Just about every pilot’s operating handbook and airplane flying manual makes mention of the same property: “The fuselage is of a conventional semi monocoque construction…” And that’s the last mention of semi monocoque construction anywhere in the book. I’m willing to bet that your training manuals make little to no mention of it either.

Airplane Fuselages, the Old Fashioned Way

The Vickers Warwick's geodesic skeleton

Much like the foundation of a house, the fuselage is the foundation of an airplane. It is the central attachment point for the wings, tail and engines. As such, it needs to be strong enough to support the loads imposed by the weight of the airplane in maneuvering flight.

Locked into the paradigm of their time, aviation pioneers constructed their fuselage much the same as a building or bridge. They used sturdy materials to construct heavy internal skeletons that would bear the full load of flight. It was not until 1913 that a Swiss man challenged the traditional wisdom of fuselage design.

Monocoque Construction

Notice the lack of any internal bracing in the Deperdussin monocoque racer

Eugene Ruchonnet thought outside of the box. Rather than mounting panels onto a solid load-bearing skeleton, Ruchonnet’s idea was to let the airplane’s skin carry the load. He did this by forming the fuselage out of multiple layers of wood. The layers were glued together with their grains running in different directions to strengthen the skin so much that no internal skeleton was needed! He called the new technique monocoque construction, or single-shell construction.

Monocoque construction works fine with tiny airplanes, but there is a point at which the weight of the monocoque fuselage is greater than the weight of an internal skeleton. Furthermore, monocoque construction is unforgiving of even the slightest structural failure: think of how easily an aluminum can is crushed once a single dimple forms in it’s skin and you’ll see the inherent problem.

Semi Monocoque Construction

Bulkheads and supporting beams (stringers) reinforce stressed skin in semi monocoque airplanes

In order to build bigger and stronger airplanes, a hybrid of the two construction techniques was put forward and remains in use today. The idea behind semi monocoque construction is quite simple. Instead of building a full internal skeleton, aircraft designers chose to build a partial skeleton to reinforce the skin in critical areas. A semi monocoque airplane’s skin supports much of the load, with some internal bracing and bulkheads in place to maintain structural integrity. This design works surprisingly well, and remains in place on most modern aircraft from single engine pistons to the brand new Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Enjoy these photos of some of the most wonderful cloudscapes I’ve had the pleasure of witnessing this year. From downright terrifying thunderstorms to surreal pictures evoking a sense of being on the edge of space, this is a snippet of the day-to-day life of a pilot. Yes, there’s a lot more to it than looking out the window – some good, some bad. But if you don’t take a moment to take it all in, then you might be missing something on a much grander scale.

Red Flag is an air combat mock-war fought between the best pilots from countries all over the world. Now you can watch the IMAX documentary in it’s entirety on the web – very cool!

This is one question I hear echoed throughout flight schools, internet message boards, and anywhere else student pilots can be found, “how do I pass the private pilot written exam?” Here’s the deal: the written exam is a game. Plain and simple. Much like the ACT or SAT, it is a measurement of one thing: how well you can take the FAA Written Exam. On the one hand, the test is fairly easy. It’s a bunch of multiple choice questions, many of which can be solved by the process of elimination. Other questions are downright tricky and you really ought to be ready for those trick questions.

This is why I suggest you study for the test with Gleim’s study guide. It’s a cheap book that presents the material on the test and only the material on the test in a quick-to-study outline format. As you study, you are presented with every known question in the FAA test question databank, followed by a few random practice tests. Once you get through this book (which shouldn’t take much more than one month), you will be ready to pass – period. It just takes discipline.

Here’s the problem with Gleim’s. They prepare you for the written exam – no more, no less. You really need to use other sources to build the understanding necessary to become a good pilot, not to mention passing the oral exam. But as far as passing the FAA written, I have never seen a more efficient and effective study guide.

The new Cessna Skycatcher marks Cessna’s first foray in to the light sport aircraft (LSA) market, and it’s making a big buzz at small airports around the country. Will the Skycatcher replace aging Cessna 150’s and 152’s at flight schools across the country? Can Cessna compete with other LSA manufacturers and other two-place trainers? It may be too early to tell, but with over 1,000 orders placed, the 162 is bound to make a dent in the sport aircraft market. Enjoy these photos of the Skycatcher provided by Cessna and see more on Cessna’s multimedia showcase.

The following post is a guest post by Jason Schappert of MzeroA.com. Visit Jason’s blog for flight training videos and informative articles.

What causes airplanes to overshoot runways, clip wingtips, and miss airports entirely? Two words: Pilot Error. The media is very unforgiving when it comes to televising aircraft mishaps, and the effects of the big airliners trickle down into the general aviation community. How can we learn from these mistakes?

Flying Within Your Limits

Aviation experts deem the main reason American Airlines Flight 331 overshot the runway was because of pilot error. More specifically the pilot flying outside of his and the aircraft’s limits by landing with a 14 knot tailwind.

Anyone who has tried to land even a Cessna 150 in the slightest tailwind knows it’s a difficult process.

How can we correct this? Know your limits and the limits of your aircraft. Today read through your aircraft’s POH and locate things like it’s maximum crosswind component or max gross weight and compare these to your personal limits. Just because your aircraft is equipped to handle a 17 knot crosswind doesn’t mean you personally could go handle it.

Stop Going Through The Motions

Jason Schappert was named AOPA's Top Colligiate Flight Instructor in 2008 and is the editor of MzeroA.com

This is something as pilots it’s hard to avoid. For a while I was flying to Key West pretty regularly. I flew the same airplane on the same airways and talked with the same controllers. Seems pretty easy to get complacent. I find a lot of my veteran pilots get this way on their preflight. Being the practical joke instructor I am, I occasionally will put a piece of tape on the static port that says “I’m clogged!” 100% of all my students that have their private pilot certificate have missed it. 100% of my students who were training for their private pilot certificate found it! Now what does that say? Once we get our certificate we stop paying attention to details? There is a reason my slogan at MzeroA.com is “A Good Pilot is Always Learning”

These are two quick and easy ways to make each time you enter the airport a safer experience for you and everyone else in the air. Find your limits and stay within them. Avoid becoming complacent by constantly learning. Just because you have your certificate doesn’t mean it’s the end all. It’s a license to learn and any good instructor will tell you that.

When performed in a safe and controlled environment, stalls are a blast! But being caught off guard by an inadvertent stall can be a terrifying and dangerous experience. That’s why stall training is such an important part of the private pilot syllabus. But students are only trained in the methods of stall entry and recovery, and are left unaware as to the most high-risk phases of flight.

Jason Schappert the flight instructor at M0A.com took the time to outline the three points where inadvertent stalls are most common:

1. Base to final
2. After takeoff on climb out
3. In the landing flare

Number one and two may seem obvious, but I find high-risk area number three intriguing. After fourteen years of flying, I’ve never had a good discussion on the landing flare stall. Why is that?

It’s not like this is an uncommon cause for accidents. I recall seeing an airplane with it’s struts physically pushed through the wings after landing. The pilot had over flared, leading to a stall followed by a very hard landing (or perhaps a soft impact).

It’s surprising that landing flare stalls don’t happen more often. This is the time where the pilot’s eyes are completely transitioned outside of the airplane. We have to rely on visual (outside) and tactile cues during those final moments before touchdown, and if the airspeed bleeds away there is little to no warning that something bad is about to happen.

This is precisely why it’s important to know your airplane. When that “stall mush” begins to dominate the flight controls, it’s time to do something about it. If that includes a go-around, then so be it.

“Buzzing the Field” by Jim Ginter. All others by Lexie Rogers at Memphis in May Airshow 2009.

Visual descent points are handy tools the FAA has included on many GPS approaches to keep you from flying dangerously unstabilized approaches and to prevent pilots from hitting all sorts of obstacles. But there are a number of approaches that don’t have these magic little references. Read on to find out how to compute your own VDPs in one simple formula.

What Are VDPs?

In last Monday’s article we took a look at the requirement for a “normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers” to proceed below the MDA per the FAR/AIM. Unfortunately, there are a lot of missed approach points out there that have the smell of a trap. There is simply no way to make the runway using any semblance of a normal maneuver.

A Visual Descent Point (VDP) symbol

To limit the temptation to proceed with a landing under unstabilized approach conditions and prevent collisions with obstacles along the final approach path, the FAA began publishing visual descent points (VDPs) on many GPS plates. Marked by a “V,” the VDP is the last point at which a descent from the MDA to to the touchdown zone can be made at a stable three degree glideslope. If the runway is not in sight by the VPD, a missed approach should be executed.

Unfortunately, VDP’s are not published on all charts. Luckily, there is an easy technique to compute your own.

Making Your Own VDP

First, figure out the height above terrain (HAT) of the MDA. Now, divide the HAT by 300. The number you get is the distance from the runway threshold (in nautical miles) of your visual descent point. In mathematese:

VDP = HAT / 300

Let’s take an example. Consider the localizer approach to runway 2R in Nashville. Note that the HAT at the MDA is 550 feet. To make the mental math easy (aren’t we busy enough up there?) let’s round it up to 600 feet.

Recall that VDP = HAT / 300, so we have to compute:

600 / 300 = 2

The VDP for this approach is 2 miles from the runway threshold. But wait, there’s more. How will you know when you are precisely 2 miles from the threshold?

Notice that the runway threshold is at a DME of 1.5 from the localizer. Just add 1.5 + 2 to get our DME reading of 3.5 at the visual descent point.

All instrument rated pilots are familiar with the term “chop it and drop it.” If the runway environment comes into sight just as the missed approach point is reached, the pilot can cut the power, enter a slip and drop it like it’s hot – or so the theory goes. Although widely practiced and propagated by many a CFI, is it really safe? Furthermore, is it even legal?

Take a look at 14 CFR 91.175: Takeoff and landing under IFR – Operation below DH or MDA:

(c) Operation below DA/ DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless—

(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;

(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and

(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot…

“Normal maneuvers” are just what you might think: any maneuver one would perform during a stabilized approach and landing. This includes normal heading and altitude bracketing, minor airspeed adjustments and ordinary descent rates (no more than 1,000 feet per minute in most airplanes). If you wouldn’t do it in a run-of-the-mill visual approach, then you shouldn’t do it on an instrument approach. With these standards, the old “chop it and drop it” just doesn’t cut it. The prudent pilot ought to realize when landing with a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers cannot be accomplished. A missed approach is the appropriate response.