Redbird Migration at HYI

migration-conference

Redbird Skyport at the San Marcos Regional Airport will be hosting it’s 6th Annual Redbird Migration Flight Training Conference.  The event is focused on flight training and flight training providers.  Past speakers have included the president of Hartnell Propellers, the CEO of Big Red, and various Redbird Executives.

The list of speakers for this year’s Migration has yet to be released, but it promises to be a good lineup.  Attendees every year always compliment Redbird on the event and the speakers they bring in.

If you are a CFI or flight school owner interested in attending, check out Redbird’s event page to request an invitation.

 

Similar Posts

  • ViBAN IFR Hood

    The first task I give my new instrument students before we start training is to find a view limiting device that they like.  There’s the hood that everyone hates (which has been used since the beginning of instrument training,though it isn’t that uncomfortable) or foggles, which usually end up becoming very uncomfortable very quickly.  The headset ends up pressing the sides of the foggles into the side of your head, leaving lumps and scars that hurt for days.

    Well, there is finally another solution that combines the hood and foggles.  Meet the ViBAN.

    ViBan

    ViBAN brags that it is the most comfortable IFR view limiting device out there.  I have a customer who has one and he loves it.  It’s easy to put reading glasses on underneath while still blocking the view of the exterior of the plane.  It doesn’t leave bruises against the side of your head, either.

    If you’re looking for something different for your IFR training, give ViBAN a try.

  • Non-Standard Alternate Minimums

    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).

    ILS 17R KLRD

    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.

    Non-Standard Alternate Minimums

    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.

  • BendixKing Throws It’s Hat in the Glass Panel Ring

    Two pilots walk into an FBO.  “Nice airplane,” Pilot 1 says to Pilot 2.  “What kind of panel do you have in it?”

    “I just went all glass,” Pilot 2 says.  “Put in the Garmin G500 TXi, a GTN 750, and upgraded to the GFC 600 Autopilot.  Even put in the Mid-Continent standby instruments.  It’s a pretty sweet set up.  What about you?”

    “Wow, sounds like it!” Pilot 1 responds.  “I went a different route.  I liked all my old BendixKing instruments, so I stuck with the company.  I put in a BendixKing AeroVue Touch panel, a BendixKing KSN 770 touch screen GPS, kept my KFC 225 autopilot, got the ADS-B out compliant BendixKing KT 74 transponder, and finished it off with a King AeroFlight KI 300 Digital Backup instrument.”

    Wait, what?  BendixKing?

    Yes, my friends, BendixKing is still around.

    We are all used to the latest and greatest Garmin products these days.  Don’t get me wrong, Garmin and Aspen make great retro-fit products for your instrument panel, while Garmin and Avidyne are at the top of the touch-screen GPS market, but don’t forget about BendixKing.  They are staying in the game too.

    BendixKing announced in April the xVue Touch for experimental aircraft, with the STC for the AeroVue Touch for certified aircraft coming later this summer.  The xVue and AeroVue touch are pretty nifty units, comparable in features to what Garmin is doing with the G500 TXi and G600 TXi.  It will be difficult to claw back into a competitive market share with Garmin, but BendixKing might find a niche market of followers.

    Let’s take a look at the unit.

    BendixKing AeroVue Touch

    Now, I have not used the BendixKing AeroVue Touch or the xVue Touch, only read about them.  But, what I’ve read sounds pretty cool.  The display has really good resolution (BendixKing brags it is the highest screen resolution available), synthetic vision that comes standard (Garmin & Aspen charge extra for synthetic vision), plus VFR Sectional Charts & IFR High and Low Enroute charts, making paper charts even more obsolete.

    The display is 10.1 inches and can be easily swapped between a full screen instrument mode or a split screen setup as seen above.  Apparently, BendixKing has 3-D moving maps available on the AeroVue Touch too, which is standard.

    The one thing Garmin has on the BendixKing AeroVue Touch right now is engine information.  The G500TXi has a full complement of engine gauges available; the AeroVue Touch doesn’t, yet.  BendixKing says it’s in the works, as well as radio information and autopilot control.  I’m assuming the future autopilot control software would mean you could remotely mount an autopilot controller and input all functions from the AeroVue Touch display.  The nice thing about these future upgrades is all the software updates are free through BendixKing.

    The sticker price for the forthcoming unit is going to be about $12,600.  Garmin’s 10.5 inch G500 TXi is $16,000, while Aspen doesn’t offer anything quite that big.

    BendixKing KSN 770

    I’ve been keeping my eye on the BendixKing KSN 770 Touchscreen WAAS GPS for a few years now.  It never really has caught on quite like the Garmin GTN 750 or the Avidyne IFD 540.  BendixKing took the same route that Avidyne did in creating a hybrid touch GPS (or mini-MFD if you want to look at it that way) where a pilot can perform functions either using the touch screen or utilizing soft keys on the edges.  I like the hybrid touch approach as I have been bounced around in turbulence while trying to tap something into a Garmin GTN 750 and it can prove difficult.

    Similar to the AeroVue Touch, BendixKing utilized split screen technology in the KSN 770.  It’s a full WAAS unit that is already certified.  It’s sticker price is $14,200, compared to the Garmin GTN 750 at $17,200 and the Avidyne IFD 540 at $15,000.

    Other BendixKing Gadgets

    Here are some other BendixKing Gadgets both available now and in the works:

  • Direct to the FAF

    A common practice when ATC is setting an aircraft up for a visual approach is giving a clearance direct to the Final Approach Fix (FAF) for the approach for that runway.  The theory is, the pilot will fly to the FAF, then he’ll pick up the airport and fly visually in.  It is a handy way of setting the pilot up for a 5 mile straight in visual approach.

    For anyone who flies with a Garmin GPS, whether is be a 430, a G1000, or a GTN 750, you have probably discovered a little nuance with going direct to the FAF.  Once an approach is loaded into the flight plan, whether is is loaded via vectors or via an IAF, all the waypoints on the approach go into the flight plan.  If the FAF is selected in the flight plan and the direct to command is given, the plane turns to the FAF and flies direct to it.

    The fun starts once the plane gets to the FAF.  The Garmin doesn’t sequence to the next waypoint.  It just keeps the FAF as the active waypoint and the airplane just continues on the course it had to get to the FAF. This has probably caused some stress and frustration as the pilot is expecting the airplane to turn inbound (if the autopilot is engaged), but then it keeps flying, usually away from the runway.

    How to fix this?  If a Garmin GPS is closely inspected once the direct to the FAF command is selected, the pilot will notice that the GPS goes into Suspend mode.  The Garmin programers thought this was a good idea to do.  

    How to get it to sequence properly?  Well, once the FAF is the active waypoint and the airplane is flying direct to it, simply unsuspend the GPS, then the airplane will turn inbound on the final approach course and track inbound and the glide slope will pop up.  On the 430 or 530, just press the OBS key.  On the G1000, press SUSP.  On the GTN 750, tap UNSUSP on the bottom of the unit.

    Hopefully, this will lead to reduced frustration on what otherwise should be a simple approach to an airport.

  • Contact Approaches

    Almost all IFR pilots are familiar with visual approaches and what the requirements are in order to fly a visual approach. As a refresher, the Instrument Procedures Handbook defines a Visual Approach as “an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an [Instrument Approach Procedure]” (page 4-56).

    For ATC to issue a Visual Approach, the pilot must have the airport or the traffic to follow in sight. Once the pilot reports the airport or the traffic in sight, ATC can clear the aircraft for a visual approach.

    A limiting factor for a visual approach is ATC’s Minimum Vectoring Altitude. “This altitude, based on terrain and obstruction clearance, provides controllers with minimum altitudes to vector aircraft in and around a particular location” (Instrument Procedures Handbook page 1-42). ATC has to restrict aircraft to these MVAs, which can sometimes be quite high due to terrain or obstacles in the vicinity of the airport.

    Every pilot has been in a situation with a high MVA that ATC can’t get them below, but it’s solidly MVFR or VFR at the destination airport. The MVA keeps the pilot in the clouds, so a visual approach isn’t possible since the pilot can’t see the airport or the traffic to follow. This can lead to extra time to go out and fly an approach.

    Enter a Contact Approach. A Contact Approach is different then a Visual Approach. “The main differences between a visual approach and a contact approach are: a pilot must request a contact approach, while a visual approach may be assigned by ATC or requested by the pilot; and a contact approach may be approved with 1sm visibility if the flight can remain clear of clouds, while a visual approach requires the pilot to have the airport in sight, or a preceding aircraft to be followed, and the ceiling must be at least 1,000 feet AGL with at least 3sm visibility” [Instrument Procedures Handbook page 4-57].

    Here’s the simplified explanation: A pilot does not have to have the airport in sight to request a contact approach. All that is required is for the airport to be reporting at least 1sm visibility and for the pilot to remain clear of clouds.

    When would this be helpful for an IFR pilot? Good question. Here’s a scenario.

    Pilot Smalls is about 20 minutes from his destination, which is an uncontrolled airport with only one approach to runway 17. He is approaching from the south and the initial approach fix for the approach to 17 is about 15 miles north of the airport. The airport is under Center control. When he has arrived at this destination in the past, Center usually could only vector him down to 4,000 AGL. He is very familiar with this airport and the surrounding area as he comes to this destination at least 2-3 times a month for business.

    Pilot Smalls listens to the AWOS, which is reporting a 2500 foot scattered layer and 10 miles visibility. He knows it is right traffic for 17 since there is a 2,000 foot antenna on the east side of the field. There is some hilly terrain around, but all the terrain is well below pattern altitude and doesn’t cause a safety issue.

    Looking out at the clouds, Pilot Smalls observes that the cloud layer is scattered to broken, but more scattered on the west side of the airport, with several large openings that he can see the ground through. Center asks for his approach request and Pilot Smalls requests a visual approach. Center gives him a descent to 4,000 AGL, their MVA for the area. They tell him to report the airport in sight for the visual approach.

    At 4,000 AGL, Pilot Smalls is going through the scattered layer of clouds, but can see the ground in between the clouds and deems he has room to maneuver safely between the clouds and stay clear of them. He can’t see the airport, so a visual approach seems unlikely. He can’t cancel IFR because then he would have to keep the VFR cloud clearance and visibility requirements in Class E airspace (1,000 feet above, 500 below and 2sm horizontally), which isn’t possible in this case.

    5 miles from the airport, ATC states, “N12345, I’m going to have to send you out for the approach since you don’t have the airport in sight.” Pilot Smalls then requests a Contact Approach. ATC clears him for the Contact Approach to his destination, so Pilot Smalls descends through a break in the clouds, remaining clear of clouds, until he gets below the base of the ceiling. He maneuvers onto the right downwind, lands and cancels IFR.

    Contact approaches can be useful at controlled and uncontrolled airports. The first time you request one, do so with a higher ceiling and some room to maneuver to keep your safety margins. After you’ve done a few, you can determine what your personal minimums are for a Contact Approach.

    I would not recommend doing a Contact Approach at an airport you are unfamiliar with. It’s vital to know what obstacles are around since on a Contact Approach, the pilot is now responsible for traffic avoidance and terrain avoidance, whereas on a visual approach, ATC resumes that responsibility.

    For more reading on Contact Approaches and another good scenario, check out Bold Method’s article on Contact Approaches.

  • Landing Light Replacement

    One evening this summer, my wife and I were flying down the southern shore of Long Island in my father’s E33 Bonanza. We enjoyed the sunset as we flew westbound and our plan was to fly the New York Hudson corridor, where we would arrive just after dark. As we approached New York’s airspace, two voices in my head started having a debate.

    The first voice said: “You should turn on your landing light when you get to New York to make the airplane more visible.”

    The other voice said: “That’s true, but I bet you’ll burn the landing light out”

    Well, as it turned out, both voices were right. My landing light fired right up when I needed it to fly the Hudson, but when it came time to land back home I had no such luck. Unfortunately, this was not the first time that I had been given the chance to practice my blackout landings. This Bonanza model has only one landing/ taxi light which is mounted in the lower cowling behind the propeller. This location is less than ideal because the filament in the bulb is fragile and can be damaged by engine vibration.

    We landed uneventfully and after putting the airplane away, I decided it was time to look into upgrading the lighting to something a little more modern. I was unsure of my options, but seeing as the airplane needed a replacement bulb regardless, it seemed like a good opportunity to make a change.

    After doing a little reading, I learned that HID or LED landing lights would be the best solution to my problem. I was familiar with LED aircraft lights, but had never heard of HID before.

    Here is what I learned:

    HID Landing Lights

    HID, or High Intensity Discharge landing lights, create light by arcing electricity through a sealed gas capsule. They are brighter than LED and traditional incandescent, and the light created more closely resembles the look and feel of sunlight. HID installations require a ballast to carefully regulate the flow of electricity to the gas capsule and also require a “warm up” period after being turned on in order to reach their full brightness.

    Fitting an aircraft with HID landing lights tends to be more expensive and time consuming than installing an LED light and would likely require involvement by an A&P/ IA. However, if you want the brightest light available, HID is probably the best bet.

    Pros

    • Brighter, more natural looking light
    • Draws less power than standard bulbs
    • Long bulb life
    • Does not generate much heat

    Cons

    • More expensive than other lighting options
    • Lights must “warm up” after being turned on
    • Cannot be pulsed easily
    • Cost/complexity of installations

    LED Landing Lights

    LED, or Light Emitting Diode landing lights, have no filament and work by moving electricity through diodes which are connected into a circuit. These lights have become very popular for many uses due to their simplicity, low cost, and brightness.

    While not as bright as HID light, the LED lights require no “warm up period” and can be easily pulsed. LED lights draw much less power from the aircraft’s electrical system than traditional bulbs and boast incredible life length. LED bulb installation is very simple and can often serve as a direct replacement for the original lights.

    Pros

    • Instant light (no warm up)
    • Incredible life length (>5,000 hours)
    • Low Cost
    • Simplicity of installation
    • Can be pulsed easily
    • Low power draw

    Cons

    • Not as bright as HID lighting

     

    After weighing the options, I decided to replace the incandescent bulb in the Bonanza with an LED bulb. I read the reviews online and talked to some of my friends who work in aviation and eventually decided on the Lycoming Alphabeam. The Alphabeam is FAA/PMA approved and is available through Aircraft Spruce and other aviation parts vendors. The bulb cost around 250-300 dollars and I was able to install it as a direct replacement for our old light. All I had to do was take the old one out, put the new one in, and make a logbook entry.

    Below are some pictures of the installation:

    Last weekend I finally had an opportunity to take the airplane out after dark and see how the new light compared to the old one. I am pleased to say that it did a wonderful job and exceeded my expectations.

    If you are interested in seeing a side by side comparison of the different lighting options, a quick Google search should provide what you are looking for. In my own experience, I would say that the LED light was brighter than the old light and did a very good job illuminating the taxiway and runway. It was extremely nice not to be concerned that my light wouldn’t work as I was setting up for landing at an unfamiliar field after dark. I also enjoyed feeling that I had the option to leave it on during climb and cruise in order to increase my visibility to other aircraft.

    Many models of aircraft have multiple landing/ taxi lights installed which greatly reduces the likelihood of having to land without one. In our case, spending the extra money to upgrade to the LED bulb made sense because of the desire for increased reliability. If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive way to upgrade your airplane, LED or HID lighting may be something to consider.

    Andrew Robinson is a 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania.  He flies Pilatus PC-12s and instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.

Leave a Reply

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