MMOPA announced the location for the 2022 MMOPA Convention. The 2022 Convention will be in Tucson, Arizona and will take place September 29th-October 2nd, 2022. The JW Marriott Starr Pass will be the host resort.
Thursday, September 29th will kick off the convention with a safety event for pilots and companions, lunch with exhibitors, and the return of the charity golf tournament.
Friday, September 30th and Saturday, October 1st will be when all the classes and seminars that make the MMOPA convention great are held. The Friday dinner will be at an aviation themed spot in Tucson while the annual auction and black tie affair will be Saturday night.
Stay tuned to the event details page on the MMOPA website to see when registration is opened.
Type Clubs Lead By Example with Standard Operating Practices
This article appeared in the May 2019 edition of EAA’s Sport Aviation Magazine. It is used with permission. For other articles by Charlie Precourt, please visit EAA.org and join for a full subscription.
Imagine a year when there are no fatal accidents in general aviation. Does that seem impossible? The airlines achieved that many years ago, and so can we if we focus on the right things in our safety pro- grams. In fact, the overall trend in GA accident rates over the last few years is very encouraging. AOPA’s Air Safety Institute published its annual GA Accident Scorecard recently (see www.EAA.org/ extras), revealing fatal accidents from 2008 to 2017 are down more than 30 percent. Nevertheless, there were 185 fatal accidents in 2017, so we still have a long way to go. But, there are many developments in safety programs across GA that can keep the trend going.
One such development that I’ve advocated through a couple of type clubs is establishing standard operating practices (SOP). When I flew for both the U.S. Air Force and NASA, we had what we called standard operating procedures. They were the law for our flying. That is, we had to follow them procedurally because the folks that paid our salaries said so. The objective was to ensure we all used the same playbook, minimizing the risk that one of us might develop a bad in-flight habit that increased risk to the organization.
One way to think about SOPs is to recognize the difference between procedure and technique. For example, you have to follow the manufacturer’s pilot’s operating handbook (procedure)where it says to lower the landing gear before landing. If you don’t, you are in for a bad day. However, it does not tell you exactly when to lower the gear; that’s left to technique.
In the middle, between procedure and technique, is a best practice. In this example, lowering the gear just before the final approach fix is a “standard practice.” It is the generally accepted “best” place to lower the gear. In GA, however, aircraft owners don’t generally answer to a boss, so I prefer the term practices instead of procedures.
However, whether or not someone is paying us to fly, following best practices just makes sense. If you have a good set of practices, they enable you to do things the same way every time, leaving lots of brain cells to manage the unusual, the things that might go wrong. The safest approach to accomplishing a flight task is one that leverages consistency. On the other hand, if you are inconsistent, doing flight tasks differently each time, you’ll always be struggling to keep up. So, in my involvement with the safety committees for both the Malibu Mirage Owners and Pilots Association and the Citation Jet Pilots Association, there has been broad acceptance of recently developed standard operating practices.
The good news in this development is that a culture of safety is growing broadly across most sectors of GA through these type club initiatives. Perhaps more importantly, there is much to learn from each other about the effectiveness of these various initiatives. EAA has seen a four-year drop of 47 percent in fatal accidents among homebuilts! So, there must be something right going on there — a major focus on appropriate transition training before flying a new homebuilt (as a standard operating practice) is paying off.
So, what is covered in the SOPs these type clubs have developed? The following outlines the kinds of standard practices other type clubs have set up and represent SOPs you could establish for yourself regardless of the type of aircraft you fly. You just have to fill in the blanks for your particular type and commit to sticking to them in your flying. These are notional and are practices (not mandatory procedures). They don’t tell you how to fly your aircraft; they give you things to think about when you do. If you take a bit of time to set your own SOPs and then stick with them, you’ll be a far safer pilot. Here are some ideas:
Duty Day
Set the maximum number of hours of flight time during a calendar day and rest hours off between flying days. One example is a maximum of eight hours in the air and a minimum of 10 hours off until flying again.
Cargo
Establish best practices for what you will carry as cargo. One example is no lithium batteries in the baggage compartment.
Flight Planning and Preparation
What are your limitations for the types of flight you’ll take on? Consider SOPs such as designating a suitable alternate airport for all flights. Another might be for first flights after significant maintenance, such as no flight at night or in IMC until a day-VMC functional check flight has been done.
Runway Field Length Guidelines
Establish an appropriate minimum field length for your aircraft and commit to not going into shorter fields. Consider sea level operations and high-altitude airports as well.
Surface Operations
What should be your maximum wind conditions for taxi, takeoff, or landing? Maximum acceptable crosswinds on landing? Set them in your SOP and stick to them.
En Route
Consider establishing practices like no non-operationally necessary conversation below 10,000 feet MSL, during any segment of an approach procedure, or during the last 1,000 feet before leveloff during climb or descent. Also consider declaring “minimum fuel” when the fuel state becomes less than fuel to destination plus 45 minutes at current burn, even if flying day VFR.
Approach and Landing
Consider establishing personal minimums in your SOPs for things like visual approaches. Perhaps use a 1,500-foot ceiling and 3 miles’ visibility for day and 5 miles for night, even though these exceed the FAA’s requirements.
Pilot Limitations, Training, & Currency
FAR Part 91 rules allow us to fly with pretty marginal levels of currency. Consider setting your own SOP to something more appropriate for the kind of aircraft you fly and the kind of flying you do in it. For example, consider these ideas as SOPs:
If you have less than 100 hours of time-in-type or have not flown at least 15 hours as pilot in command in the last 90 days, use a minimum planned fuel reserve of one hour.
Also, if flying IFR in this situation, use a minimum visibility for takeoff of 1 mile.
On instrument approaches, increase the published minimums by one- half mile visibility and add 200 feet to the decision altitude or minimum descent altitude.
Perform landings at a weight that allows a full stop in 60 percent of available runway length.
Consider an SOP that establishes you will fly with a CFI on a refresher flight before flying as pilot in command if you have not logged at least an hour of flight time and one takeoff and landing in an aircraft of the same type within the preceding 45 days.
Maneuver Standards
Wherever there are “techniques” associated with things like takeoffs and climbs, cruise, use of autopilot, power settings, and approaches and landings, you can write down your preferred technique as your own SOP. Describe each maneuver in enough detail (speeds, altitudes, power settings, configurations, etc.) to define a routine you will use each time. This ensures you fly consistently each flight and leverage the power of the standard operating practice, that is, to give you the bandwidth you need should you encounter an unexpected event or an emergency.
SOPs are among the exciting concepts underway to make safety programs work for us. Hats off to type clubs like MMOPA and CJP and many others that are taking the initiative. But even if you’re not in this kind of group, you can still set up your own SOPs. Let’s all look forward to our first year in GA without a fatal accident — and let’s make it soon! Fly safe!
Charlie Precourt is a former NASA chief astronaut, space shuttle commander, and Air Force test pilot. He built a VariEze, owns a Piper JetPROP, and is a member of the EAA board of directors.
Type Clubs Lead By Example with Standard Operating Practices This article appeared in the May 2019 edition of EAA’s Sport Aviation Magazine. It is used with permission. For other articles by Charlie Precourt, please visit EAA.org and join for a full subscription. Imagine a year when there are no fatal accidents in general aviation. Does…
I have the blessing (same say it’s a curse) of being a tailwheel pilot. I did my tailwheel training in a Citabria and have gathered about 400 hours over the years in Citabrias, Super Cubs, and Maules (don’t judge all tailwheel airplanes by a Maule, by the way. The Maule is it’s own unique animal). The blessing of being a tailwheel pilot is that it greatly enhances my stick and rudder skills for all airplanes.
No matter what airplane you fly, basic stick and rudder skills are always important. At some point during a flight, the rudder will need to be used, even if you have an airplane that has a yaw damper. Rudder use is vitally important in the takeoff and landing phase, especially if you fly an airplane that generates a lot of torque on the takeoff roll. Rudder in that phase of flight is pretty evident, because if the rudder isn’t used, you’ll go off the left side of the runway.
Where I want to focus is rudder use in the landing phase. As an airplane comes down final, there are several forces that are be acting on the airplane. When it’s bumpy, updrafts and downdrafts are moving the plane up and down and all around. To correct for a bump that sends the airplane into a roll, aileron is added in the opposite direction of the roll. That aileron input also induces adverse yaw, pulling the nose of the airplane in the opposite direction that the pilot is moving the ailerons.
If a pilot isn’t using his feet correctly, then the nose of the airplane will wallow around through the air as aileron inputs are used. The tail is also moving around quite a bit, so the pilot might not “feel” the yawing moment, but the passengers in the back seat certainly will.
The other advantage that comes with proper rudder usage on short final is the airplane is more responsive to control inputs. When utilizing both the ailerons and the rudder, a pilot is able to fly the airplane much more precisely and control it much better.
This doesn’t mean you have to be staring at the turn coordinator the whole time down final. In fact, that’s exactly what you don’t want to do. Your eyes need to be outside the airplane. Just get in the habit of stepping on the rudder whenever you move the ailerons on final and eventually, you will feel what your airplane is doing. Don’t step on the rudder as hard as you can, but slight pedal pressure in the direction of aileron input will make a big difference.
Rudder is also vitally important for landing in a crosswind no matter that airplane. Crosswind landings are a learned skill that take a lot of practice to perfect. There is also a lot of confusion as to what control input does what during the landing.
Here is the simplest way to picture a crosswind landing and what the controls do:
Aileron-When performing a crosswind landing, the ailerons keep the airplane over the centerline. If the airplane is drifting to the right of the centerline, add left aileron to bring it back to centerline, then keep enough aileron control pressure in to keep the airplane over centerline. In a perfect crosswind landing, the main tire on the windward side will touch down first. Left crosswind means left tire touching first.
Rudder-When performing a crosswind landing, the job of the rudder is to straighten the nose to point down the runway. You will not be coordinated in a crosswind landing, you will be slipping, which is the goal. So, with a left crosswind, you will be inputting left aileron to remain over the centerline and you will also need right rudder to straighten the nose. This also prevents the airplane from actually rolling in the direction of the aileron input.
If you remember for a crosswind landing: “Aileron into the wind to stay over centerline, opposite rudder to straighten the nose.” Too much aileron and the plane will drift into the wind. Too much rudder and the nose will yaw in the opposite direction.
Rudder is very important, even in our day and age where a lot of general aviation airplanes have yaw dampers. Our feet only have a job for a short period of time, but that is the most critical time. An excellent way to get more proficient in rudder use is to go get a tailwheel endorsement. If you are in the central Texas area, check out TacAreo in Fredericksburg, T82.
Don’t let your feet fall asleep!
I have the blessing (same say it’s a curse) of being a tailwheel pilot. I did my tailwheel training in a Citabria and have gathered about 400 hours over the years in Citabrias, Super Cubs, and Maules (don’t judge all tailwheel airplanes by a Maule, by the way. The Maule is it’s own unique animal)….
The safest pilots are the ones who attempt to gain as much knowledge and learning about their airplane and environment as possible. These pilots are the ones who enjoy learning, going to seminars and conventions, and soak up all the MMOPA magazine articles in each issue. These pilots are the ones who get as much training as they can, above and beyond what the minimum requirements are.
If you are one of these pilots and you own a Piper PA46, then this blog is for you.
Casey Aviation, one of the best Piper PA46 training companies out there, recently released all of their Malibu, Mirage, Matrix, Meridian, and JetProp systems training videos for free. These are some fantastic videos that Casey Aviation created which go much more in depth than any power point presentation could.
The great thing about the videos is they give the viewer an all access “inside look” to the specific airplane. Joe Casey, owner of Casey Aviation, takes off cowlings, crawls under the nose gear compartment, and even shows an airplane with the interior out so all the flap cables and environmental systems can be seen.
I have started referring all of my PA46 customers to the Casey Aviation videos as part of the prep work for our training sessions.
To access the videos, check out the Casey Aviation website.
The safest pilots are the ones who attempt to gain as much knowledge and learning about their airplane and environment as possible. These pilots are the ones who enjoy learning, going to seminars and conventions, and soak up all the MMOPA magazine articles in each issue. These pilots are the ones who get as much…
Glass panel displays, ballistic parachute aircraft recovery systems, portable tablet computers enabling paperless cockpits, and widely available three axis autopilot systems have changed the way we fly, the way we train, and the way we are expected to perform on check rides. Our training and testing paradigms have tried to stay in synch, yet always seem to be catching up to the latest levels of technology.
This is very apparent when we instructors are preparing a student for an FAA practical test. When training aircraft had no autopilots, no GPS, and certainly no parachutes, the general philosophy was that during training, the student should have the lowest level of technology available. This was also the expectation on the check ride. This theory has changed over the years and now the Practical Test Standards require that an applicant integrate all available technology while demonstrating mastery of his or her aircraft. This raises numerous questions from instructors and students about what technology will be available for each task.
One example of this dilemma is found when contemplating an instrument airplane practical test in a Cirrus SR20/SR22. The test requires the task “Instrument Approach without Primary Flight Display”, which has taken the place of what was the partial panel approach, accomplished without use of gyroscopic heading and attitude indicators. In the Cirrus, the standby attitude indicator, standby airspeed, and standby altimeter are available, as is the Multi-Function Display. Guidance from the FAA has us shooting a GPS approach using the moving map display on the MFD after disabling the PFD. Those of us who trained and tested in steam gauge aircraft think that this task should be fairly easy. With a fully functional Attitude Indicator and a nice big moving map display showing our course, a reasonably competent instrument pilot should have little trouble adapting to this setup and flying a good approach.
But, in the Cirrus specifically, and perhaps in other aircraft as well, another question comes up. Can the applicant use the autopilot (which still works just fine after a display failure) during the approach without the PFD? A rather famous DPE who writes for a national magazine says “yes”, opining that not to allow its use would be introducing simultaneous multiple systems failures, which is strictly forbidden in the minds of some. If we follow this logic, we would not test simulated engine failure emergencies in these aircraft either, because to do so would imply failure of not only the engine, but the CAPS parachute system as well. In my former role as a pilot examiner, I always said no, that the approach should be hand flown. Here is my logic.
I was amazed that flight instructors and examiners would accept the substitution of autopilot technology for the skill required to fly an approach without the PFD. I would argue that the intent and the well described emphasis of the PTS is that the applicant must demonstrate the ability to control the airplane after a loss of the primary flight display, not observe and monitor the autopilot controlling the airplane! This argument was generally unpersuasive, so I approached from a different point of view, that of a concerned family member.
“Aunt Betty” represents a future passenger flying with the soon to be rated instrument pilot. Here is the question posed to Aunt Betty: “When we train and test pilots for instrument proficiency, we require them to demonstrate the ability to safely and skillfully fly the airplane without their primary instruments. Now, Betty, in this airplane, we can test this task in one of two ways. We would like your input on which way you would prefer, seeing as you will be a frequent passenger with your nephew. We can either have the pilot (might be your son, brother, husband, or nephew) demonstrate that he can fly the airplane by hand without the PFD, which does require a little more skill and a slightly different technique, or, we can require the pilot to perform this task using the autopilot so that the pilot basically monitors the airplane flying itself on the approach.
“Now, Aunt Betty, a pilot allowed to use the autopilot system on this approach may not have the skill or technique to fly the approach by hand in the clouds should the autopilot shut down due to turbulence or mechanical failure. Should this happen to a pilot without the skill and practice normally required, the odds of a fatal accident occurring would be quite high.
“So what do you think, Aunt Betty? Would you feel more comfortable flying with this fellow if he has demonstrated mastery of the aircraft (sans PFD) without the autopilot or only with its assistance?”
This leads us to a larger discussion about the use of other technology, iPad, GPS moving map, and more. If technology is used as a replacement for pilot proficiency during training and testing, we end up with less skillful, less competent and ultimately less safe pilots. But, if we require that our students demonstrate mastery with the lowest available level of automation and technology (which, by the way, implies excellent fundamental aircraft control skills) then, when technology is added into the equation, we have a safer pilot.
Technology can be a value added safety multiplier, or it can be a crutch needed to make up for lack of fundamental and advanced skills. Crutch or Safety Multiplier, which one will you choose? I know which one Aunt Betty prefers.
Charles McDougal is a flight instructor, corporate pilot, and former DPE who offers basic and advanced flight instruction in the San Antonio area. To find out more information about Charles or to contact him, visit his website, www.flighttrainingcoalition.com.
Glass panel displays, ballistic parachute aircraft recovery systems, portable tablet computers enabling paperless cockpits, and widely available three axis autopilot systems have changed the way we fly, the way we train, and the way we are expected to perform on check rides. Our training and testing paradigms have tried to stay in synch, yet always…
When filing an IFR flight plan, part of the process is determining whether or not an alternate airport is required. An alternate airport is required when the following conditions exist(as is outlined by the FAA in 91.169 (b)):
The weather conditions at the destination airport
From 1 hour before your arrival time to 1 hour after your estimated time of arrival, the weather conditions are forecast to be below
2,000 Feet AGL and/or
3 statute miles visibility
Let’s paint a scenario. You are traveling from KSAT (San Antonio International Airport) to KHBV (Jim Hogg County Airport in Hebbronville, TX). You start to file your flight plan and get down to the space where you put your alternate in. Since Laredo (KLRD) is the closest airport with a TAF, you check Laredo’s TAF and see that the forecast conditions there at your ETA are ceilings 1,500 and visibility of 2sm.
Based on this information, you need an alternate airport. Now, the process of finding one. In Part 91.169 (c), the forecast conditions at the alternate airport must be at or above:
600 Feet AGL and 2sm visibility for a precision approach, or
800 Feet AGL and 2sm visibility for a non-precision approach
Alright, now we have some guidance. Laredo is the nearest airport to KHBV, and we know the forecast from the above TAF showing the conditions are forecast to be above the alternate minimums outlined in Part 91, so let’s pick Laredo. All done?
Not quite. A lot of airports have Non-Standard Alternate Minimums. How do you figure out if they do? The easiest way is to look at any approach plate for the airport. In the notes section of the government plates, there will be a black triangle with an A in it. That means there are non-standard alternate minimums published for that airport (in layman’s terms, different than the ones stated above in Part 91).
Now the question is, where do you find those non-standard alternate minimums? On Foreflight:
Go to the Airports page
Tap the Procedures button
Tap the Arrival button
Tap the Alternate Minimums option
This brings up the IFR Alternate Minimums document for all the airports with non-standard alternate minimums in that area. Scroll through to find Laredo.
As you can see, there are several notes there concerning the different approaches into Laredo. For our example, we’ll say the winds are out of the south and we are planning on flying the ILS 17R if we cannot get into KHBV and have to come to Laredo. The note there is that the Alternate Minimums for the ILS 17R are actually 700 AGL ceilings and 2sm instead of the above state 600 AGL ceilings and 2sm, the procedure is NA if the tower is closed, and NA if the local weather isn’t received.
What does this tell us? If the forecasted ceilings at Laredo were below 600 AGL instead of 700 AGL, we would not be able to use LRD as an alternate airport if we were planning on flying the ILS 17R. The RNAV approaches are all fair game, so a GPS equipped aircraft would have no problem.
On top of that, some approaches at a certain airport are not authorized to be used in the case of the airport being used as an alternate. At the Galveston airport (KGLS), the ILS 14 is NA as an alternate procedure, but all the RNAV approaches are available.
Picking an alternate seems simple at first, but there are actually a lot of things to consider in the process.
Need help remember all this stuff? AOPA has put out a kneeboard sheet that helps all IFR pilots remember those important things when it comes to IFR flying. Check it out here.
When filing an IFR flight plan, part of the process is determining whether or not an alternate airport is required. An alternate airport is required when the following conditions exist(as is outlined by the FAA in 91.169 (b)): The weather conditions at the destination airport From 1 hour before your arrival time to 1 hour…
It’s winter time, so that means winter weather for the aviation community. For single engine piston pilots, that means dealing with icing conditions. For us Texan flyers, ice only presents an issue for maybe a week out of the year (the exception being for those Panhandle residents!), but it’s nice to have some protection.
Most single engine pistons do not come with ice protection from the factory and, of those that do, most are not Flight Into Known Icing (FIKI) approved. The systems are “get out of jail” systems that can reduce the amount of ice you pick up if you accidentally get into icing conditions and you are on your way out. The Cirrus SR22 line of aircraft has had the TKS system option since 2006, with the new FIKI system being available since 2010. The Cessna TTx has a FIKI option that was debuted in 2014.
The above mentioned airplanes use TKS systems. There are a handful of single engine pistons that use boots that are FIKI certified: the Piper PA46 line (Malibu, Mirage, and Matrix) and the Cessna P210 and T210 line (though not all are equipped with boots).
If you find yourself flying into wintry conditions often and want some protection for your clean wing airplane, there are some aftermarket options for a lot of airplanes now. Do note that all these systems do come with a pretty hefty price tag, but can be worth it if you fly into icing a good bit.
CAV Ice Protection TKS Systems
CAV Ice Protection is a TKS system outfitter. What is TKS fluid? According to Flying Magazine:
“TKS systems dispense an ethylene glycol-based fluid with a freezing point below minus 70 degrees F through porous titanium panels attached to the leading edge of the wing and empennage. The fluid is released through thousands of the panels’ laser-drilled holes, which are not much larger than the size of a human hair. As air flows over the wing and empennage, it disperses the fluid, coating the surfaces, and preventing the formation and adherence of ice.”
The advantages of a TKS system are the whole entire wing gets coated to get rid of any extra ice that adheres to the top or bottom of the wing surface. The disadvantage is there is only a finite amount of fluid, so when it runs out, you don’t have any more protection. The fluid also adds extra weight agains the useful load of the airplane.
CAV Offers a Basic TKS system for the following single engine piston aircraft:
Beech Bonanza
Cessna 182, 206, 210, 350, & 400
Columbia 350 & 400
Piper PA32
Mooney M20
CAV Offers a full FIKI System for the following single engine piston aircraft:
Ice Shield is another after market de-ice option. Ice Shield makes boots for wing leading edges. The advantage of boots is they activate instantaneously, getting rid of ice where it builds up first, on the wing leading edge. No running out of fluid and only the added weight of the system. Ice Shield also offers heated windscreens for several the Piper Saratoga line and the A36, B36, and G36 Bonanza line.
Ice Shield has boots for the following single engine piston aircraft:
One other company, Kelly Aerospace, makes an electric leading edge de-icer called the ThermaWing for the Cessna/Columbia 350/400 line. You can read a review of the ThermaWing here, or check out Kelly Aerospace’s website.
It’s winter time, so that means winter weather for the aviation community. For single engine piston pilots, that means dealing with icing conditions. For us Texan flyers, ice only presents an issue for maybe a week out of the year (the exception being for those Panhandle residents!), but it’s nice to have some protection. Most…
