There are two schools of thought about the effects of alcohol. 

1. One asserts that the liquid imposes its own 'personality' upon the drinker -- that a person should not be held accountable for his or her behavior 'under the influence' ("It was the booze talking. If I were sober, I would say no such thing"). 
2. The other view of alcohol holds that it dissolves inhibitions, revealing the true, otherwise hidden personality. 

Federal regulations forbid flying less than eight hours after drinking ("Eight hours from bottle to throttle," the saying goes) or when 'hung-over' (whatever that means). There is ample reason for you to hope, however, that the stranger piloting your airliner is a tee-totaller -- or at least has abstained for more than the minimum eight hours. 

Objective experiments over the years have shown that, depending upon all the familiar variables, alcohol can adversely affect the pilot's capacity to perform functions essential to flight safety up to -- now get this -- more than two days following its consumption.

So much for assuring the capacity to perform. But what about the pilot's personality?

1. If alcohol is -- in and of itself -- responsible for unseemly behavior, then purging the system of the stuff should restore the pilot to safe conduct. 
2. On the other hand, the pilot may have a perilous ego-state lurking beneath the surface, kept in check by sobriety. The 'whoopee factor,' folks. 

• Airliner flies into a swamp at night, while all three members of the flight crew are preoccupied changing a lightbulb on the control panel.

• Airliner plunges thousands of feet before a fuselage-bending recovery, because pilots disabled warning devices in order to goad the plane into a treacherous 'corner' of its flight envelope. 

• Airliner descends out of a storm and proceeds to land at the wrong airport, the pilots complaining later that both aerodromes have the same runway layout.

• Airliner cruises twenty minutes beyond a shoreline destination over open water, despite radio calls from radar controllers, because the flight crew was fast asleep.

• Airliner wanders off course into hostile airspace -- or the airspace assigned to another airliner -- because the crew did not key in the correct navigational coordinates.

• Airliner runs out of fuel despite instrument warnings and protests by the flight engineer, which are overruled as a matter of prerogative of the captain. 

• Airliner loses power from both engines after take-off and nearly glides into the ocean when pilots, responding to a warning, inadvertently operate the wrong engine controls.

• Airliner crashes on take-off as flight crew misinterpret readings from engine instruments or skip an entry on the checklist calling for take-off flap setting or...

Airline travel is unavoidable. As a passenger, one feels utterly powerless, dependent. I wonder what the statistics are for the number of passengers who, as their plane pulls up into the sky, plunge into a pool of frantic awareness that their destiny has been wrested from them. 

Ominous thoughts torture the mind. If those guys and gals enclosed in their locked compartment up front should suffer a lapse in competence, become distracted, get their priorities wrong, make a crucial mistake aloft -- cripes! -- I can't do anything about it. 

Sure, you ask yourself, what are the chances of that? Professional training and practiced skills, checklists and check-rides, discipline and dedication -- all act in superposition to make making mistakes unlikely. 

This issue like so many others in our complex, interdependent world has become all statistical. Whenever I am at the controls, however, statistics lose their hold on me. Probabilities become mere abstractions. I am the one tilting the yoke and pushing the pedals. Averages have nothing to do with the enterprise. Whatever adverse conditions arise, I know that I have the power in my own hands to deal with them, to influence the outcome. Numbers apply only to others, not to me.

"Where you headed?" asked the FBO in Needles, while pouring lemonade for the children. He was the archetypical jolly big-man in middle years. His office in the tiny building beside the ramp was a clutter of airplane parts and papers. Faded photos lined the walls. 

"Torrance Airport," I answered. 

"Hell, you ought to take a swim and relax right here," he said, mopping his brow with a rag.

"My family and I have just flown in from Carlsbad Caverns, so --"

"Good motel in town. Five minutes away."

I shook my head. "It's been a long trip, and -- "

"I'll even let you drive my 'egg plant.'" The fellow pointed with his thumb over his shoulder and watched my reaction.

Parked outside the window was a 1948 Cadillac limousine. Deep purple. 

"Got a chauffeur's cap?" I asked.

Dear Mr. Day:

One aspect of Professor Richard J. Vogl's recommendation that "non-essential aircraft" over urban areas be banned (in today's edition of the Times) warrants careful thought: how to decide which aircraft are non-essential. 

Or conversely, which flights should be permitted? Some choices are easy: One flight last month, for example. A woman I know flew an Archer to Calexico to bring back a disabled child for treatment at Shriner Hospital. Though the flight "benefits only a few," Professor Vogl would surely permit it and hundreds of other flights being made by volunteers on the American Medical Support Flight Team. 

Business trips would be all right, too, presumably. My most recent flight was a quick hop in a Cutlass from Orange County to Santa Monica. One of our best customers, an aerospace company, was having a technical problem, so I brought in some special gear and one of our best engineers. Problem solved. 

But what if it were a candy factory instead? A business flight to fix a problem there would be "non-essential," I expect. Last thing we Americans need is more cavities. Same for a sales trip to, say, a cosmetics firm or a movie studio or a maker of vaginal sprays. Professor Vogl would doubtless ban private flights for non-essential businesses. 

Check the couple sitting next to you: why, they're going skiing. The people up front with the crying child are on their way back from visiting Grandma. Hah! And that thumper behind you? He is bound for a convention in Chicago -- for confectioners. Sometimes the skies above Los Angeles are full of airliners each filled to capacity with non-essential travelers to and from places like Reno and Las Vegas. Let's ban those, too.

Having cleared the skies of all non-essential airplanes, we can apply Professor Vogl's ban in other realms. Think of all the non-essential vehicles on our neighborhood streets and freeways. Trips to the beach would be first to go. And why should beer trucks take up space on our highways? "Individual freedom," asserts Professor (of Biology) Vogl, "must often be forfeited for the common good." His noble words taken seriously could get him grounded, though. Aviation regulators may someday decide that biology is non-essential.
 

Penny taught me a whole lot about instrument flying. There was this time when we flew to El Toro Marine Base to practice a procedure called GCA, Ground Controlled Approach. 

Penny scheduled me for six approaches one beautiful Saturday morning. As usual, I put on the hood before take-off from Orange County Airport (now John Wayne). I contacted the El Toro Marine Base by radio after we were aloft.

"We will be using student controllers for your practice approaches today," said a deep voice on the radio. I changed frequencies as instructed and lowered my seat in preparation for the effort that lay ahead.

My first approach was routine. The young marine on the microphone performed flawlessly. 

"Do not acknowledge my transmissions unless advised to do so," he told me at one point. "Please acknowledge," he advised.

"Will not acknowledge," I acknowledged.

"You are right of the approach course. Turn left, heading 340. You are below the glide-slope. Stop your descent. You are on the approach course. Turn right, heading 350. Above the glide-slope, descend at 500 feet-per-minute..." 

The instructions continued in a steady stream. Then, the controller made an abundantly sensible statement. 

"Your landing gear should be down and locked; please acknowledge."

"Gear down and welded," I chuckled into the microphone.

At the last moment, about a hundred feet above the runway, I was instructed to power up and execute a 'missed approach' procedure. Unless it were a real emergency, civilians cannot land at El Toro.

For the second approach, Penny concealed my direction gyro by covering its face with a jar-lid. I told the student controller about my predicament. After a delay, during which I assume there was a scramble to look up the appropriate procedure, the controller came back on and began a more detailed set of instructions. They included commands of the form, "Turn right -- stop turn."

So it went. Penny would cover up various instruments, and I would obey the commands issued from the ground. She brought plenty of jar-lids. The fifth time around, Penny set up a 'no gyro approach.' About all I had to look at on the control panel was the oil pressure gauge. This really put the onus on the GCA controller. 

How neat to pop up the hood after such a hairy simulation and see the runway directly under my nose wheel! I had an idea.

"Care to try one, Penny?"

Penny laughed. "The fantasy life of every instrument student includes getting his instructor under the hood." I determined not to touch that line with a barge pole. "Gimme that thing," said she.

Penny adjusted the headband and pulled the hood down to obscure the window. I sat back and folded my arms. For the first time that morning, I would be permitted to experience the visual reality of flight.

A new controller took his turn at the GCA scopes. He was less sure of himself than his predecessor. I left all the jar-lids in place for Penny.

Things went fine in the beginning. Penny reduced and increased power on command. She turned and stopped turn, first this way then that. I was astonished at the magnitude of the corrections being made. We were flying all over the sky. What a lark. Then something went wrong. We were no more than 300 feet above the runway and slightly to the right.

"Increase power. Turn left. Reduce power..."

The student controller forgot to say, "Stop turn."

We continued to turn left. Penny knew something was wrong. The runway drifted off at a crazy angle to our flight path. There were buildings, including the control tower, dead ahead. I didn't say a word. The radio went quiet. 

Penny stopped the turn on her own. But, without gyro instruments, she could not tell which way we were flying. She gripped the throttle, knuckles white. By then, Two-Four Fox had to be off the GCA radar screens. Two hundred feet, descending. Tower less than a quarter mile away. 

Parenthesis. The hood is a simple plastic contraption. If you want to see out the window, simply take it off with the flick of your wrist. Mine, in fact, was the deluxe model, with hinges at the temples, which enable the pilot to tilt the hood up at the last moment for the landing flare. 

Penny made no move to lift the hood. This tells you a lot about Penny -- and a lot about instrument piloting. It is an awesome responsibility, outranking open-heart surgery. In a practice exercise, you don't cheat.

The tension mounted. Penny cried out, "My God! Don't let us crash!"

I was on the verge of taking the controls when Captain Deep-Voice called on the radio with instructions to execute a missed approach, starting with a climbing turn to the right. 

Even then, Penny did not lift the hood. 

A wedding in a hangar, with airplanes and aviation enthusiasts all around.  Got it?  It was in 1990.  Now, try to imagine that I might have been invited to give a talk.  Oh sure.  Are we on the same page here?   Now this: A short talk.  Yeah, right.  Here's the text...

Standing here in this environment puts me in mind of -- well flying, and I am reminded of the three most useless things for a pilot: the runway behind you, the altitude above you, and the fuel not put in your tank. 

A little like marriage, don't you think?  The three most useless things in a marriage: the grievances behind you, the expectations above you, and the affection not expressed to your mate.

"Read-back correct. Call again when ready to taxi."

Ground Control cleared us to Runway Two-Niner Right. I released the brakes and started an exceptionally slow taxi.

"Reminds my of that morning at Orange County, Harv," I said, peering intently through the damp plexiglass. "Did I ever tell you?"

"The time with the PSA jet," he answered. My son, alas, has heard all my stories.

"What happened with the jet?" asked Murray from the back seat.

"Nothing much," I answered. "It was my regular morning commute out of Orange County. We had this patchy advection fog that morning, and -- "

"Advection?" 

"Fog blown in from the ocean. It is thin and streaky. Never very high, though. You're in the blue just a few seconds after lift-off. Anyway, I was creeping along the taxiway about like this. I turned the plane into what I thought was the run-up area when all at once out of the soup appears this big silvery, sphere-like thing with a light on it and a black patch in the middle -- "

"Radar dome," explained Harv.

"I had missed my turn and come face-to-face with this PSA jet. He was sitting there on the ramp. Waiting for the fog to clear before loading passengers, I guess. By the time I stopped, I was too close to turn around."

"Can't back this thing up, I guess," Murray commented.

"I reported to Ground Control that I had traffic, twelve o'clock, at my altitude."

Harv chuckled. "My dad had to shut off the engine and push the plane back by hand."

"Not before doing my Buster Keaton routine for the benefit of the PSA flight crew. Made'em laugh so hard, even in the fog, I could see the fillings in their damn molars."

Foremost, you don't just climb in and take off. The preliminaries are more than obligations. For one who would be joyfully conscientious, all those preludes add satisfaction to the quest. 

Take inspection, for example. Who can deny the gratification experienced by alert fingers diligently stroked along the smooth surfaces, assuring unblemished form!  Indeed, you eagerly probe each fillet and recess.  Who can resist the fascination with features seemingly shaped as pleasure for the eye more than purpose and function! 

Ah, but now you are assured a state of readiness.  With a deep and audible sigh, you liberate the vital elements of motion. Only then do you deign to enter that most privileged realm.  You set loose the noisome thrust with alacrity and escape the hold of earth, rising up to meet the sky. 

Still, you must take care to guide the enterprise along the intended course. Precision and purpose characterize every movement, whether gentle or firm. Wonder attends your progress. Perfection means that upon arrival at a distant place, you descend reluctantly from the pleasured heights to find renewed contentment below.

Thus does flying spoil you for any other activity. Well, almost any other. 

More than thirty event-filled years went by after the adventures described in Two in One Day, and I always assumed Mike Busch had long since given up flying.  On the contrary, in 1999, I was astonished to discover his name prominently featured at AVweb.com "The Internet's Aviation Magazine and News Service" as Editor-in-Chief. 

In a congratulatory e-mail, I suggested that he might get a kick out of reading about himself in the Internet Version of Chapters in the Sky and invited AVweb to do a review.  Mike sent me a warm greeting in return ("been a long time...").  He seemed mellowed by three decades, but no review ever appeared in AVweb.

Two years later, I mentioned this oversight to a few aviation enthusiasts and sent Mike Busch a copy of my message.  Here are excerpts of his e-mail to a friend of mine. 

> Michael D. Busch wrote...

> I never read this rather mean-spirited writeup until five minutes ago.  I don't remember anyone named Paul Niquette, but if he says I did some consulting for his computer company 30+ years ago, I have no reason to doubt him.  I'll be the first to admit that I have a terrible memory for names and faces.

> Fortunately, I kept detailed logbooks of my flying.  I did own a Skylane (white with yellow and brown trim) based at Orange County (now John Wayne) between 1968 and 1972 registered as N42648.  I sold it in 1972, and as of 6 months ago it was still on the registry as belonging to an owner in Clovis, Calif.   I did fly gliders at Crystalaire between 1972 and 1975, but by that time I'd sold my Skylane and owned a Bellanca Super Viking, N93592.  So if indeed I did give Paul and his son a ride up to Crystalair and back (and that's certainly conceivable), it would have had to be in the Viking.  Conversely, if I did give Paul and his son a ride in my Skylane, it would have had to be somewhere other than Crystalaire. 

> In any event, I certainly never landed any aircraft (skylane, Viking, or whatever) short of the runway at Torrance.  The "baptism in beans and mud" certainly adds to the entertainment value of Paul's piece, but it never happened.  I suppose one could verify this by contacting the owner of N42648 in Clovis and researching the maintenance logs.

Paul Niquette wrote...

Although you "don't remember anyone named Paul Niquette" (ouch), perhaps you will at least recognize the name Laszlo in Pattern Altitude for he was the person for whom you actually did the consulting (I was V.P. of Engineering).  Does that refresh your memory?

[Y]our postulation of the interval 1972 through 1975 is out of the question, along with the Bellanca Super Viking (which has its wings on the bottom, am I right?) since the Niquette family moved to Connecticut in 1971...

Please note in passing that the story took pains to point out that I was not "pilot in command," so it would not have been appropriate to record the beanfield incident in my logbook.

You are surely correct in noting that your maintenance logs for N42648 would contain no entry for the simple corrective actions you took at Torrance Airort, which I described in the story as follows: "He borrowed our hose to clean the mud out of the wheel fairings."

[M]y son's recollections of the beanfield incident ought to be quite reliable, don't you think?  By copy of this message, I invite him to speak for himself on the matters you have raised (in his mid-forties now, he goes by the name "Paul," but my son gave me permission to use his childhood name "Harv" when he edited the Internet Version of Chapters in the Sky for me some time ago).

As for your opinion ("mean-spirited writeup"), I think most readers will see the twinkle in my eye, especially considering the bemused treatment the author of Chapters in the Sky has given himself throughout the book.

Six weeks later, I sent my last follow-up message to Mike Busch.  It is set forth in its entirety below.

Dear Mike, 

Your angry commentary, which characterized "Two in One Day" as a "rather mean-spirited writeup," invoked lapses in your own memory and missing logbook entries as instruments of denial.

Instead of admitting that you might have learned from your behavior aloft, you have tried to dismiss the account as fiction, even though my son was present and now serves as a credible witness to a life-threatening incident in which you participated as pilot in command. 

My good-natured queries for the epilogue have so far been unavailing.  Not one word.  Shall I assume that you have no intention of responding? 

Best regards, 
Paul 

> Michael D. Busch wrote...

> Excellent assumption, Paul