Flight Training - January/February 2024 - 5

abacus was faster and as accurate. No
idea if that's still true.
Stephen D. Leonard
Boise, Idaho
I have been carrying and using an E6B
since I went to flight school in 1977.
The aircraft I fly now, an MH-60
helicopter, pretty much negates the need
for one. I can enter a flight plan into
the system, update winds, temp, and
pressure altitude and the system will
tell me when I'm going to arrive at my
destination and how much fuel I'll have
left (both the quantity in pounds and
estimated flight time available). Yet I still
carry and use my hand-held (although
I've switched to a CR-2).
Needless to say I'm constantly
harangued by the whipper snappers in
my office.
Brian Lynch
Clarksville, Tennessee
I read the article about manual versus
electronic E6Bs. I'm disappointed to read
of the flight school that is no longer training
pilots how to use the manual E-6B.
I did my flight training before smartphones
and EFBs-electronic E6Bs were
the fancy pieces of equipment. I wonder
if the flight school that has stricken the
manual computer from their training
(in favor of ForeFlight) has done the
same with plotting cross-countries on a
sectional. I'm a professional corporate
pilot, and I fly GA actively as well. I'll
admit, I have probably only planned out
a cross-country long form for a purpose
other than flight training once or twice.
However, I have a friend to whom I've
been giving lessons. You better believe I
want him to plot it out and work the E6B
computations manually.
Ultimately I look at it like this: Anyone
can put their flight plan in ForeFlight
or Garmin Pilot and it'll probably be fine.
Honestly, once you have your license,
that's probably how you're going to do it.
However, manually plotting and working
the calculations forces you to understand
what's happening. It's much easier to
detect " garbage in/garbage out " if you
have mastery of the process. That's why
I'll have any primary students that I
teach learn how to do it manually, and be
good at it before turning them over to the
almighty electron.
John Slater
St. Charles, Illinois
Try using the manual E6B when you are
flying a helicopter-you'll be on the
ground in a real hurry. When you absolutely
have to use one, the electronic
ones are much better, or I just land in a
field and do my calcs.
Timothy Carnell
Three brief comments about your article
to consider:
First, EFBs and flight computer apps
are not allowed in FAA knowledge tests.
The only choices there are the E6B or a
purpose-built, non-programmable electronic
flight computer.
Second, E6Bs may not always be
slower. Consider a diligent student with
a list of flight plan waypoint-to-waypoint
subsegments to compute. Once planned
or actual groundspeed for a segment is
known and set over the E6B index, subsegment
times are " lookups " on the time ring.
Third, with due respect to Mr.
Shiflett's opinion about E6Bs, I agree that
the " whiz-wheel " can be considered a
hazing for flight students, but electronic
flight computers of all descriptions can
lead to " garbage in/garbage out " results
when the concept of the wind triangle
is not understood or visualized. IMHO,
some students benefit greatly from a
quality introduction to the wind side of
the E6B which leads to (if no forces) a
more intuitive treatment of wind and
airspeed vectors.
Finally, as Dennis Miller said, " It's one
man's opinion, I could be wrong. "
Dan Beard
Palm Bay, Florida
START YOUR
ENGINES
Ian Twombly's article showing the difficulty
starting an aircraft engine by using
the primer was well written ( " Start Your
Engines, " September/October 2023 Flight
Training). Using the throttle for priming an
airplane engine is all speculation, no facts.
My first airplane in Alaska was a Piper
Cub (PA-11) with a Continental 100-horsepower
engine purchased in June 1979. To
start the engine, I used the primer to pump
fuel into the cylinders. I had nothing but
problems with starting the engine. I could
almost never get the correct number of
primer pumps to start the engine-either
not enough fuel in the cylinders or too
much-and the engine would not start!
I asked many old Alaskan pilots and
they told me they had the same problem
using the primer as I had and they used
a better way in starting the engine on the
first cranking cycle. They used the throttle
for squirting fuel into the carburetor. The
throttle uses the accelerator pump which
injects fuel into the updraft carburetor
and into the engine cylinders. If a pilot
pumps too much fuel into the carburetor,
it can leak out the carburetor and onto the
ground. A spark from an engine backfire
can cause a fire beneath the airplane. It is
very important when using this method
never to pump too much fuel into the
carburetor. Make two or three pumps with
the throttle with no more than a one-third
push in of the throttle. Never pump a
throttle from idle to wide open. This may
cause the dangerous and unwanted fuel
spill in the carburetor.
I used this method for a dozen years
and never had a problem. The engine
started about 98 percent of the time right
after using the throttle for getting fuel to
the cylinders in the correct proportion.
William A. Quirk III
Anchorage, Alaska
We welcome your comments. Please email
flighttraining@aopa.org. Comments will be
edited for style and space.
FLIGHT TRAINING JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2024
5
Flight Training - January/February 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Flight Training - January/February 2024
