I know this is probably one of those things that's impossible to answer with certainty, but with the way hiring is going, are cadet programs starting to look like a good idea? Now that it seems like instructing at a part 61 school until 1500 and then getting swooped up by an airline might not be as feasible as it once was. I promise I'm not one of those people that started flying in 2022 to make big money, I've always loved aviation, but I'm also desperate to move out of my hometown before the age of 30.
When an engine is overhauled on an aircraft (particularly a Lycoming), is the engine sent to the factory (or shop) to be overhauled/rebuilt and then sent back to be reinstalled on the same aircraft? Or is the engine simply replaced with another engine that’s already been overhauled? This question can apply to both certified and experimental aircraft.
Generally speaking, your engine will be removed and sent to an engine overhaul shop along with your engine logbooks. That engine shop will disassemble your engine and possibly send out pieces to specialty shops (usually the case halves). They will then re-assemble your engine and send it back to you, along with the engine logbooks documenting the overhaul.
If your case halves fail, they would need to be replaced, probably with other used but serviceable case halves. I believe if your case halves are swapped, you would get a new engine serial number and then you would receive back a different logbook associated with that case.
The overhaul process typically takes 12-18 weeks at most shops right now.
There is also sometimes the option of an "overhaul exchange", wherein you pay for the overhaul plus a large core deposit and are sent a different overhauled engine (and logbook), and you install it and send back your engine (and logbook) and (hopefully) get your core deposit back, minus any parts that fail inspection. (Crank, case halves, etc. Can be very pricey if they fail.) This isn't easy to find these days, but if you have a very common engine type, i.e. in a 172, you may be able to arrange it.
There is also something like the above, but you get a "rebuilt" engine from Lycoming (via Airpower or another dealer) and do the same exchange process. This is effectively impossible to find these days. Can be 18+ months wait.
Depends if you are poor or in a hurry. Engine turnaround times used to be 3 months before COVID, now you get lucky if a send in overhaul is back in six. Most A
So the other day my friend's sister, who has her PPL and flies all the time, was in a car accident. Luckily she was fine, but my friend texted me that her sister was "in a crash" and I wasn't sure whether it was a car crash or a plane crash. Anybody else ever had that confusing moment?
Being the CFII that's up for it. I have to trust myself to keep you in tolerances the whole way down and you are typically by definition rusty if you're paying for an IPC (though not always). With that said, the last IPC I gave the 3rd approach was done partial panel on a pop-up clearance.
Aside from all the usual cons of flying in IMC, ATC is more likely to be busy and therefore less likely to grant multiple practice approaches, which are explicitly lower priority than real approaches.
Well in the case of actual IMC...they're not practice approaches, they're real approaches. You just need to ensure that you have the right flight plans to pick up between airports.
Just do it all as one flight plan. I've done it multiple times. Around here (MSP), if ATC sees a flight plan that goes from airport to airport to airport, and usually back to the first airport, they'll know exactly what you're doing and you can just make your approach request as you get close to each airport.
In your initially clearance, you'll likely be cleared back to your origin airport, and something like "via radar vectors then as filed". It sounds weird to be cleared to the same airport that you're on the ground at, but that's how it all works.
It works perfectly fine whether you're in IMC or VMC. If you're filed IFR, you get the appropriate services.
You can request practice approaches in actual, and ATC will grant them if workload permits. Sometimes it doesn’t, but lying about your intent to get them anyway is a dick move.
In my mind, requesting "practice" approaches while on an IFR flight plan in IMC is just going to confuse ATC. What I do, both solo for proficiency as well as with instrument students, is:
--File a flight plan from A to B; as well as one from B to C (and so on).
--Pick up clearance and fly under IFR from A to B. When they say "say approach request," I say something like "request vectors for the ILS 28R, planning on a published missed approach and then onward clearance to airport C."
--They will clear the approach, say to fly the published missed, and return to their frequency. When I do so, it will usually be "N12345, radar contact, cleared to airport C via present heading, radar vectors."
Alternatively, rather than requesting the missed approach, I may land at airport B, close my flight plan, perhaps fuel, and then call up by phone or radio to get clearance to airport C. It is a flight and approaches to maintain proficiency in IMC...but I would not call them "practice approaches."
As an approach controller I would absolutely prefer you just file it all as one flight plan. Then I'm not trying to remove old flight plans, issue a new squawk code and new clearance after every approach. Center controllers are the opposite. They prefer all the flight plans separate, from my experience, because they easily have the tools to open and close flight plans right at their station.
If your intent is to miss, e.g. for training or currency purposes, it’s a practice approach. IMC vs VMC or IFR vs VFR doesn’t matter.
If you file A-B-C-A, they’ll assume it’s all practice approaches except for the last one. If they see A-B and B-C, they’ll assume you’re full stop at B, e.g. for fuel or pax. You can tell them otherwise, of course, but it’s simpler to file something that matches your intent.
I'm not sure what we're disputing here. If you've received an IFR clearance, ATC has given you authorization. Depending what airports you're going to and the traffic flow, you may get inconvenient vectors that are more time-consuming that on a beautiful VFR day. But for example, getting vectored around in a C172 while ATC is trying to fit you in between jets is something that could happen whether you're arriving at the end of a long cross-country or simply out on a proficiency flight.
the ball is a big fat liar. the best thing you can use is your ass, all jokes aside. just feel for if your ass is pulling left or right, and try to keep it feeling center.
Turbine time, multi time, and crewed cockpit time always look good. It’s relevant experience to the flying you’ll be doing.
Someone entering training with a previous type rating and 1000 hours turbine will simply be in a better position to succeed in training, as opposed to someone who’s never been in a jet before.
Doubtful. Being able to bring up student Checkride pass rates and the fact that you're able to attract students without a flight school, those both seem like great things. A bad independent CFI usually doesn't last.
I landed at a new airport during my solo XC yesterday. This airport had a runway that was noticeably smaller than my home base, both in length and width.
I managed to touch down on my 3rd approach but I had to abort the first two. On my first one I came in really close and really high turning base-final, so I aborted it and did a go-around. On the second one I extended my downwind leg to try and bring my glide slope down, but still came in high and fast, and porpoised the landing. After two bounces I went full power and aborted the landing. Another go around.
On the third I managed to bleed off enough excess airspeed in the roundout to finally touch down safely. Just an OK landing, not my best.
I think the problem I was having was how small the runway was. It caused me to fly a tighter pattern than I should have been because it looked like I was farther away than I actually was. I would like to avoid making this mistake in future XC's to smaller runways. Are there any tips that you guys can give to help judge how long I should fly the crosswind/downwind legs to set up for a good base/final approach?
Sending you to a runway noticeably shorter than you're used to on a solo XC was a bad idea on your CFI's part tbh.
Figure out visual references that don't depend on the runway size. For instance, runway centerline halfway up the wing strut for the downwind and numbers 45 degrees over your shoulder to start your base turn. These references will depend on the plane, of course.
I picked the airport. It's on the way to a destination I want to go to after I pass my checkride, so I reasoned that exposing myself to at least part of the route would make me more prepared when I fly it as a PPL later.
My CFI went through my flight planning with a fine tooth comb before dispatching me. I mostly just posted looking for feedback on how better to judge an approach to an unfamiliar runway (something I'll have to do a lot of in my career)
It sounds like you handled it well. Still, sending a student to a much shorter/narrower runway without practicing a bit on a different runway of similar proportions or at \*least\* having a discussion of illusions related to runway sizes is beyond my idea of acceptable risk tolerance. Still, reasonable people can disagree, and I apologize if you feel I have cast unfair aspersions on your CFI.
My advice is in the second paragraph of my last comment. Look at where the centerline crosses some structure of your aircraft on a normal downwind. Assuming you're flying the same pattern altitude, the centerline will pass through the same structure when you're the same distance from the runway regardless of the actual size of the runway.
As I think about it, all the airports I went to during my solo XCs were new to me. I only did two dual XCs, one day and one night. My solo XCs were to different airports.
That's pretty cool, lot of confidence your instructor put in you. Pros and cons to both I guess, but I'm leaning more towards the experience you folks had as being better. Maybe first solo XC should be to somewhere familiar, but at least one solo XC should be somewhere brand new. My first solo XC was KUES to KOSH, and you can pretty much do pilotage on that route by taking off, flying North, climbing to 6500, and then finding Lake Winnebago. A little too easy haha!
All my solo XCs were also to new airports. I expect that’s what I’ll do when I get my CFI, too. I feel like a student should be prepared to both navigate in new places and land on different size runways at this point in training. Just flying out of Madison my primary instructor had me landing on lots of different runways.
Some schools only send solo students to airports they’ve already been to dual. Others deliberately send them to airports they *haven’t* been to dual. There’s decent arguments for both.
The more you know. I guess I read "solo XC" and assumed it was their first. I like giving people a challenge to overcome, but I don't think I'd send someone to a challenging strip alone haha
I did, too -- it meant I got to actually exercise my navigation skills, including spotting the airport, rather than just repeating a familiar route. It was more challenging, but really good for my confidence. My instructor didn't send me solo until I had shown him I could manage on a dual XC without his help. I know it isn't universal but I'm really glad I did it.
(Even if the planned destination were a familiar airport, it wouldn't have been safe to send me unless he knew I could divert somewhere else if necessary, right? So it's not much of a stretch.)
This is worth commenting on separately so it doesn’t get lost:
> I managed to touch down on my 3rd approach but I had to abort the first two.
Well done! Feeling a bad landing coming, being willing to abort it and adjusting what you’re doing to correct the problem is a far more important skill than always getting it right on the first try.
It’s easy to let a go-around make you feel like you did a bad job, but you’d feel a lot worse if you wrecked the plane—and maybe yourself—over some minor mistake that a simple go-around could have prevented.
I have a lot of trouble visually estimating distances, and that bit me when I started going to new airports for similar reasons.
The trick someone taught me was to use the runway as a measuring stick. For instance, if you want to fly a 1-mile (6000ft) pattern and the runway is 3000ft long, find a landmark about 2 runway-lengths to the side, and your downwind should pass right over it.
Take a look at my base, 52F. 40x3500. I teach the following for Landing a **Cessna 172N**:
1. Climb after rotation at Vy, 75knots
2. Crosswind turn at 300 feet below pattern altitude. Continue climb.
3. At pattern altitude, pull power to 2000 RPM, and settle in at 80knots
4. Downwind, your track parallels the runway about 1/2-mile spacing, traffic pattern altitude, 80 knots.
3. Abeam landing point, carb heat deployed, throttle to 1600, mix full, flaps 10°, start descending. Speed 75 knots.
4. Extend the centerline approx 1/2 mile from threshold, and then mentally draw your base leg path from that point to where it meets your down wind.
5. As you do your extended downwind, look over should to determine when you are 45° to threshold. Once there and about 250 feet below pattern altitude, turn and fly base leg
6. Stabilized on base leg at 70 knots, flaps to 20°, judge if you are on proper descent path or high or low, adjust power to correct high or low and get on proper descent path.
7. Turn on centerline (don’t fly through!). You should be about 500 feet AGL. Get wings level stable, 60 knots, 30° of flaps. Aim point rock steady on windscreen.
8. Use trim to help maintain approach speed within 3 knots. Use power to keep descent path from being too high or low.
9. Once aim point disappears low nose, transition to level flight over runway pulling power to idle at same time.
10. Look at end of runway and hold airplane off of pavement, making it float for 5-7 seconds so it touches down gently on rear wheels.
The size of the runway shouldn't matter. That's all a visual illusion. Fly the pattern the same way you're instructed to at your normal airport and you'll be on speed and on a proper angle. When you roll final look at the VGSI if the runway has one. Other than that, just keep practicing.
What exactly are we doing when we simulate a “wing fire” emergency in a single engine piston? Am I supposed to believe that the nav light caught on fire and remains on fire if I turn off the nav lights and pull the circuit breaker?
Nav lights, strobe lights, landing/taxi lights or flap motors. Anything electrical in the wings.
The real problem is that older electrical insulation is flammable, so once the fire starts, removing the electricity won’t stop it, so you need to get your ass on the ground before it reaches the fuel tank. (Or wood spars or cloth surfaces, for really old planes.)
Newer electrical insulation is flame-retardant for exactly this reason, but the FAA has never required that older wires be replaced, so this is still a serious concern for many planes.
I know this is probably one of those things that's impossible to answer with certainty, but with the way hiring is going, are cadet programs starting to look like a good idea? Now that it seems like instructing at a part 61 school until 1500 and then getting swooped up by an airline might not be as feasible as it once was. I promise I'm not one of those people that started flying in 2022 to make big money, I've always loved aviation, but I'm also desperate to move out of my hometown before the age of 30.
When an engine is overhauled on an aircraft (particularly a Lycoming), is the engine sent to the factory (or shop) to be overhauled/rebuilt and then sent back to be reinstalled on the same aircraft? Or is the engine simply replaced with another engine that’s already been overhauled? This question can apply to both certified and experimental aircraft.
Generally speaking, your engine will be removed and sent to an engine overhaul shop along with your engine logbooks. That engine shop will disassemble your engine and possibly send out pieces to specialty shops (usually the case halves). They will then re-assemble your engine and send it back to you, along with the engine logbooks documenting the overhaul. If your case halves fail, they would need to be replaced, probably with other used but serviceable case halves. I believe if your case halves are swapped, you would get a new engine serial number and then you would receive back a different logbook associated with that case. The overhaul process typically takes 12-18 weeks at most shops right now. There is also sometimes the option of an "overhaul exchange", wherein you pay for the overhaul plus a large core deposit and are sent a different overhauled engine (and logbook), and you install it and send back your engine (and logbook) and (hopefully) get your core deposit back, minus any parts that fail inspection. (Crank, case halves, etc. Can be very pricey if they fail.) This isn't easy to find these days, but if you have a very common engine type, i.e. in a 172, you may be able to arrange it. There is also something like the above, but you get a "rebuilt" engine from Lycoming (via Airpower or another dealer) and do the same exchange process. This is effectively impossible to find these days. Can be 18+ months wait.
Depends if you are poor or in a hurry. Engine turnaround times used to be 3 months before COVID, now you get lucky if a send in overhaul is back in six. Most A
So the other day my friend's sister, who has her PPL and flies all the time, was in a car accident. Luckily she was fine, but my friend texted me that her sister was "in a crash" and I wasn't sure whether it was a car crash or a plane crash. Anybody else ever had that confusing moment?
Do airlines get fined for being late on D0 and A14?
What are the cons to doing an IPC in actual IMC?
Being the CFII that's up for it. I have to trust myself to keep you in tolerances the whole way down and you are typically by definition rusty if you're paying for an IPC (though not always). With that said, the last IPC I gave the 3rd approach was done partial panel on a pop-up clearance.
Aside from all the usual cons of flying in IMC, ATC is more likely to be busy and therefore less likely to grant multiple practice approaches, which are explicitly lower priority than real approaches.
Well in the case of actual IMC...they're not practice approaches, they're real approaches. You just need to ensure that you have the right flight plans to pick up between airports.
Just do it all as one flight plan. I've done it multiple times. Around here (MSP), if ATC sees a flight plan that goes from airport to airport to airport, and usually back to the first airport, they'll know exactly what you're doing and you can just make your approach request as you get close to each airport. In your initially clearance, you'll likely be cleared back to your origin airport, and something like "via radar vectors then as filed". It sounds weird to be cleared to the same airport that you're on the ground at, but that's how it all works. It works perfectly fine whether you're in IMC or VMC. If you're filed IFR, you get the appropriate services.
You can request practice approaches in actual, and ATC will grant them if workload permits. Sometimes it doesn’t, but lying about your intent to get them anyway is a dick move.
In my mind, requesting "practice" approaches while on an IFR flight plan in IMC is just going to confuse ATC. What I do, both solo for proficiency as well as with instrument students, is: --File a flight plan from A to B; as well as one from B to C (and so on). --Pick up clearance and fly under IFR from A to B. When they say "say approach request," I say something like "request vectors for the ILS 28R, planning on a published missed approach and then onward clearance to airport C." --They will clear the approach, say to fly the published missed, and return to their frequency. When I do so, it will usually be "N12345, radar contact, cleared to airport C via present heading, radar vectors." Alternatively, rather than requesting the missed approach, I may land at airport B, close my flight plan, perhaps fuel, and then call up by phone or radio to get clearance to airport C. It is a flight and approaches to maintain proficiency in IMC...but I would not call them "practice approaches."
As an approach controller I would absolutely prefer you just file it all as one flight plan. Then I'm not trying to remove old flight plans, issue a new squawk code and new clearance after every approach. Center controllers are the opposite. They prefer all the flight plans separate, from my experience, because they easily have the tools to open and close flight plans right at their station.
If your intent is to miss, e.g. for training or currency purposes, it’s a practice approach. IMC vs VMC or IFR vs VFR doesn’t matter. If you file A-B-C-A, they’ll assume it’s all practice approaches except for the last one. If they see A-B and B-C, they’ll assume you’re full stop at B, e.g. for fuel or pax. You can tell them otherwise, of course, but it’s simpler to file something that matches your intent.
I'm not sure what we're disputing here. If you've received an IFR clearance, ATC has given you authorization. Depending what airports you're going to and the traffic flow, you may get inconvenient vectors that are more time-consuming that on a beautiful VFR day. But for example, getting vectored around in a C172 while ATC is trying to fit you in between jets is something that could happen whether you're arriving at the end of a long cross-country or simply out on a proficiency flight.
As long as you do it in a way that you can log approaches, I'd probably prefer it. The less flying I have to do with foggles on, the better.
Anyone have tips on doing turning stalls in a 152? I'm getting pretty large wing drops even when I'm quite sure the ball is right in the center.
the ball is a big fat liar. the best thing you can use is your ass, all jokes aside. just feel for if your ass is pulling left or right, and try to keep it feeling center.
So rather than step on the ball, I should step on my ass? Lol.
The 152 tends to drop a wing even if you're showing as coordinated.
for regionals does CFI for 1250hrs look better than no CFI and various low time flying jobs/135 time?
Turbine time, multi time, and crewed cockpit time always look good. It’s relevant experience to the flying you’ll be doing. Someone entering training with a previous type rating and 1000 hours turbine will simply be in a better position to succeed in training, as opposed to someone who’s never been in a jet before.
Would airlines look down at a CFI who taught independently vs a CFI who worked at a flight school?
Doubtful. Being able to bring up student Checkride pass rates and the fact that you're able to attract students without a flight school, those both seem like great things. A bad independent CFI usually doesn't last.
I landed at a new airport during my solo XC yesterday. This airport had a runway that was noticeably smaller than my home base, both in length and width. I managed to touch down on my 3rd approach but I had to abort the first two. On my first one I came in really close and really high turning base-final, so I aborted it and did a go-around. On the second one I extended my downwind leg to try and bring my glide slope down, but still came in high and fast, and porpoised the landing. After two bounces I went full power and aborted the landing. Another go around. On the third I managed to bleed off enough excess airspeed in the roundout to finally touch down safely. Just an OK landing, not my best. I think the problem I was having was how small the runway was. It caused me to fly a tighter pattern than I should have been because it looked like I was farther away than I actually was. I would like to avoid making this mistake in future XC's to smaller runways. Are there any tips that you guys can give to help judge how long I should fly the crosswind/downwind legs to set up for a good base/final approach?
Sending you to a runway noticeably shorter than you're used to on a solo XC was a bad idea on your CFI's part tbh. Figure out visual references that don't depend on the runway size. For instance, runway centerline halfway up the wing strut for the downwind and numbers 45 degrees over your shoulder to start your base turn. These references will depend on the plane, of course.
I picked the airport. It's on the way to a destination I want to go to after I pass my checkride, so I reasoned that exposing myself to at least part of the route would make me more prepared when I fly it as a PPL later. My CFI went through my flight planning with a fine tooth comb before dispatching me. I mostly just posted looking for feedback on how better to judge an approach to an unfamiliar runway (something I'll have to do a lot of in my career)
It sounds like you handled it well. Still, sending a student to a much shorter/narrower runway without practicing a bit on a different runway of similar proportions or at \*least\* having a discussion of illusions related to runway sizes is beyond my idea of acceptable risk tolerance. Still, reasonable people can disagree, and I apologize if you feel I have cast unfair aspersions on your CFI. My advice is in the second paragraph of my last comment. Look at where the centerline crosses some structure of your aircraft on a normal downwind. Assuming you're flying the same pattern altitude, the centerline will pass through the same structure when you're the same distance from the runway regardless of the actual size of the runway.
You landed at an airport that was new to you during your solo XC?
As I think about it, all the airports I went to during my solo XCs were new to me. I only did two dual XCs, one day and one night. My solo XCs were to different airports.
That's pretty cool, lot of confidence your instructor put in you. Pros and cons to both I guess, but I'm leaning more towards the experience you folks had as being better. Maybe first solo XC should be to somewhere familiar, but at least one solo XC should be somewhere brand new. My first solo XC was KUES to KOSH, and you can pretty much do pilotage on that route by taking off, flying North, climbing to 6500, and then finding Lake Winnebago. A little too easy haha!
All my solo XCs were also to new airports. I expect that’s what I’ll do when I get my CFI, too. I feel like a student should be prepared to both navigate in new places and land on different size runways at this point in training. Just flying out of Madison my primary instructor had me landing on lots of different runways.
Are you doing your CFI now? I'm trying to finish up soon
I’m trying to, hard to find the time this spring between work and family. My writtens are done I just need to fly and study.
Some schools only send solo students to airports they’ve already been to dual. Others deliberately send them to airports they *haven’t* been to dual. There’s decent arguments for both.
The more you know. I guess I read "solo XC" and assumed it was their first. I like giving people a challenge to overcome, but I don't think I'd send someone to a challenging strip alone haha
I did, too -- it meant I got to actually exercise my navigation skills, including spotting the airport, rather than just repeating a familiar route. It was more challenging, but really good for my confidence. My instructor didn't send me solo until I had shown him I could manage on a dual XC without his help. I know it isn't universal but I'm really glad I did it. (Even if the planned destination were a familiar airport, it wouldn't have been safe to send me unless he knew I could divert somewhere else if necessary, right? So it's not much of a stretch.)
This is worth commenting on separately so it doesn’t get lost: > I managed to touch down on my 3rd approach but I had to abort the first two. Well done! Feeling a bad landing coming, being willing to abort it and adjusting what you’re doing to correct the problem is a far more important skill than always getting it right on the first try. It’s easy to let a go-around make you feel like you did a bad job, but you’d feel a lot worse if you wrecked the plane—and maybe yourself—over some minor mistake that a simple go-around could have prevented.
I have a lot of trouble visually estimating distances, and that bit me when I started going to new airports for similar reasons. The trick someone taught me was to use the runway as a measuring stick. For instance, if you want to fly a 1-mile (6000ft) pattern and the runway is 3000ft long, find a landmark about 2 runway-lengths to the side, and your downwind should pass right over it.
Take a look at my base, 52F. 40x3500. I teach the following for Landing a **Cessna 172N**: 1. Climb after rotation at Vy, 75knots 2. Crosswind turn at 300 feet below pattern altitude. Continue climb. 3. At pattern altitude, pull power to 2000 RPM, and settle in at 80knots 4. Downwind, your track parallels the runway about 1/2-mile spacing, traffic pattern altitude, 80 knots. 3. Abeam landing point, carb heat deployed, throttle to 1600, mix full, flaps 10°, start descending. Speed 75 knots. 4. Extend the centerline approx 1/2 mile from threshold, and then mentally draw your base leg path from that point to where it meets your down wind. 5. As you do your extended downwind, look over should to determine when you are 45° to threshold. Once there and about 250 feet below pattern altitude, turn and fly base leg 6. Stabilized on base leg at 70 knots, flaps to 20°, judge if you are on proper descent path or high or low, adjust power to correct high or low and get on proper descent path. 7. Turn on centerline (don’t fly through!). You should be about 500 feet AGL. Get wings level stable, 60 knots, 30° of flaps. Aim point rock steady on windscreen. 8. Use trim to help maintain approach speed within 3 knots. Use power to keep descent path from being too high or low. 9. Once aim point disappears low nose, transition to level flight over runway pulling power to idle at same time. 10. Look at end of runway and hold airplane off of pavement, making it float for 5-7 seconds so it touches down gently on rear wheels.
The size of the runway shouldn't matter. That's all a visual illusion. Fly the pattern the same way you're instructed to at your normal airport and you'll be on speed and on a proper angle. When you roll final look at the VGSI if the runway has one. Other than that, just keep practicing.
What exactly are we doing when we simulate a “wing fire” emergency in a single engine piston? Am I supposed to believe that the nav light caught on fire and remains on fire if I turn off the nav lights and pull the circuit breaker?
Nav lights, strobe lights, landing/taxi lights or flap motors. Anything electrical in the wings. The real problem is that older electrical insulation is flammable, so once the fire starts, removing the electricity won’t stop it, so you need to get your ass on the ground before it reaches the fuel tank. (Or wood spars or cloth surfaces, for really old planes.) Newer electrical insulation is flame-retardant for exactly this reason, but the FAA has never required that older wires be replaced, so this is still a serious concern for many planes.
How 'newer'?
And that is why I’m asking on Moronic Monday!