I ran across the story about the Korean Air flight that crashed in Guam in the late ’90s the other day. It was a 747 that hit the side of hill about 3 miles short of the runway, killing most of the people on board. The flight was at night (arrival time was about 1:30am) and the pilot’s lost sight of the runway on a visual approach due to inadvertent IMC entry. They didn’t execute a missed approach soon enough, got too low, and crashed.
These were experienced pilots, mind you, who had flown into that airport a number of times. They were experienced enough to know when to execute a go around. There were several other factors that led up to the crash, but, ultimately, they lost sight of the runway due to inadvertent IMC entry.
To all the VFR pilots out there, what do you do if you accidentally fly into a cloud? It’s a lot easier to encounter inadvertent IMC at night, simply because you can’t see the clouds in front of you. It is no less dangerous during the day, either.
So, we’re going back to the basics today. What really is the best course of action for a VFR pilot when flying into a cloud? One option (and in my opinion, the best option) is to turn around. Immediately start scanning your instruments, execute a shallow banked 180 degree turn while maintaining altitude, and fly out of the cloud you just flew into. If you have an autopilot, turn it on immediately and let it do the turn.
What if you were descending or climbing when you encountered the inadvertent IMC? In this case, just reverse whatever you were just doing. If you were descending, climb. If you were climbing, descend. Caution is needed, though, as climbing or descending when flying on instruments for an inexperienced IFR pilot could lead to a greater chance of disorientation.
One thing that could assist in spotting those clouds at night is turning the cockpit lights down. This will allow you to see outside a little bit better and start to notice when those ground lights are disappearing.
Most VFR pilots only do instrument flying on flight reviews. That doesn’t lead to a very high level of proficiency, so go out and grab your instructor and tell him to put you under the hood once a month. You’ll be a better pilot overall for it.
IFR pilots, taking a note from the Korean Air flight; if you lose sight of the runway on a visual approach, especially at night, go missed and ask for the instrument approach procedure. Don’t try and duck down below the clouds as there may be a hill or a mountain directly below you.
You have just received the keys of your shiny new (to you) airplane complete with a beautiful Garmin G1000 glass panel flight deck. Synthetic Vision, WAAS, and ADS-B are all installed. You are ready to cruise in high technology.
You turn on the PFD and MFD and notice one problem. All your databases are expired. No big deal, right? Your Garmin 530W was easy as pie to update with it’s single data card.
You start looking around and can’t find the data card. Then you notice that there are several SD cards in slots on the panels. SD cards won’t fit in your Blue Jepp Skybound card reader. Confusion sets in which quickly leads to full on panic.
What have you gotten yourself into?!
No need to fear, Texas Top Aviation is here to help with your Garmin G1000 database update confusion (and hopefully not panic).
Database Update Providers
First, you have to choose who to get your Garmin G1000 updates from. You have two options. One is Garmin (fly.garmin.com; always use either Firefox or Chrome to update, don’t use Safari). The other is Jeppesen.
Honestly, there is no difference between the data that each provides. If you had a 530 or 430 before, you used Jepp already. Just keep the Jepp account, call them, and have them get you set up for your Garmin G1000 updates.
If you didn’t have a Jepp account before, I would use Garmin, for a couple of reasons. You get multiple downloads in case you mess something up (Jepp NavData gives 1 download per month, while Safe Taxi, etc. you get 2-3). On Jepp, you have to call in and have them reset the account, which can be a pain if it’s after hours or a Saturday or Sunday.
The other problem with Jepp is since Boeing bought Jeppesen, I have found it extremely difficult to find online where to set up a new account and purchase databases. Yes, you can always call, but, again, problematic after hours or on a weekend.
The only problem with Fly Garmin for your Garmin G1000 updates is Garmin is constantly updating their program. You have to update their downloader quite often, which can be a bit frustrating.
I’m going to use Fly Garmin as my example.
What to Buy
Garmin gives you a couple of different bundle options for your Garmin G1000 updates, the OnePak and the PilotPak. The main difference between the two is the PilotPak includes approach charts that display on your PFD and the OnePak doesn’t. Therefore, the OnePak is about $200 cheaper.
Both include Navigation Data, SafeTaxi, Obstacles, Airport Directory, Terrain, and the BaseMap.
How to Update
Once you have followed all the instructions on Garmin’s website (or gotten Jeppesen set up), here is what to put on which SD card.
NOTE: YOU WILL NEED TO PURCHASE ONE OR TWO BLANK SD CARDS FOR THE NAVIGATION DATABASES. DO NOT PUT THE NAVIGATION DATA ON THE SD CARD THAT IS ALREADY IN THE TOP SLOT ON THE MFD. THAT IS FOR ENGINE DATA LOGGING ONLY. NO NAVIGATION DATA SHOULD EVER BE PUT THAT ON THAT CARD.
Bottom Card, PFD
SafeTaxi
Obstacles
Bottom Card, MFD
SafeTaxi
Obstacles
Airport Directory
Flite Charts
Top Card, PFD & MFD (This is the new blank SD card(s) you bought)
NOTE: REMOVE THE TOP SD CARD IN THE MFD THAT IS ALREADY IN THE SLOT AND DON’T PUT ANY DATABASE INFORMATION ON IT.
Ignore everything above and put all databases on the bottom card of the MFD. You have database sync, so you don’t have to mess with multiple cards. When you do an update though, go to the AUX chapter on the MFD and scroll down to the Databases page. Ensure that all dates match what you just put on the SD Card.
For you Jeppesen users, check out the new Bad Elf Wombat updater that works with the iPad JDM app for updates.
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.
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!).
When I was doing my instrument and multi-engine training, we did a lot of circle to land approaches. As a student, I could never figure out why these types of approaches would ever be practical when you could an approach straight in to another runway. But, as a good student, I never asked my instructors the purpose of them, I just did them to the best of my ability.
Now, having been flying in the IFR system for almost a decade, I’m finally beginning to fully understand the practical purpose of a circle to land approach. I have actually elected to do an approach where I had to circle to land on several occasions in actual IMC conditions.
One important note to remember on circle to land approaches is that the minimum descent altitude (MDA) is always higher than on a straight in approach. The reason for this is that you are basically joining the pattern for a different runway and you have to be able to visually keep yourself clear of towers and other obstacles. So, you need a higher visibility and a higher ceiling than if you were just lining up to come straight in.
Here are a couple of practical circumstances where it would make sense to do a circle to land approach.
Airports with only 1 straight in approach
This one is easy. There are a number of airports scattered around the US that have only 1 straight in instrument approach published for it. Around my part of Texas, the first one that pops into my mind is the RNAV 31 at T85 in Yoakum, TX. Most of the year, the prevailing wind is out of the south, so 13 is the favored runway at T85. During the winter is when most of the IMC weather happens in South Texas, so that is why the approach is for 31.
Of course, especially this year during the summer, there are some IMC days where an approach to T85 would be necessary. When there is a strong wind out of the south, landing on 31 is impractical, so a pilot would fly the approach to 31, then circle to land on 13.
Approaching from the opposite direction
Take a look at the RNAV 19 at KBMQ, Burnet, TX. The two initial approach fixes (IAF) are IXANY and JIBAJ. If a flight is approaching BMQ from the west or north, this is an easy approach to join. If a flight is coming from Austin (directly the the east and a little south) or San Antonio (almost directly south), it would be a bit of extra flying to get configured properly for the approach. Especially coming from Austin, because the degree of turn to join at JIBAJ wouldn’t make the approach practical.
Well, how about vectors? Unfortunately, Houston Center doesn’t have this approach depicted so vectors aren’t a possibility. Center can give you vectors north to make the angle a little easier to join at JIBAJ, but they can’t vector you onto the approach.
Direct DLORA to join is another option, but again, if you are approaching from the southeast, the angle is wrong.
Insert the RNAV 01 approach with a circle to land. AMUSE is right on V163, so it’s really easy to join the approach there coming from the south. Coming from Austin, joining the approach at SUBIE works out great. Fly down to the MDA, join the left downwind for 19, and everyone is happy.
VOR Circle to Land Approaches
Every instrument pilot has had an instructor “force” them to do a VOR A or VOR B approach and no one enjoys them. I personally think they are good practice. With the number of RNAV systems and RNAV approaches out there, though, VOR approaches are becoming a bit archaic.
They do have a place in this discussion, though. A VOR approach is given an A or B designation when the angle of the final approach course is greater than 30 degrees to the runway (VOR A KLZZ), or the final approach course is lined up with the runway, but the MDA is too high to practically descend and land (VOR A KGRK or the VOR/DME C KASE).
So, there are practical uses for a Circle to Land approach. The next time you do some IMC work with an instructor, ask him/her if you can include one.
Looking for an airplane with more seats, more useful load, and good speed? Look no further than the PA-46-310P Piper Malibu. It feels like a corporate airplane, but this turbo charged piston single is good owner/pilot airplane for taking the family on vacation or using on business trips.
The original Piper Malibu, which was manufactured between 1984-1988, is a great next step airplane for Cirrus owners, Saratoga or Lance owners, and Mooney owners looking to move up to a pressurized, 6 seat piston. The pressurization has got to be one of the best parts of the Piper Malibu. The ability to climb up to the low flight levels (the service ceiling is FL250, but the airplane performs great between 16,000 and FL190) to catch better winds and get a better true airspeed (the airplane gains about 2.5 KTAS for every thousand feet) without having to wear oxygen makes the ride much more enjoyable.
Equipped with six seats and a 4,100 pound gross weight, the Piper Malibu allows for a lot more carrying ability than a Cirrus or even a Saratoga. Now, like most piston airplanes, you can’t take 6 average adults, bags, and full fuel, but here’s the great part: the Continental TSIO 320 only burns 16.5 GPH in cruise at 75% power. The plane will still fly 200 KTAS at 16.5 GPH. With 120 gallon capacity, even taking half tanks still allows for a 2.5 hour range with an hour reserve. At 200 KTAS, that’s 450 miles. And, you gain an extra 360 pounds useful load at half tanks. That’s not too shabby.
The Piper Malibu was designed to be comfortable, fast, and be able to carry some baggage. There are two baggage compartments, one in the nose behind the firewall and one in the rear behind the rear seats. The nose baggage is wide enough to fit golf clubs in, while the back baggage is large enough to fit rolling suitcases in (the front baggage has no problem with roller bags either). Lots of weight in bags? Again, no big deal. Just plan on taking less fuel and still flying for 2.5 hours.
From a pilot’s standpoint, the Piper Malibu is a pretty straightforward airplane to fly, though it does require some specialty training. A lot of PA-46s on the market right now have upgraded glass panels and digital engine monitors, making piloting the airplane that much more streamlined. Most Piper Malibus are equipped with the KFC 150 autopilot. Some have a yaw damper installed, others don’t. Some have the vertical speed and altitude capture installed, others don’t. It just depends on that specific airplane. They aren’t like a Cirrus where they are all made the same.
Looking to upgrade to something with more seats, a higher service ceiling, but not a significant increase in fuel costs? Look into the Piper Malibu. You can get one in good shape from about $300,000.
A new app came out last year that fits a need for many owners. Coflyt, available on the Apple App Store for $14/month for up to two airplanes, helps immensely with staying organized. Those questions of, “When is my oil change due?” or “Has the plane had it’s IFR inspections?” are easily answered by checking the app instead of having to dig through maintenance logs.
Not only does Coflyt help keep track of maintenance, but it also houses squawk lists that owner’s can send to maintenance shops as well as keeping track of Airworthiness Directives. If the pilot remembers at the end of flights to put the amount in, it even shows how much fuel is remaining in the airplane.
For flying clubs and partnerships, it provides easy scheduling without having to share calendars. Payments can also be taken and flights tracked. No more paper flight sheets after flights to track down.
As a pilot, it helps immensely to be organized. For $14 a month ($36/month for partnerships or flying clubs), that’s a small price to pay.
In July, Stratos Aircraft completed the first test flight of the single engine Stratos 716X personal jet. Stratos, based in Redmond, OR, is taking a page out of Epic Aircraft’s book in how the company is planning on bringing the Stratos 716X to market.
Epic Aircraft first released the Epic LT composite single engine turboprop in the early 2000s as an experimental. The first kit was completed and flying in 2005. Epic’s goal was to bring the airplane to market as a certified aircraft, a feat that took them almost 20 years to do, achieving full certification earlier this year.
Stratos Aircraft is hoping to learn a lot from their Bend, OR neighbors. The 716X is going to start off as a limited release experimental kit, while the company is working on achieving certification for the airplane. Once the plane is certified, it will be dubbed the Stratos 716. The 716X experimental kits will be assembled through a factory builder assist program (no garage built single engine jets here!). The kit will cost $2.5 million assembled, while the expected cost of the certified Stratos 716 will be $3.5 million.
Now, let’s talk about the airplane. 400 KTAS. One engine.
That’s right, you did hear correctly. The Stratos 716X is expected to cruise at 400 KTAS on only one engine. Compared to the Cirrus Vision Jet, that’s 100 knots faster. Think, “I’ll be relaxing at the hotel pool with a drink in hand when you are landing” type speeds. The fuel burn of the Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5 engine (3,000 lbs of thrust) is about 25 GPH more than the Vision Jet (the Stratos 716X will burn about 98 GPH of Jet A while the Vision Jet averages about 75 GPH of Jet A).
Comparing the two engines, the above numbers start to make sense. The Williams FJ33 engine on the Vision Jet only puts out 1,850 lbs of thrust, significantly less than the 3,000 lbs of thrust that the Stratos 716X Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5 puts out.
What does that mean to the pilot? In the Stratos 716X, it means less takeoff roll, better climb rate, faster cruise (as evidence by the 400 KTAS expected cruise speed), and a better payload. More power = more weight carrying capacity. And, the 716X is expected to have a service ceiling of 41,000 feet. I probably wouldn’t want to go that high single pilot with one engine, but I’d be very happy with that speed in the mid-30s.
The cabin, based on the pictures I’ve seen, looks very comfortable. The Stratos 716X seats 6 and can be configured in several different ways. Baggage is no problem as Stratos Aircraft stretched the fuselage from their original 714 Proof of Concept aircraft, adding a very roomy baggage compartment above the engine compartment. The passenger compartment is as big as a Phenom 100, providing more leg and head room than the Vision Jet. The front seats have plenty of legroom too, as Stratos has opted for a side stick instead of a yoke.
The avionics for the Stratos 716X are expected to be the Garmin G3X Touch for the panel which will be driven by a Garmin GTN 750 GPS. Autopilot will be integrated within the G3X. I would imagine that once the plane is certified, the panel will be switched to a Garmin G1000 NXi and a GFC 700 will be installed.
The genius of the design of the Stratos 716X is the aerodynamics of the engine placement. Instead of hanging the engine out in the slip stream and going with a drag inducing V-Tail like Cirrus did, Stratos took some notes from the myriad of single engine military fighter jets out there, placing the engine inside the fuselage. The fuselage is then built around the engine with two air scoops for intake directly in front of the wings. With two intakes instead of one, that leads to more air flow, which again, means more power. The Vision Jet has only one.
I’m going to keep tabs on the Stratos 716X (as I kept tabs on the Epic E1000). I’m hoping Stratos gets several flying soon (the company expects to do 3 kits a year till the airplane gets certified) and certification comes quickly after.
I got to stick my head in the mockup of the Stratos 716X when I went to Osh Kosh in 2018. I was very impressed and was excited to see the airplane was finally airborne this summer.
For more information about the Stratos 716X, check out the Stratos website.
Most VFR pilots only do instrument flying on flight reviews. That doesn’t lead to a very high level of proficiency, so go out and grab your instructor and tell him to put you under the hood once a month. You’ll be a better pilot overall for it.
