As was the case with the Class B Airspace around Houston several months ago, the Class B Dallas airspace has been overhauled as well. These changes were implemented at the last database update on September 18th. If you’ll be flying into any of the Dallas airspace airports IFR, make sure you have current charts and your GPS databases are updated.
According to AOPA, 14 SIDs and STARs were deleted, a number of new procedures were added, and changes were made to most of the other remaining procedures. The new procedures in the Dallas airspace consist mainly of RNAV procedures for turboprops and jets, so most GA aircraft won’t be affected by those. The legacy procedures that remained in place over went changes, including new frequencies, so piston aircraft going into the Dallas airspace are still affected.
From AOPA, departures from Dallas Love (KDAL) that file their flight plan with special equipment /G in their flight plan will automatically be given an RNAV departure procedure. This does not appear to affect piston aircraft as all the new RNAV SIDs in the Dallas airspace are for turboprops or turbojets.
The reason for the changes to the Dallas airspace? Similar to the changes in Houston, these airspace changes are meant to streamline departures and arrivals in the Dallas airspace area, reduce controller workload, and give continuous descent angles for arriving high altitude traffic.
Don’t be surprised the next time you are in the Dallas airspace area if you receive a clearance that states: “Descend via the arrival.” In that case, just check the chart and aim for the appropriate altitudes at the appropriate fixes. As we move closer to the ADS-B requirement, I believe we will see more and more of these terminal procedure overhauls, so be prepared and keep those charts and databases up to date.
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…
2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ) — 235 KTAS and Garmin G1000 glass, priced under a comparable Cirrus.
If you’re weighing a Cessna 400 vs Cirrus, start here. The 2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT cruises at 235 knots true — the fastest fixed-gear piston single ever certified. It’s faster than a turbocharged Cirrus on the same fuel and the same class of engine, and it costs less than a comparable SR22T. If you’re shopping a high-performance single for speed and value, N422TJ deserves a hard look.
The Airplane Cirrus Shoppers Overlook
The Cessna 400 is a Lancair design — a clean-sheet, all-composite airframe built to go fast. Cessna certified and refined it, and built N422TJ in 2008. It seats four, carries a real load, and handles weather. Most buyers shopping a high-performance single default to Cirrus, so airplanes like this one get overlooked. That’s where the value is.
Faster on the Same Fuel
The 400’s 235 KTAS is a true max cruise at 25,000 feet on oxygen. A 2011–2012 Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) trues about 211 KTAS. Both burn 100LL and run turbocharged Continental engines in the same ~310-horsepower class.
That’s about 24 knots up high — roughly 45 minutes off a 1,000-nautical-mile leg — with no bigger engine and no more fuel. And it isn’t only a flight-levels number: at 10,000 feet the 400 still trues about 180 KTAS, roughly 10 knots faster than an SR22T at the same altitude.
Lancair-designed, all-composite, fixed-gear — the airframe that makes 235 knots possible.
The Value Gap
N422TJ is priced at $350,000. A comparable Gen 3 SR22T typically trades between $450,000 and $550,000 used. (A new SR22T is a $1M-plus airplane — not the comparison.) Against the newer turbo Cirrus, that’s roughly $100,000 to $175,000 less for a faster airplane.
N422TJ — no damage history, complete logs since new, Van Bortel-maintained.
Cross-Shopping a Turbonormalized Cirrus SR22
A lot of buyers looking at N422TJ also weigh a Cirrus SR22 with the Tornado Alley turbonormalized engine. It’s a fair comparison — the same ~310-horsepower-class Continental, the same all-composite fixed-gear layout, the same 100LL — so here’s the honest math.
Speed and engine: the turbonormalized SR22 trues around 211 KTAS; the 400 does 235. The 400 also runs a true twin-turbocharged TSIO-550-C, not a turbonormalized system — a true turbo makes boosted power up high, which is a big part of that speed edge.
Avionics and price — 2006–2008: those Cirrus came with the Avidyne Entegra panel. N422TJ’s Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision is a clear step up — better glass for comparable or less money.
Avionics and price — 2009 and later: Cirrus moved to Garmin Perspective (G1000-class) glass, but the price moved with it. A 2009 SR22 turbonormalized with Perspective typically runs around $400,000 or more — one representative listing is $429,900. N422TJ is $350,000: less money, comparable glass, and 24 knots faster.
The SR22 still brings the CAPS parachute and the Cirrus owner community. But on speed, engine, and price, the Cessna 400 stays ahead.
Metric
Cessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ)
Cirrus SR22T — Gen 3 (2011–2012)
Cirrus SR22 Turbonormalized (2006–2009)
Max cruise (25,000 ft)
235 KTAS
~211 KTAS
~211 KTAS
Cruise at 10,000 ft
~180 KTAS
~170 KTAS
~170 KTAS
Engine
Twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C (true turbo, ~310 hp class)
Turbocharged Continental (~310 hp class)
Turbonormalized Continental IO-550-N (~310 hp class)
Cessna 400 Corvalis TT vs. Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) and the turbonormalized SR22. Speeds and prices are typical estimates; verify against the aircraft records and current market.
The fastest fixed-gear piston single ever certified — and it out-runs a turbo Cirrus on the same fuel.
The Avionics You Can’t Buy Anymore
Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision (SVT) and the GFC-700 autopilot.
N422TJ has a Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision (SVT) and the GFC-700 autopilot. WAAS gives you LPV approaches — near-ILS precision at runways nationwide.
This matters because the WAAS upgrade path for the G1000 in these airframes is closed. A Cessna 400 that left the factory without WAAS can’t be upgraded — it will never fly an LPV approach. So a WAAS-plus-SVT 400 like this one is a scarce find. You either buy one that has it, or you don’t get it.
Both G1000 displays with synthetic vision — a modern, integrated flight deck.
Built to Actually Go
This airplane is equipped to be flown hard and often:
Thermawing electric de-ice with a backup alternator — a de-ice system (not certified known-ice)
Factory air conditioning
Speed brakes
Hot prop, built-in oxygen, and ADS-B Out
A comfortable four-seat cabin built for real trips.
The engine is a twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C with about 1,503 hours total time — the original engine, 1,503 since new. No damage history, complete logs since new, maintained by Van Bortel.
Leather interior, comfortable for four.
An Honest Word: What the Cirrus Does Better
One thing every Cirrus has that the 400 doesn’t: the CAPS whole-airframe parachute. Pull the handle and the airplane comes down under canopy. For a lot of buyers that’s the deciding factor, and it’s a fair reason to choose a Cirrus. Cirrus also has a large owner community and a strong support network.
Useful load is comparable across all three airplanes — the 400 is often equal or a little better. If the parachute and the community are your priorities, a Cirrus may be the right airplane, and we can help you find one. If your priorities are speed, avionics, and value, the 400 is hard to beat at this price.
Cessna 400 vs Cirrus: Quick Answers for Shoppers
Is the Cessna 400 faster than a Cirrus SR22T?
Yes. The Cessna 400 Corvalis TT trues up to 235 KTAS at 25,000 feet versus about 211 KTAS for a Gen 3 Cirrus SR22T — about 24 knots faster on the same 100LL and the same ~310-horsepower class of turbocharged Continental engine, or roughly 45 minutes saved on a 1,000-nautical-mile leg. At 10,000 feet the 400 still trues about 180 KTAS, roughly 10 knots faster than an SR22T at that altitude.
How does the Cessna 400 compare to a turbonormalized Cirrus SR22?
The Cessna 400 trues 235 KTAS versus about 211 KTAS for a turbonormalized SR22, and it uses a true twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C rather than a turbonormalized system. A 2006-2008 SR22 turbo has the older Avidyne Entegra panel, while the 400 has a Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision. A 2009-and-later SR22 turbo with Garmin Perspective glass typically costs around $400,000 or more, versus $350,000 for N422TJ. The SR22 still offers its CAPS whole-airframe parachute.
Does the 2006-2008 Cirrus SR22 have a Garmin G1000?
No. Cirrus SR22s from 2006-2008 typically came with the Avidyne Entegra glass panel; Garmin-based Perspective glass arrived in 2009. The 2008 Cessna 400 came with the Garmin G1000, and N422TJ has the WAAS and Synthetic Vision version.
How much less is a Cessna 400 than a comparable Cirrus SR22T?
N422TJ is priced at $350,000, while a comparable 2011-2012 Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) typically sells for about $450,000 to $550,000 used — roughly $100,000 to $175,000 less for a faster airplane.
What is the fastest fixed-gear single-engine airplane?
The Cessna 400 Corvalis TT, at 235 KTAS maximum cruise, is the fastest fixed-gear piston single-engine airplane ever certified.
Does the Cessna 400 have a parachute like the Cirrus?
No. A whole-airframe CAPS parachute is the one meaningful capability the Cirrus offers that the Cessna 400 does not. On speed, avionics, and useful load, the 400 matches or beats a comparable SR22 or SR22T.
Can the Cessna 400’s Garmin G1000 be upgraded to WAAS?
No. The WAAS upgrade path for the G1000 in these airframes is closed, so a non-WAAS Cessna 400 can never gain LPV approach capability. N422TJ already has WAAS plus Synthetic Vision, which makes it a scarce find.
Does the Cessna 400 carry less than a Cirrus SR22?
No. Useful load is comparable — the Cessna 400 is often equal to or a little better than a comparable SR22 or SR22T.
Call to see N422TJ or to talk through the Cessna 400 vs Cirrus decision: (512) 270-1298 · txtopaviation.com. Austin & San Antonio, TX.
The 2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ) trues 235 KTAS at FL250 — faster than a Cirrus SR22T — for roughly $100–175K less. An honest speed-and-value comparison.
When is the last time you talked to the Flight Service Station?
Believe it or not, FSS is still in existence. Over the past 10 years, they went from FAA run, the being bought by Lockheed Martin, to now being privately run by a company called Leidos. 1-800-WX Brief will get you connected with a weather briefer, but you’ll hear “Leidos Flight Service Station” now when the briefer picks up.
Since the advent of Foreflight, most pilots these days get their weather briefings digitally on the iPad. Foreflight has come a long way since it’s inception. The briefing part of their Flights page is quite comprehensive, with lots of information, and counts as a legal weather briefing (which pilots are still required to get before a flight).
Why does a pilot even need to call Flight Service? Well, when’s the last time you tried to interpret everything the Briefing on Foreflight told you? As I said before, it’s a lot of information and a lot of it can be confusing. Pilots are not fully trained on interpreting Prog Charts and getting an overall weather picture for a flight. A weather briefer is.
I have over 5,000 hours and I still call a weather briefer before almost every flight. On the way to the airport is a great opportunity to get a weather briefing. I get a great picture of what’s going on in my area or over my route, frontal movement, bad weather areas, and whether or not it’s a good idea to even take off. Calling in the car alleviates the main complaint I hear about calling the Flight Service Station, which is it’s inconvenient and causes a delay since you have to call them on the phone.
I don’t do much private pilot training anymore, but when I do, I always teach my students how to get a weather briefing from the Flight Service Station. I’ll show them how to get the briefing on Foreflight too, but usually their eyes bug out of their heads when they start trying to read everything. A breathe of relief is released when I tell them there is a trained professional just a phone call away who can clear everything up.
The other thing that the Flight Service Station provides that is important to a lot of folks are PIREPs. It’s vital in sketchy weather areas for the FSS to get a report of what’s actually going on in the air. This helps other pilots out greatly as they are getting information about icing, cloud bases and tops, turbulence and a myriad of other things from airplanes who are actually in the conditions.
Finally, the most used portion of the Flight Service Station is the Clearance Delivery line (888-766-8267). At airports without a tower or a clearance delivery frequency, with IFR conditions present, the only way to get your IFR clearance is to call Clearance Delivery. Yes, it can take a little time sometimes, but you will get a clearance every time, unlike taking off and trying to dodge the clouds without hitting anything, while trying to call Center on the radio (which isn’t safe or legal).
Been a while since you’ve talked to the Flight Service Station? Give them a call, either on the phone or on the radio. Odds are, they are bored and just wanting someone to talk to, just like you are on that long cross country flight!
Checkout 1800WXBrief.com to see all the cool stuff the Flight Service Station does.
When is the last time you talked to the Flight Service Station? Believe it or not, FSS is still in existence. Over the past 10 years, they went from FAA run, the being bought by Lockheed Martin, to now being privately run by a company called Leidos. 1-800-WX Brief will get you connected with a…
Thunderstorms are not to be taken lightly. I know you have probably heard that many times in your flying career. Weather related accidents account for approximately 25% of airline and GA accidents.
The Airman’s Information Manual suggests giving a 20 mile berth around thunderstorms. If you are an experienced aviator or a newbie please take this piece of advice seriously. At one flight school where I taught, we had the policy of maintaining a 25 mile buffer around isolated thunderstorms. A bit excessive you think? Maybe, but safety is a good thing!
On this particular day, I was operating a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter during a power line patrol. Power line patrol by itself offers numerous challenges. The job consists of flying along electric power transmission lines at approximately 40 feet above the ground at 40 knots. The crew consisted of me (the pilot) and an observer. The observer is an employee of the power company and it is his job to determine which line(s) will be patrolled during the given day. As I fly along the lines, the observer is checking for anything out of the ordinary such as broken, cracked, or even shot out insulators, excessively large bird nests at the top of structures, or woodpecker holes in wooden poles. The observer knows the lines and he is also a great help in letting me know there is a crossing, and potentially higher, line in our flight path. That makes him a true safety asset! It was late afternoon during the summer and we were about to finish up for the day. We only had about another 10 miles of line to follow before calling it a day. Up ahead, I noticed an isolated thunderstorm near our power line. I could see the heavy rain falling below the anvil shaped leading clouds. It appeared to be well beyond the end of our day’s work so we pressed on.
As we drew closer to the thunderstorm, we were suddenly tossed up on our left side like a dog toy in mid-flight! It seemed like we were 90 degrees to our normal cruise attitude and, to make it worse, we had the doors off on that hot summer day. I was able to recover and we did an immediate about face and high tailed it home. Forget the rest of that line, tomorrow is another day.
The destructive force of thunderstorms cannot be overstated. In addition to extremely heavy rain, they can contain strong wind shear, large hail, and severe turbulence, each of which can damage or destroy an aircraft. Take care when one of these bad boys is near your flight path. Give it plenty of respect and a lots of room, for safety’s sake.
Alan VanDoren is a 7000 hour ATP pilot. He has flown both fixed wing and helicopters as a police pilot, missionary pilot, flight instructor, and most recently as an EMS pilot. He has flown in five countries around the world and also teaches university level aviation courses in his spare time.
Thunderstorms are not to be taken lightly. I know you have probably heard that many times in your flying career. Weather related accidents account for approximately 25% of airline and GA accidents. The Airman’s Information Manual suggests giving a 20 mile berth around thunderstorms. If you are an experienced aviator or a newbie please take…
The Angelina County Airport in Lufkin, TX (KLFK) will be hosting the Angelina County Airfest on Saturday, October 10th. The airport will open up at 9am.
Prepare for a day of food, fun, and some great performances. There will be warbirds and many other classic airplanes on display, not too mention a number of aerobatic performances as the day goes on.
The Angelina County Airport in Lufkin, TX (KLFK) will be hosting the Angelina County Airfest on Saturday, October 10th. The airport will open up at 9am. Prepare for a day of food, fun, and some great performances. There will be warbirds and many other classic airplanes on display, not too mention a number of aerobatic…
Are you thinking of buying an iPad and going to a paperless cockpit? Have you just recently purchased an iPad and are unsure of how to use Foreflight to it’s fullest extent? Check out this free webinar on Monday, January 19th. Gary Reeves, a Master CFI from California, will be hosting the 90 minute seminar, which begins at 1800 Z. He will be able to point you in the right direction for what type of iPad to purchase, how to set up your Foreflight account, and the basics of using the App.
You can finally get rid of those paper charts, saving clutter in the cockpit. Just make sure you bring along a charger for those extended flight in case your battery dips low!
To sign up for this webinar, click here. There is no cost associated with the webinar.
Are you thinking of buying an iPad and going to a paperless cockpit? Have you just recently purchased an iPad and are unsure of how to use Foreflight to it’s fullest extent? Check out this free webinar on Monday, January 19th. Gary Reeves, a Master CFI from California, will be hosting the 90 minute seminar,…
