learned to drive a car, I was taught to always be aware of the fuel status. When it was time to go to the gas station and refuel, there was never any thought though about how much gas to put in – insert the nozzle, set the hold function on the lever, and wait for the auto-shutoff to kick in when the tank was full. Why would I consider anything other than a full tank?

The same held true in my experiences in recreational boating. After heading back to the marina to refuel, I left with nothing short of a full tank. I used the same logic as when fueling my car – I could run the engine a longer time with less visits to the gas station. There was nothing else to consider.

When I learned to fly an airplane though I quickly learned that I needed to throw that logic out the window. Airplanes are more sensitive to weight and loading, and more often than not can’t be operated with the tanks full of fuel on every flight. Every airplane has a limiting maximum takeoff weight specified by the manufacturer, and you’re legally obligated to follow it (common sense should tell you it’s a good idea too). Flying over a manufacturer’s maximum weight leads to degraded performance in flight, and that’s assuming you’re able to get the aircraft safely off the ground in the first place.

Payload in training aircraft varies a good deal between different models. A Cessna 172R Skyhawk, for example, can carry around 450 lbs of passengers and bags with a full load of 53 gallons in the tanks, yielding nearly 5 hours of flying time. That’s pretty generous, considering it would be a challenge for a pilot, training gear and flight instructor to exceed this limit (that might help explain why the Skyhawk is one of the most popular training aircraft ever built). What if you want to take more gear, or another passenger on the flight though? The simple answer is to depart with less than full tanks. If you need to take along an extra 120 pounds, have the tanks filled up to only 30 gallons — this still provides over 2 ½ hours of flying time with reserves.

As you move up to larger aircraft, you’ll find the same principles apply. While you might think that a high-performance jet can carry a full passenger load and still fly with full fuel, that’s not always the case. In fact many jets filled to the brim with jet fuel can only carry 2 pilot crewmembers and maybe a passenger or two before reaching the weight limit. Even if there isn’t a full passenger or cargo load, it’s still not efficient for larger transport aircraft to carry more fuel than needed for each flight segment. The extra weight decreases performance and will increase the amount of fuel needed to complete flight. One exception here is when there is a considerable fuel price difference between the airports of intended use.

Take fuel planning seriously throughout your flight training. Even if you’re flying a C172 loaded full with 5 hours of fuel for every lesson, pay attention to how you manage the fuel. Lean properly on the ground and in the air according to the guidance in the POH, and mentally note the fuel burned for each flight during shutdown. That way when it’s time to maximize the performance of the airplane for longer trips or taking additional passengers, you’ll be very knowledgeable about the expected fuel burn, and can confidently plan to arrive with your required fuel minimums. You’ll also have the right mindset for flying other aircraft that don’t offer the luxury of providing a large payload with the tanks topped off.

A straight-in approach is safer than a standard pattern

September 3, 2015/in Tips and technique/by studentpltnews

On a recent morning while hangar flying with some colleagues, we were engaged in a heated debate on pattern entries and what is considered appropriate. Most pilots are taught pattern entries during their training and a 45 degree entry to the upwind or downwind leg seemed to be the most commonly taught. If consulting the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), you’ll note only one recommendation for pattern entry, that being in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway, at pattern altitude. But is this safer than shooting a straight in approach?

As background, Sporty’s is based at an active general aviation airport just east of Cincinnati, Ohio and is home to nearly 150 small aircraft including a busy flight school. As such, it’s not uncommon for as many as three aircraft to be mixing it up in the pattern with two more awaiting a window of opportunity to depart. But we also have moments of blissful isolation when it feels as if you have the entire airport environment to yourself.

While some remain staunch supporters of patterns and appropriate entries no matter the circumstances, I make a case for straight in approaches for landings in certain situations. Before you revoke my license and feed me to the tigers, hear me out. In aviation, there is no shortage of risk management debates. Flying is an inherently risky business. Accepting and managing these risks is a big part of what we do when we take to the air.

We are more likely to encounter other traffic around the airport environment as opposed to enroute cross-country flying at 7,500 feet. While some say that this is the reason we must fly a full pattern at non-towered fields so to give us the best opportunity for predictability and to see and avoid other traffic, I propose an alternate solution.

Flying a 45-degree entry to upwind followed by a complete circuit around the pattern will take approximately 4-6 minutes at most small airports. Given that the airport environment has the most traffic congestion, should we not try to minimize this exposure by minimizing our time in this environment? A straight in approach reduces your exposure to well under a minute.

Obviously, there are other factors that come in to play. There isn’t a one size fits all solution. If there are four airplanes already in the traffic pattern and two waiting to take off, a straight in pattern might make you the least popular pilot around the coffee pot in the lobby of the FBO; however, in situations when there are no aircraft in the pattern, none waiting to take off, and you are already flying from an area where a straight in approach would be the most efficient method of entry, why not take the most efficient route to landing?

Doing so will free up the airspace for others coming in to land and also results in less low-level maneuvering. Add in an active traffic avoidance system along with announced intentions/position reports on CTAF, and we might find that the straight in approach is a safer solution. I would emphasize that making a straight in approach takes experience and practice as you certainly won’t have the same visual cues and checkpoints as you would flying a standard pattern. Keep your options open and discuss various circumstances with your instructor. You may be glad you did.

Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

Top off the airplane fuel tanks? Maybe…

A straight-in approach is safer than a standard pattern

Top off the airplane fuel tanks? Maybe…

A straight-in approach is safer than a standard pattern

Full Sized Blog Element (Big Preview Pic)

Top off the airplane fuel tanks? Maybe…

A straight-in approach is safer than a standard pattern

Email Subscription

Recent Articles