Present Position Hold

When I was working on my instrument rating back in 2007, my instructor and I did a lot of unpublished holds.  In ground school, I heard a lot about holding for weather or holding due to a traffic delay.  At my first job, my chief flight instructor was also a Continental (now United) captain and he told me a lot about having to hold for weather going into different places.

I heard all this, but I figured it would never happen to me when I’m flying GA airplanes.

Boy was I wrong!

I was flying a Piper Malibu into Phoenix with two passengers for Super Bowl weekend and the weather was awful.  No thunderstorms, but moderate precipitation and low ceilings.  We were coming into Deer Valley (KDVT) on the north side of Phoenix and about an hour out, ATC advised me that arrivals into DVT were having to hold and to expect a delay.  The controller said the delay would be about 30 minutes, so by doing a quick calculation, I determined the delay would probably be all cleared up by the time I got in the area.  At the time, I didn’t know if the delay was due to weather or traffic congestion.

Twenty minutes later, the controller advised me that there was still a delay.  I queried what it was for and he informed me it was due to weather.  He asked me if I wanted to hold or divert.  I listened to the ATIS and heard the ceilings were variable from just below the minimums to just above.  I told him I would hold as the TAF I saw predicted the ceilings to go up.

“Malibu, hold present position, hold east, expect further clearance 2140 Zulu.”  Gulp.

At this point, my autopilot had gone out, it was turbulent and I was definitely in the soup.  This was going to be fun.

After recovering my wits, I read back the clearance, then set about setting up this hold without getting too far from my present position.  The Malibu I was flying had a Garmin 530 which I was using as my primary means of navigation.  I was on V190, but I didn’t have all the fixes in my flight plan.  What to do?  And what to do fast?

The 530 has a rarely used function called a User Waypoint.  It comes in handy in situations like these.  On the moving map, you can turn the cursor on, move the cursor to any point on the map, and, by pressing enter, create a User Waypoint.  This is what I did on V190.  After I created it, I had to go to my flight plan, find the right spot, and input the User Waypoint just like I would any fix.  Just a note here, when you create a User Waypoint, make sure you remember what you named it so you can find it again.

After I input the User Waypoint in the flight plan, I had to go back and activate the leg that the User Waypoint was the end point on.  Then, to make sure the flight plan didn’t go to the next waypoint once I crossed my User Waypoint, I had to press the OBS button on the 530 in order to put the GPS in suspend mode.

Keep in mind, my autopilot wasn’t working, so this involved a lot of multi-tasking!

That’s how to do a present position hold using the Garmin 530.  Got all that?  Here’s a concise review:

  • Create a User Waypoint
    • Turn the cursor on by pressing the FMS knob
    • Move the cursor to the point where you want your User Waypoint
    • Press enter and name the User Waypoint
  • Press the Flight Plan button
  • Input the User Waypoint into your flight plan at the proper point
  • Activate the leg that the User Waypoint is the end point on
  • Finally, press the OBS button to put the GPS in suspend mode
  • After you’re cleared onward, just press the OBS button again to take the GPS out of suspend mode

Similar Posts

  • Epic E1000 Gets the GFC 700

    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.

  • AOPA’s Emergency In Person Seminar

    Courtesy AOPA.org

    We spend time training for them, but real-world emergencies are rare enough that it’s easy to get complacent. They don’t always happen to “other pilots,” though, and preparation can make a big difference when things don’t go as planned:
    • What if you lose 500 rpm during takeoff, but the engine is running smoothly?
    • What if the ammeter drops to zero during a flight in IMC?
    • What if your left aileron develops a strong vibration in flight?
    Our new seminar is full of expert tips on handling those “up here, but wishing you were down there” scenarios. We focus on how to keep abnormal situations from becoming full-blown emergencies, offer advice on keeping critical problems under control, and give our best advice on off-airport landings.

    Find an AOPA Emergency Seminar near you!

    • Monday January 11, 2016-The Woodlands Waterway, 7pm-9pm
      • 1601 Lake Robbins Drive, The Woodlands, TX 77380
    • Tuesday January 12, 2016-Wyndham Houston West, 7pm-9pm
      • 14703 Park Row Blvd., Houston, TX 77079
    • Wednesday January 13, 2016, Holiday Inn San Antonio Airport, 7pm-9pm
      • 77 NE Loop 410, San Antonio, TX 78216
    • Thursday January 14, 2016, Omni Austin Hotel at Southwark, 7pm-9pm
      • 4140 Governor’s Row, Austin, TX 78744
  • Garmin Perspective Missed Approaches

    Are you a Cirrus pilot with a Garmin Perspective?  Still can’t figure out the use of the go around button?  Read on!

    When it comes to flying an instrument approach, we as pilots are assuming we are going to land.  Most of the time, we won’t even take off if the ceilings or visibilities are below the minimums for an approach.  95% of the time, we do land.

    There is the other 5% of the time when something unexpected happens, whether we get a full scale deflection, or we don’t see the runway at the published minimums, and we have to perform a missed approach.

    When instructing, missed approach procedures are actually what I see the most deficiency in when instructing an instrument rated pilot.  It’s not necessarily configuring the airplane for a missed approach procedure, it’s the button pushing involved in setting up the GPS properly.  When a pilot isn’t proficient in the button pushing, that button pushing distracts the pilot from actually flying the airplane, which can lead to a dangerous situation.

    I am going to spend a few articles on flying a missed approach with different GPS and different autopilot configurations.  Today, I will be addressing the Garmin Perspective with a GFC 700 Autopilot, which is what all Cirrus Aircraft after 2009 are equipped with.

    The Garmin Perspective Missed Approach Procedure

    Once the decision to execute a missed approach has been made, here is the step by step procedure:

    • Full Mixture and Full Throttle
    • Simultaneously push the Go Around button on the underside of the throttle.  This does the following:
      • Sets the Garmin Perspective Flight Director to Go Around Mode (7.5 degrees pitch up and wings level)
      • Takes the Garmin Perspective GPS out of Suspend Mode
      • Switches the CDI back to GPS mode if it is in a different mode
      • Garmin Perspective with GFC 700 Autopilot stays on
    • Flaps up
    • Confirm airplane is climbing
    • Set altitude bug for missed approach altitude (assuming it isn’t there already)
    • Set NAV mode and IAS mode on the Garmin Perspective GFC 700 Autopilot

    Garmin perspective

    That’s it.  When Garmin and Cirrus got together to create the Garmin Perspective with the GFC 700 Autopilot, they tried to make as simple but robust system as possible.  Once you have the procedure down for the right buttons to press, then the procedure is relatively straight forward.

  • Upgrading Avionics

    There are many different ways to upgrade an instrument panel.  Putting in a 696 here, a JPI engine monitoring system there, even an Electronic HSI.  But, if you want to swing for the fences and get a serious upgrade, you have to go for a complete glass instrument panel.  For good measure, you might as well throw in a touch screen GPS while you are at it.

    Which panel to go with?  There are two mainstream options (Garmin and Aspen) and a handful of other companies that make glass panel replacements (Avidyne being one, King for a short period of time at the end of the last decade being another with the KFD 840).  Around 2010, there were a lot of companies trying to get into the glass panel retrofit game, but many of the products didn’t gain a whole lot of popularity, leaving Garmin and Aspen at the top of the heap.

    What about the touch screen GPS market?  Garmin has this pretty much cornered as well, with Avidyne and King just getting into the game.  The gap between Garmin’s GTN series and Avidyne and King is pretty wide.

    Garmin GTN Series

    The answer is pretty easy when it comes to the GPS (go with Garmin!), but not so easy when it comes to the panel.  The G500 and the Aspen Evolution series are both excellent interfaces with strong reliability, so which one do you go with?  Feature-wise, both have a lot of the same features: traffic, weather, terrain, synthetic vision, to name a few.  The presentation for each feature is a little different between the two interfaces.  It just depends on what you like better.

    The nice thing about the Aspen system is you can go glass, but you have options on how much glass you want:  1 screen, 2 screens, or 3 screens?  With the single screen PFD, you have all your instrumentation, traffic, weather, and optional synthetic vision.  You don’t need the synthetic vision for the traffic and weather, as it shows up behind your HSI.  It is an honest to goodness glass panel retrofit.

    When you decide to upgrade to 2 screens, this is where Aspen has a leg up.  The second screen is a completely redundant PFD and, if you get the 2 hour emergency backup battery installed, acts as the backup instrumentation to the main PFD.  This means you can take out the old steam gauge standby instruments.  This helps clean the panel up.

    I personally don’t see the need for 3 screens, but maybe there is someone out there who needs it.

    One selling point that Aspen has over Garmin is the wide variety of autopilots and GPS units that Aspen units are compatible with.  The G500 is only compatible with King autopilots, it’s own GFC 700 autopilot (which would be a retrofit), some Collins autopilots, and the Century 21, 31, 41, and 2000.  This does cover a wide array of autopilots, but it keeps some on the outside.  Aspen, on the other hand, is compatible with most autopilots on the market.

    Finally, let’s talk price.  Going with an Aspen EFD 1000 PFD (this is the single screen Aspen) will run you somewhere in the area of $12,000.  The price will vary based on the shop and the airplane.  When you want to add a screen, it’s an additional $6,000.  This is for the base, so if you want to add weather or synthetic vision, it’ll run you a little more.

    The Garmin G500 comes in around $20,000, again depending on the shop and the airplane.  The screens are bigger on the G500, which is kind of nice, and you are buying a Garmin product, which has a fabulous track record in the aviation industry.

    Decisions, decisions.  There really is no wrong answer here.  Both are excellent products with very good track records.  Both have really nice features and don’t hardly fail.  Really, the choice comes down to what you want.

    Need training on your upgraded GPS or glass panel retrofit?  Contact Texas Top Aviation for thorough training on your new avionics today.

  • Building An Airplane

    Randy Vanstory, a long-time customer of Texas Top Aviation, decided in early 2017 to build his own airplane. Randy currently owns a Mooney M20J and has been active in aviation for a number of years.  He took on the Vans RV 10, starting in February 2017.  He’s about halfway through right now, with an estimated completion of mid-2020.

    A completed Vans RV 10

    I asked Randy what gave him the desire to build his own plane.  “I love building things, learning new things, and working on things” he said.  “This satisfies those desires all in one project.”  Randy had a desire to work with his hands, to create something of his own, and building an airplane put several of his passions together in one project.

    Lots of pilots out there dream of building their own airplane in their garage.  There is a certain cool factor to putting together an RV or a Lancair in a garage, then trucking it out to an airport, attaching the wings, then flying a personal creation for the first time.  An airplane unique to you, since there isn’t one quite like it any where else.

    That’s the beauty of a homebuilt.

    Here is a link to Randy’s build video done by Kobalt Tools.

  • Breathing…It’s The Difference in Engine Performance

    The PT6 engine that’s found on the Jetprop and Meridian is designated a -21, -34,-35, or a -42A.  The Continental engine on a Malibu is either a TSIO 520 or a 550.  What’s the difference? Why should I care? Most pilots don’t understand the difference, but it’s pretty easy to understand…and it’s all about breathing.

    Whether a piston or a turbine, the engine has a ratio of fuel/air that works best.  For a piston model, we can make adjustments to this ratio by adjusting the mixture.  In climb we use a richer ratio to help cool the engine, and in cruise we lean the mixture to save fuel since we don’t need the extra fuel for cooling (due to higher speeds which cools the engine). In the turbine, the ratio is set and there’s nothing that can be done about it…except climb to a higher altitude.  But, more about that in a second..let’s go back to the piston discussion…

    Piston: A Continental 520 engine and the 550 engine are flown exactly the same.  On takeoff, both will develop 310HP (38″MP with the 520, 35.5″MP with the 550).  So, why would a pilot want a 550 in his airplane as opposed to a 520?  The answer is breathing.

    A 520 is named appropriately because the engine displaces 520 cubic inches of air with each complete cycle of all 6 cylinders.  To determine the displacement, just figure the bore (diameter of the cylinder) and the Stroke (how far the piston travels in the cylinder) and plug the numbers into this formula:

    CID = Bore X Bore X 0.8754 X Stroke X # of Cyl.

    Here’s the bore and stroke of the Continental 520 and 550 engine:

    TSIO 520:  Bore = 5.25″ and Stroke = 4″
    TSIO 550: Bore = 5.25″ and Stroke = 4.25″

    So, you can see the two engines are exactly the same except the 550 has a little longer stroke, and therefore displaces a little more air.  Said another way…it the sucks the air into the engine a little better.

    So, with this knowledge, the ability for the engine to breathe becomes a little more clear.  Both a 520 and a 550 will perform exactly the same until the point that a 520 simply cannot suck enough air and begins to develop less MP as a result.  For most 520 engines, this will happen somewhere around 18,000 ft.  But, it is dependent upon a myriad of factors including: health of the engine, altitude, temperature, and atmospheric pressure. When the 520 hits this point, the throttle can be full-forward, but the engine will not develop full MP, but some number that is less.  I’ve seen a max MP at FL250 in a 520 Malibu to be about 31″MP.  So, you can probably guess that the rate of climb will correspondingly suffer as the engine develops less MP.  How do we fix this problem?  Enter the 550…

    Since the 550 displaces more air, the engine will maintain max MP to a higher altitude.  When the 520 begins to develop less power at about FL180, the 550 engine will be able to continue to maintain 35″ at a higher altitude.  Make no mistake…the 550 will also hit an altitude where is cannot develop 35″MP, but this altitude will probably be nearly FL220.  So, the 550-powered Malibu will reach cruising altitude faster than the 520.

    But, at cruise both engines are pulled back to 30″MP.  So, either engine will deliver the same cruise speed because they are both able to develop 30″MP at any altitude.  Does it really matter if you’ve got a 520 or a 550 engine?  Answer: not much.  Both are excellent engines and both will deliver the airplane to the destination, but if the chosen altitude is above FL180, the 550-powered airframe will probably arrive a few minutes earlier.  Which would I want if I were purchasing an airplane?  It’s not a big enough deal, IMHO.  I’d select the best airframe/engine/prop combination and not put much weight into the 520 vs. the 550.

    Turbine world: So, how about the -21, -34/35, and -42A compare?  Here, there’s  big difference, but it’s still all about the breathing.  A -21, -34/35, and -42A are all derivatives of the famous PT6 family of engines, and all are designed to be 1000+SHP engines de-rated to fit the airframe.  For instance, the -42A engine is 750SHP when mounted on a King Air 200, but the same engine is derated to 500SHP when mounted on the Meridian.  Ditto with the -21 and -34/35 engines…all are de-rated.  So what’s the difference? Breathing…

    At the lower altitudes all will develop their maximum rated SHP, meaning they will all develop maximum torque.  And, down low there’s plenty of air to breathe so the engine has no problem developing that torque at a low ITT.  But, as altitude is gained, the engine must suck more air to develop the same torque, and the ITT goes up.  At some point in the climb (depending upon altitude, temperature, pressure, and IAS) the engine will not be able to produce max torque without exceeding Max ITT.  At this point, the engine cannot breathe any more (suck in anymore air), and the power (torque) developed falls off.  With the -21 engine, the power falls off quite dramatically because the engine simply cannot breathe well.  It is a smaller engine and more air cannot be forced into the compressor section.  For the rest of the climb the engine is “ITT limited” and the performance will suffer.

    The -34/35 engine is a little bigger and will develop maximum power (torque) to a higher altitude.  And, when the torque does drop off (as altitude is increased), the rate of decrease is less because it can breathe easier due to it’s larger size.  Guess what? The -42A will beat out the others and develop max torque to an even higher altitude.  With this decrease  in torque available also comes a welcome friend…less fuel burn.  Altitude is the friend of any turbine pilot, and he/she will climb to the highest altitude possible to save on fuel.

    The end result is the -21 powered Jetprop will cruise at 238 KTAS (in the summer) with a fuel burn of only 28gph.  The -34 will have higher torque than the -21 and will develop more SHP and will have a higher cruise (260 KTAS in the summer) with a correspondingly higher fuel burn (32gph).  The -42A will be breathing easily at higher altitudes, and will develop the most torque, but with a fuel flow of 39gph.  The Meridian (with the -42A) will not out-perform the -34/35 Jetprop in cruise purely because the Meridian is much heavier.

    Just remember…fuel flow in a turbine is always commensurate with its ability to breathe and a turbine’s ability to breathe is a function of the engine’s ability to breathe.

    With this knowledge…let’s check your understanding.  Answer this question: Will a Jetprop cruise faster in the summer or winter?  Remember, cold air is more dense than warm air, and an engine will develop power according to it’s ability to suck in air.  More air available, more power available.  Answer: Winter.

    A good analogy: I’m a Cross-fitter (meaning I do crossfit workouts a lot).  In the gym we have various workouts that test a person’s ability to perform.  Guess who usually does the best?  Right…the guy who can breathe the best.  A person is nothing more than an engine…we intake air and combine it fuel and burn it to develop energy.  In Crossfit, the person with the biggest engine (muscles that can develop power) that can sustain power (good aerobic capability) will win almost every time.  The only variables then are genetics (how well-made is the engine), flexibility (you’ve got to be able to get into the position), and skills (there are more efficient movements).  A good Crossfitter will work hard on mobility, skill, and try to increase the bodies ability to increase capacity through a tough workout.

    To get maximum performance, the pilot cannot change the engines skill or mobility (at  least not without an engine change!), but a thorough understanding of the how the engine breathes will help him/her use the power that is available to the fullest.

    Joe Casey’s aviation story began in 1990 with his first flight near Nacogdoches, TX in a Cessna 172. From lift-off, Joe knew he would have a lifetime passion flying just about anything that will leave the ground…He was completely hooked.

    Along with being an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE), Joe is an ATP/CFI-AHMG and Commercial Rotorcraft/Glider Pilot in the civilian world and also a UH-60/AH-64 Pilot-in-Command/Instructor/Examiner Pilot in the US Army Reserves.  His passion for the last 19 years, however, has been the PA-46 Malibu/Mirage/Matrix/Jetprop/Meridian. Has has amassed over 6,500 hours in various PA-46 airframes and believe it to be one of the finest flying machines available for the serious cross-country pilot with an eye for efficiency.

    Now, Joe has flown more than 12,200 hours in just about every imaginable environment. Whether providing initial/recurrent training in the PA-46’s, TBM’s, instructing in NVG’s in a UH-60 Blackhawk, flying the King Air series of airplanes, giving tailwheel endorsements, or taking kids flying for the first time, he simply loves flying machines and the people who fly them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *