News Archives - Page 6 of 45 -

Using the ICARUS Device to Simulate IFR Conditions

0 Comments

January 7, 2021 Hank Gibson

Most of us who have been through instrument training are familiar with the traditional view limiting devices. There is the original hood, which does a decent job of blocking a pilot’s view of outside, but there are still gaps that allow “peeking”, though that peeking doesn’t really help a pilot fly an approach. It does help them figure out which way is up, so it’s not a true simulation.

The other problem with a hood is the process of putting it on to begin simulating IFR conditions, then taking it off when it’s time to land. This process takes time and the instructor has to take the controls (or the autopilot flies), losing some of the realism of the simulation.

Overall, an IFR hood is relatively comfortable. The elastic band sits under your headset, doesn’t squeeze your heard, and doesn’t press underneath your ear cups of the headset, giving you a headache. Hoods are large and somewhat unwieldy.

Foggles are another way to simulate IFR conditions for training. Most of the time, these are safety glasses that have most of the lens blacked out or fogged out, leaving little slits at the bottom for the pilot’s eyes to see the instruments.

Foggles aren’t quite as good as an IFR hood at blocking the outside. Due to their shape, there are often cracks that allow more “peeking” then a hood. The process of beginning to simulate IFR conditions and ending the simulated IFR conditions is easier though, since all the pilot has to do is put the foggles on or slip them off, which can often be done one handed (putting them on can be more difficult one handed since they have to fit underneath your headset). Wearing them for a long period of time can get painful as your headset is probably going to start crushing them against the side of your head.

The best comfort and view limiting combination I have found, so far, is called the ViBAN. It’s very comfortable and does a really good job of simulating IFR by blocking a view of the outside.

What’s the whole goal behind a view limiting device? When a pilot starts instrument training, ideally, all the training would take place in the clouds, since that is why someone get’s an instrument rating. As we all know, this isn’t possible, hence the need to simulate IFR conditions. The problem with simulating IFR is, it’s not true IFR. True IFR conditions are different then what a hood or a set of foggles can simulate. This can lead to spatial disorientation if a fresh instrument pilot enters the clouds for the first time, having done all his training in simulated conditions.

I’ve even heard a story of a pilot who did all his IFR training with a hood, passed his check ride, went into the clouds the first time, and put the hood on because he was getting disoriented since he hadn’t ever experienced true IFR.

What about full motion simulators? How I wish every airport had a full motion simulator for instrument training. Full motion sims are truly the best way to simulate IFR conditions. A pilot can easily get spatially disoriented in a sim if he or she isn’t careful. It’s a great way to simulate IFR conditions, but, alas, this just isn’t possible.

Are we doomed to just do an okay job of training instrument pilots in simulated IFR conditions with a hood or foggles?

Nope, at least not anymore.

Enter the ICARUS Device. The ICARUS Device, which stands for Instrument Conditions Awareness Recognition and Understanding System, is an amazing piece of equipment which truly simulates IFR conditions in the training environment. The ICARUS is a plastic shield that uses a Polymer Dispersed Liquid Crystal film that allows the degradation of a pilot’s visibility. It clips on to a baseball cap and is attached to a battery. That battery is then bluetoothed to an iPad or iPhone App that allows the instructor to put the pilot into and take him out of simulated IFR conditions.

Originally designed for helicopter training, it’s an excellent tool for fixed wing IFR training too. I’ve been using it for the last month and a half and I am hooked. The customer’s that I have used it with truly say that they cannot see a thing outside. Because the plastic shield turns white, it really does give the view that the pilot is in the clouds. The inner ear certainly believes it. The curve of it fits the glare shield in most planes nicely (there is some custom cutting that would have to take place for specifically rounded glare shields, but it fits Cirrus and Piper Saratogas nicely, the two planes I have used it in), and it sits away from the pilot’s face, blocking out all windows, which is what clouds do.

The greatest thing from an instructor’s standpoint is the ICARUS Device app. The pilot puts the device on before taxi and I set the app to VMC. This completely clears the ICARUS Device so the pilot can see just fine for taxi and takeoff. Then, at about 400 AGL, I tap the <1/2 VIS button on the app, and boom, the pilot is in the clouds. I even have a time delay to slowly make the ICARUS Device opaque to simulate slowly entering the clouds. I do the same thing on an approach, except in the reverse order, simulating we are slowly exiting the clouds.

The ICARUS Device is a game changer for IFR training. It’s comfortable, easy to use, the battery lasts for a long time (though bring a standard USB charging cord with you in the plane because the battery failure mode makes the ICARUS Device opaque instead of transparent. You don’t want that to happen at 200 AGL!), and, most important, it truly simulates IFR conditions.

After using it, I believe all flight schools and CFII should get one of these, both in the fixed wing and helicopter world. It’s the best option for simulating IFR conditions.

Checkout the ICARUS Device website for more information and to hear the story of the company.

Texas Top Aviation, LLC was given an ICARUS Device by the ICARUS Device company to test. Texas Top Aviation, LLC was not paid for our above opinion on the ICARUS Device (trust me, if it was terrible, I would have told you!).

Epic E1000 Gets the GFC 700

0 Comments

December 29, 2020 Hank Gibson

When the Epic E1000 was finally certified in the spring of 2020, there was much celebrating across the aviation world. Epic Aircraft expended a lot of time and energy getting the E1000 certified and into production (more information on that journey here and in Flying Magazine here).

The airplane is amazing. In the single engine, 6 seat turboprop market, it easily blows away the competition. With it’s 1,200 SHP PT6-67A, it has double the horsepower of the M600 (600 SHP), and 350 more horsepower than the TBM 940 (850 SHP). It’s 60 KTAS faster than the M600 and, even though the TBM can keep up (both airplanes have equal top cruise speeds of 330 KTAS), the Epic E1000 can carry a payload of 1,024 pounds with full fuel, while the 940 can only carry 584 pounds with full fuel. The TBM carries about 15 minutes more of fuel, but to me, that’s pretty negligible.

Did I mention climb rates? The E1000 climbs at an average of 1500 FPM at Vy (it’s capable of 4,000 FPM), making it to 25,000 feet in 10 minutes. The TBM climbs at 1000 FPM, taking 13 minutes to climb to the same altitude, while the M600 settles in at about 800 FPM, reaching FL250 in 21 minutes.

If you expand the comparison to include the Pilatus PC-12, the two airplanes have 1,200 SHP, but the Epic is 50 KTAS faster and they both have about the same weight carrying ability.

In the most important arena, price, the E1000 is around a million dollars cheaper than the TBM 940.

The one drawback to the Epic E1000 that immediately was noticeable was the autopilot. Epic originally installed the STEC 2100 autopilot to pair with the G1000 (and later the G1000 NXi). Epic decided to stick with the STEC 2100 through certification for the plane since that autopilot was on all of the E1000s paperwork going through all the levels of FAA approval. To change to the GFC 700 during the certification process would have been a massive undertaking that probably would have delayed certification.

The STEC 2100 is a good autopilot, but, as any G1000 pilot can tell you, the lack of integration between any STEC autopilot and Garmin panel leaves some to be desired. Not all the bugs talk, which often requires dual data entry, which can lead to forgetting to do both the bug and the autopilot when things get busy. Hello, altitude deviation.

The goal for Epic was never to leave the STEC autopilot in the airplane. The first E1000s were rolled off the line with the STEC, but Epic didn’t take long to change the autopilot to the much more integrated Garmin GFC 700. That took place this winter (2020), and the E1000 received it’s first upgrade, with Epic dubbing the airplane the Epic E1000 GX.

I expect the innovators in Bend, OR, where Epic is based and where tons of innovation in aviation happens (Lancair/Columbia started in Bend while RDD is based there as well), to quickly come out with more avionics upgrades for the airplane. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a G3000 version at some point, complete with auto throttles and the new Garmin Autoland. Epic would be smart to follow in the steps of Daher and offer two models, one with the G1000 and one with the G3000 (the TBM 910 has the G1000 NXi while the TBM 940 has the G3000).

I have yet to fly in an Epic E1000, but I would certainly jump at the chance to do so. Someone asked me yesterday what airplane I would buy if I had a blank check. With the GFC 700 now in the Epic, it would absolutely be the E1000 GX.

How to Get the Current Weather

0 Comments

December 17, 2020 Stephanie Mertz

For a long time, I was happy if an FBO had a radio where I could tune the ATIS or automated weather before getting into the plane. This would allow me to skip listening to the weather in the airplane with the engine running, giving me a quicker exit from the ramp while burning a little less fuel. I would also be able to brief my taxi route from the ramp since I would know which runway was in use before getting in the plane.

As we progress forward in technology, I’m constantly amazed at how much more planning I can do from the palm of my hand. Now, I can call a phone number and get the ATIS, AWOS, or ASOS, depending on the size of the airport; if you prefer reading a text version…well, there’s an app for that.

With this technology, it’s very important for pilots to be aware of what service they are utilizing when calling these numbers. Usually only a Class B or larger Class C airport will have a phone number specifically for ATIS as well as one for AWOS/ASOS. These are listed in the Airport/Facility Directory (AFD), as well as all flight planning apps (Foreflight, Garmin Pilot, Stratus Insight). More then one pilot has called the AWOS/ASOS number for an airport thinking they would receive the ATIS (because towered airports that have ATIS phone numbers often also have AWOS/ASOS phone numbers that are different). Since the pilot didn’t hear a code on the phone, that led to the false thinking that either the tower was closed or the pilot did not have the code (ie. Information Bravo) to give to ground control when calling for taxi instructions. The minute weather can be very useful for flight planning, but the ATIS must be received before contacting ATC at a towered airport.

Notice the red box just past halfway down the page. There is a phone number for the ASOS at KSAT and a separate phone number for the ATIS next to the frequency.

Sometimes, you may get a busy tone if someone else is on the line. Usually, waiting a few minutes and trying again will lead to success. Just like old school phone lines, only one call can go through at at time! If it’s a particularly stormy day, you may be fighting a number of pilots to get on the line. In this case, an app where you can read the ATIS may be particularly helpful (Yes, there actually is a dedicated ATIS App!).

The ATIS app allows us lowly pilots without an Aircraft Communicating and Reporting System (ACARS) to access the Digital ATIS (D-ATIS ) at airports where ATIS is available. Only 76 airports in the US have D-ATIS, most of which are either Class B or busier Class C airports. Foreflight also provides D-ATIS textually at the same 76 airports, though it is only accessible depending on which subscription level you have with Foreflight (since I’m not a Garmin Pilot or Stratus Insight user, I’m not sure if either of them give D-ATIS reports).

With Foreflight’s D-ATIS, it does not get updated over ADS-B, only when your iPad or phone have an internet signal. When inbound to an airport with D-ATIS, the pilot has to listen to the radio frequency to get the current ATIS. Foreflight will display the last D-ATIS it received, but typically, it’s old. Check the time in the upper right hand corner.

On the Airports page on Foreflight, tap Info, then tap Weather & Advisory and the phone numbers will display along with the ATIS frequency

Foreflight now offers Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC) at those same 76 airports. With either a pre-registered tail number or a Foreflight call sign (starting in FFL), once a pilot files an IFR flight plan, the D-ATIS and the IFR clearance in it’s entirety are texted to the phone number the pilot filed with. All that is left to do is call ground, state “I have information Romeo and my clearance, ready to taxi,” then away you go. Skipping listening to the ATIS and talking to Clearance Delivery saves a good 5-10 minutes at times, depending on how busy the airport is.

These days, there are many different avenues to get the current weather (and IFR clearances!). When calling on the phone, the key is to be aware, know which number you are calling and, if you are expecting to hear an ATIS message but instead hear the AWOS/ASOS, verify the Chart Supplement Guide and Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) to check tower hours of operation before flying into the airspace.

Flying the Hudson River Corridor

0 Comments

November 15, 2020 Andrew Robinson

Ever since I moved out to the Philadelphia area, the Hudson River corridor in New York City has become one my favorite places to fly. It’s hard to overstate the beauty of the city from low over the river. Every time I have a family member or friend come to visit, I try and take them over to see the city from the air.

Each time I fly up the river I can’t believe that we are actually allowed to do so, flying below the tops of the buildings and close enough that you feel that you could reach and out touch them. The draw back to the Hudson River Corridor is that it can be busy, intimidating, and confusing. However, with some reading and preparation, the Skyline flight is easy to do and extremely rewarding.

Having the right weather is an important first step. The second step is try to arrive during ideal lighting conditions. If possible, select a smooth, calm day to make it easier to maintain a track down the correct side of the river. I always try and target arrival at the city around sunset. The view is spectacular any time of day, but having the lights from the city while the sun is just setting gives the best viewing. I’ve also flown over and done the whole flight after dark, which is always spectacular.

The first method of flying the river is to utilize VFR flight following. If the controllers aren’t too busy, they will provide advisories to aircraft that request the Skyline. The nice thing about doing it this way is that the controller will clear you into the NY bravo airspace and keep you above the traffic flying the Skyline in the VFR corridor below. This is the method that I have always preferred as I enjoy the added benefit of the traffic advisories and it’s nice not to worry about position reporting on the radio.

If you want to get flight following, head toward the corridor and request the Skyline route with NY Approach. (Remember to stay clear of the Bravo until you’re cleared in!) Once you’re cleared into the Bravo and approaching the corridor, they will hand you off to Newark/ LaGuardia Tower for traffic advisories over the river. I like to approach from the south and ask for a 180 over the George Washington Bridge. This allows me to fly past the city a second time before exiting the corridor over the VZ (Verrazano Bridge) and heading back toward home.

In red is the path I typically fly. I descend to 1400’ and fly toward the APPLE intersection picking up the shoreline around Staten Island and hugging it until crossing the middle of the VZ. Newark normally clears me into the Bravo at 1400’ or 1500’ to fly up the corridor.

Pros:

Better traffic Awareness
No position reports

Cons:

Flying slightly higher reduces the view
If the controllers are busy, they may deny your request for advisories
Can be intimidating to talk to NY Approach/ Newark/ LaGuardia

The other option is to fly in the VFR corridor. If you want to do it via this method there are just a few things you need to make sure you’re familiar with before you go. When in the VFR corridor you’ll need to make required position reports on a CTAF frequency. Make sure that you have the proper charts and have studied pictures of the landmarks so that you know what you’re looking for. I tend to plan on this as a backup in the event that the controllers won’t give me advisories.

Pros:

Doesn’t require talking to controllers/ class B clearance
More freedom to select altitude and routing as desired

Cons:

Less traffic awareness
Required position reporting

All the requirements and guidelines for flying the corridor can be found on the back of the NYC TAC chart. Any pilot flying the river is required to have one of these or a NYC helicopter route chart on board. If you’re using Foreflight, look in the Documents section under FAA Fly Charts and select the NYC TAC chart in order to read the back of page.

Below you’ll find examples of the diagrams/ instructions printed on the back of the NYC TAC charts.

You can see the traffic flow requires northbound airplanes to hug the east side of the river, while the southbound traffic stays on the west side. The VFR reporting positions (listed from North to South) are: Alpine Tower, George Washington Bridge, Intrepid aircraft carrier, Goldman Sachs (clock), Statue of Liberty, VZ (Verrazano Bridge). Each position report should include aircraft type, position, direction, and altitude.

Other things to be aware of:
NYC is always a hotspot for TFR’s. There are often TFR’s for baseball games or presidential movements so make sure to check before you head that way. Additionally, there is a speed restriction in place of 140 kts, though I’m not sure why anyone sightseeing would want to go that fast anyhow.

I realize that all of the procedures and restrictions can be overwhelming, but with the proper preparation, the Hudson Skyline is one of the most incredible places in the world to operate an airplane. There are a lot of things that are easy to get excited about that don’t live up to expectation, but this isn’t one of them. I’ve never taken anyone to the river that wasn’t impressed by what they saw and that’s why I plan to keep going back.

About to cross the VZ looking north toward the city

The Avidyne Equipped Cirrus Upgrade

1 Comment

October 27, 2020 Hank Gibson

A History Lesson

11 years ago, in April of 2009, the Avidyne Corporation unveiled the much bally-hooed Release 9, or R9 as it is commonly known, as a hardware replacement for the Avidyne EX5000 Entegra system in Cirrus Aircraft. The Entegra system was way outdated by that point. Even though Avidyne was the first company to put together a glass PFD in a single engine piston airplane, the company had quickly fallen behind Garmin in keeping up with the ever changing technology landscape.

Rewind to 2008. Cirrus had been going strong with the Avidyne Entegra since the SR20 and SR22 went to full glass in 2003 (a PFD and an MFD; prior to that, Cirrus aircraft only had an MFD with steam gauges and a Sandel Electronic HSI). Cessna, on the other hand, vaulted past the Avidyne Entegra and went straight to the Garmin G1000 in it’s aircraft, starting in 2004 with the 182 G1000 and 2005 with the 172 G1000. Beechcraft and Columbia went to the G1000 (Columbia started with the Avidyne as well) in 2005.

Garmin’s technology in 2007 was so much better than Avidyne’s technology that Cirrus decided to switch. I’m sure there were many promises made by Avidyne to Cirrus about what Avidyne was working on (the R9), but the G1000 was out there, available, and being used in a lot of different airplanes with very good results.

So, in 2008, Cirrus made the switch from the Avidyne Entegra to the Garmin G1000, dubbing it the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin avionics package. Avidyne finally got the R9 to market in 2009, but by that time, Piper was the only airplane manufacturer left putting factory Avidyne panels in their airplanes, and they switched to G1000 later that year.

The R9 is a fabulous product. It’s fully integrated, has great graphics, has fully redundant displays, a QWERTY keypad (which, by the way, Garmin didn’t do for another 8 years), and a lot of other neat features. There’s a bit of a learning curve, but it’s a really good product for what it is.

Avidyne, though, was late to the game with their technology. By the time it debuted in 2009, all the GA aircraft manufacturers had long since switched to the Garmin G1000 and weren’t looking back. That left Avidyne with the retrofit market for the many different Avidyne Entegra Cirrus aircraft out there. The only problem was, the retrofit was $80,000 ($95,000 if you wanted to throw in the DFC 100 Autopilot, which is a must have) and not many owners were up for paying that much money, then or now.

To sum up our brief history lesson, Avidyne knew the Entegra needed to go, but couldn’t get the R9 out quickly enough to convince anyone to stick with Avidyne products. The retrofit market didn’t amount to many sales, so Avidyne doesn’t even make the R9 anymore.

As a side note, I really, really like the Avidyne R9 and am sad that it didn’t make it into more airplanes.

So, when the Avidyne Entegra starts to have issues, what’s an owner to do? Keep reading!

There is Hope

There are thousands of Cirrus aircraft out there flying with the Avidyne Entegra instrumentation, which is basically 20 year old technology (I’ve had a computer engineer tell me the programming in an Entegra is Windows 98 tech). These things are going to start having problems at some point (many already have), but what solution do owners have that is cost effective and get’s them new technology?

Remember that little company named Garmin? Well, they have come through again. Announced this summer, the Garmin G500 TXi is now certified as a replacement in the Cirrus Avidyne Entegra equipped aircraft. This means pulling out both the PFD and MFD and replacing them with the G500 TXi on both sides. Engine data is also displayed on the G500TXi MFD, including the percent power and TIT indications, if equipped.

Cirrus SR22 Equipped with Dual G500 TXi Screens and Dual Garmin GTN 650Xi GPS Units

The cost for the panel? Two 10.6″ G500 TXi’s run about $16,000 apiece for the units, not including labor. $32,000 for a brand new panel isn’t terrible. Plus, the G500 TXi’s work with the DFC90 autopilot if the Cirrus is already equipped with it. If not, the Garmin GFC 500 autopilot is now approved for the Cirrus at a relatively low price of $7,000, including the servos.

Still have the original Garmin 430s in your Cirrus? Upgraded to the Avidyne IFD 540/440 stack? Put in dual GTN 650Xi’s? Put in a GTN 750Xi? All are compatible with the G500 TXi panel.

Want to upgrade everything? It does get kind of pricey at that point, but for just equipment, the cost for a complete panel conversion is somewhere in the area of $65,000 plus labor, still below what the R9 cost, but not cheap either. That would include 2 G500 TXi’s, 2 GTN 650Xi’s, a GFC 500 Autopilot, and all the engine monitoring equipment that the G500 TXi would need.

Cirrus SR22 Equipped with Dual G500 TXi Screens, a GTN 750Xi, and a GTN 650Xi

Thankfully, some new technology has finally come to the Generation 1-3 Cirrus. Oh, and by the way, your steam gauge Cirrus is fully upgradable as well.

Want to read more? Check out Garmin’s website.