I have used a few different sun shields in airplanes in my flying career. I have found one that I really like. Bruce’s Custom Covers knocks it out of the park for usability and ease of storage.
Let’s start off with functionality. Like other window sun shields, Bruce’s Custom Covers fit very nicely into the airplane glare shield and side windows. Depending on the type of airplane you have, some of the window covers use the suction cups and others don’t. I recently had 2 customers order from Bruce’s, one that owns a P210 that uses the suction cups for all windows, including the glare shield, and the other owns a Cirrus which doesn’t use the suction cups on anything.
They work great. They do the job of blocking the sun and keeping the cabin much cooler while the airplane is sitting on the ramp.
The thing I like best about Bruce’s Custom Covers is their storage. Other sun shields require you to roll them up and lash a tie around them. Bruce’s, on the other hand, come folded very neatly in a black canvas bag. The folded covers don’t take up nearly as much room as the rolled up covers, plus they are really easy to just fold up and store.
Bruce’s Custom Covers also sells plugs for cowling, pitot tubes, etc., as well as aircraft exterior covers.
Bruce’s Custom Covers gets my recommendation for anyone wanting to get some new sun shields. For those of you in Texas, you know you need them!
The Pilatus Jet, the PC-24 Super Versatile Jet, is nearing certification. Pilatus expects the Pilatus Jet to receive European and US certification by December. The first delivery may even take place before the end of the year.
In developing the PC-24 Pilatus Jet, Pilatus, based in Switzerland, has taken the same approach as they did with the PC-12, their insanely successful single engine turboprop. Versatility is the key, with their mindset being to make the PC-24 Pilatus Jet the first flying Suburban jet. Pilatus emphasized STOL and unimproved strip operation in their design.
The huge cargo door so familiar on the PC-12 has been crafted into the PC-24 Pilatus Jet giving access to a massive cargo area. According to Pilatus’ website, the jet has a takeoff distance of only 2,690 feet, which is unheard of for a a business jet. There is seating for 11 + a pilot (yep, it’s a single pilot airplane!), so the whole family can come along. With a max cruise of 425 knots and a range of almost 2,000 miles, it’s a get somewhere airplane.
The price tag for a new PC-24 Pilatus Jet will be $8.9 million, which is just under what a new Phenom 300 costs. There is a 90 order wait list, so if you get on it now, you can get one faster than a Cirrus Vision Jet!
You are hand-flying an in-the-weather descent, power back, heading for the FAF. You start a 30 degree banked turn at your lead point to cross the FAF, when your passenger behind you gasps. Looking over your shoulder, you see he has spilled his drink into his lap…too bad for him! However, when you turn your head back to your panel, your inner ear tumbles and you see 45 degrees of bank, 15 degrees nose low, airspeed increasing.
Congratulations! You have managed to get distracted and sucked into an unusual attitude recovery. By the book, you should roll wings level, pull to the horizon, and adjust power as necessary to keep the airspeed within limits. In this scenario, if you had not experienced vertigo, you might have been able to roll to less than 30 degrees of bank, recover your turn, pull the nose up to less than the original descent attitude, pulled a bit of power to slow back to your desired penetration speed and then resumed your desired ground track. However, this would only be appropriate if you had full situational awareness as to the deviations caused by the look over your shoulder, plus full confidence that the moderate corrective actions would put you back on your desired flight path.
As a military aviator, I learned unusual attitude recoveries based upon hard maneuvering at extreme pitch and bank angles. In the hard-maneuvering environment, an unusual attitude could be 90 degrees straight up, airspeed decreasing below 120 kts…or 80 degrees nose low, 135 degrees of bank, airspeed increasing through 500 kts… etc. In these cases, understanding angle of attack, or AOA, is critical to maintaining controlled flight and returning to a normal attitude.
In an extreme nose-high attitude, a military aviator is trained to roll the aircraft to 90 degrees of bank, ease off the back-stick pressure to reduce AOA, add power as required, and allow the nose to slice back towards level, rolling to wings level as the nose approaches the horizon. If nose low, the recovery procedure is to roll rapidly, within asymmetric g limits, until wings level, then to pull at optimum g loading to recover to level flight. For the nose-low recovery, power was normally reduced until airspeed could be assessed and brought under control. However, when doing the nose-low pullout at 7-9 gs, pulling the power for too long would leave you much to slow to resume combat.
The AOA gauge on a fighter’s glare shield is a primary reference during hard maneuvering and for landing. The AOA for optimum maneuvering is 13 degrees, displayed as the green circle or “green donut” on the gauge. The red chevron on top represents a slow condition of 15 degrees or more and the yellow lower chevron represents 11 degrees or less.
For normal landing in the F-16C, the pilot slows to 220 kts and configures abeam the touchdown point while mentally computing the final approach airspeed of 136 kts plus 4 additional knots for each 1000 lbs of fuel. When rolling off the perch and flying the final turn, the pilot would usually only glance once at the airspeed once to ensure final turn airspeed of 180 kts while using the AOA sight gauge as the primary indicator of a best performance turn. As long as the AOA was green donut (13 degrees) or less, you would not stall. If on speed and 13 degrees wasn’t going to get you around the turn to line up with the runway, you knew you were going to overshoot. You never wanted to see the red chevron of 15 degrees or more as that meant you were too slow, pulling too hard, and in danger of building an un-recoverable sink rate!
Few GA aircraft are currently equipped with AOA indicators, though there are several after market devices available for retrofit. However, knowing the impact of AOA and how to manage it is vital to safe aviating, even without an AOA gauge. The bottom line is, as long as you don’t ask the wing to produce more angle of attack than it can handle, you won’t stall.
Practicing final turn stalls, to know what the wing feels like as you get too slow or pull too much on the controls, increasing AOA past the critical point, will keep you safe when you encounter that unexpected overshooting wind or you find yourself inadvertently on too tight of a downwind leg. Better to overshoot or take it around to try again, than to pull too hard and exceed critical AOA.
Mike Hostage is a retired USAF pilot with 37 years of experience, flying a wide variety of aircraft. An instructor pilot for more than half of his 4800 flight hours, Mike is currently qualified in a Cirrus SR-22T and regularly flies his two homebuilt sailplanes.
When cleaning airplanes, the majority of people don’t know how to properly maintain their TKS panels. TKS panels provide wing leading edge, horizontal stabilizer leading edge, and, in the case of FIKI airplanes, vertical stabilizer leading edge de-icing protection. For those not familiar with them, they are metal strips that have thousands of holes drilled into them where the TKS fluid seeps out. They have become quite prevalent on Cirrus aircraft, the Cessna TTx, and Mooney aircraft manufactured in the last decade or so. The system is also known as a weeping wing system.
Being on the leading edges, these panels pick up bugs very easily. For the uninitiated, it would make sense to just use normal airplane cleaner to spray the panels and scrub the bugs. Don’t!
Using anything that contains Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) as that can harm the TKS bladders behind the panels. Any aircraft cleaner containing wax could cause the pores to clog, preventing the TKS fluid from properly seeping onto the wing.
What’s the best thing to do? Soap and water with a soft cloth is a good start (again, make sure it doesn’t have wax in it. Dish soap would be suitable). No hose available? Just simply turn the TKS system on, let it run till you start to see fluid drip off the wings onto the ground, and use the fluid to clean the panels.
A soft cloth would work fine, but, if the panels are really buggy, take a green scouring pad to do some scrubbing. Just make sure the scrubbing motion is up and down with the grain, not side to side. You can find the green scouring sponges on the dishwashing aisle in the grocery store. Just leave one in the hangar for when you need it.
The massive storms that rolled through the Austin Bergstrom and San Antonio areas last Friday not only put a dent in the landscape, they put a dent in the skies too.
The Austin Bergstrom (KAUS) control tower suffered significant flood damage Friday. 6 inches of rainfall in an hour caused water to come pouring into the first floor of the tower, flooding the radar room and knocking out the power. This led to transmission outages for the tower, ground control, clearance delivery and the ATIS. Similar to the Chicago Center fire last year (though this was a much smaller section of airspace), the area normally controlled by Austin Approach was replaced by a big, gaping radar hole.
By 8:45am on Friday morning, the Austin Bergstrom airport actually closed. One runway eventually opened back up Friday afternoon, but massive delays and cancellations had already taken place. All the ILS approaches were down and Houston Center had taken over the airspace normally occupied by Austin Approach control.
A temporary, emergency tower vehicle was brought in by the FAA (it’s essentially an RV with communications and a giant window) by the end of the weekend. All arrivals and departures were restricted to 17L and 35R.
Due to the radar outage, I heard there was as much as a 4 hour delay even for planes coming into Austin Bergstrom from Dallas, and that was in VMC conditions on Sunday and Monday. Tuesday and Wednesday brought IMC conditions which only enhanced the delays.
The latest news is that Austin Approach will be opening back up, but in a satellite base in San Antonio. The Austin controllers will be using the SAT radar room and will be receiving their radar picture via satellite. The approach frequencies should be up and running today or tomorrow. The Austin Bergstrom tower is up and running and most of the ILS approaches are operational at this point.
In the meantime, expect delays going in and out of Austin. If you don’t have to get to AUS, EDC, or GTU, you’re better off delaying a day or two until Austin Approach is back up and running.
The FAA defines personal minimums “as an individual pilot’s set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines for deciding whether and under what conditions to operate (or continue operating) in the National Airspace System.” Have you actually given thought as to why we choose the personal minimums we do? From the beginning of initial pilot training, weather minimums were established for day-to-day training and during solo flight. I didn’t realize it at first, but I later learned these limits were not just an insurance mandate, but these minimums were set at the time to safely operate an aircraft based on my “then” current experience.
So here’s the question: what are your personal minimums and WHY do YOU have them? Do you ever lower or raise your minimums? Are your minimums based solely on your overall experience level or do they take into account other variables such as advanced avionics? For pilots that fly multiple aircraft like I do, can and do your minimums change in regard to category or type of aircraft you are flying? It’s a judgment decision on how you chose your minimums. However, it’s important that time is taken before you strap into the cockpit for each flight to critically think about the different risk factors and variables which may affect your decision for the minimums you choose.
To guide us, let’s try briefly apply the FAA’s Personal Minimums Checklist to see how risk factors might shape what personal minimums or decisions we make for the day. Remember, just because you have been flying with a certain set of minimums one day, doesn’t mean you can’t adjust your minimums to a higher value given an ever-changing situation.
The acronym most pilots have heard is PAVE:
Pilot– We all should be familiar with the acronym IMSAFE associated with this. It addresses variables such as Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, and Emotion. But how do you adjust your personal minimums using this guideline? Have you ever thought about raising your minimums for a training flight if you only got 4-6 hours of sleep, instead of 8? Or if you anticipate a hard IFR flight with a long day, maybe taking a safety pilot to mitigate the chance of a mistake if you’re forecasting having to shoot an approach to your weather planning minimums.
Aircraft– Personally, this is a really important factor for me when deciding what minimums to apply. I often spend a large majority of my time asking myself; is this aircraft properly equipped for the flight? This question goes beyond just looking at the logbook for a properly equipped and legal aircraft. A professional pilot should think further. Am I flying a traditional 6-pack “steam gauge” layout, non-slaved compass card, with a separate OBS gauge for course guidance? What if the aircraft doesn’t have an auto-pilot? What if I’m flying an aircraft equipped with a dual auto-pilot, dual GPS with an integrated glass cockpit? I can comfortably say my personal minimums change depending on the equipment I have available.
A pilot should also look at his/her recency with the aircraft. For example, if you are qualified to fly both airplanes and helicopters, maybe you should choose to have higher personal minimums in one particular airframe or if you haven’t flown that airframe within 30, 60 or 90 days. This is a very important factor for the owner/pilot.
EnVironment– Most of the time, when we think of environment, we ask ourselves, is the weather legal for me to take off and, more importantly, can I conduct this flight safely? Basic flight planning should have taught us to take into consideration crosswind limits, day versus night, and the type of airspace the flight is conducted in. Thought should also be given to how you set your personal minimums in regards to the particular type of environment you might rarely encounter. Flying an approach to your minimums in the flat plains of Texas during the day is one thing, but how would you adjust your weather minimums flying to a new airport, at night, with no moon illumination, in the mountains of Colorado? Could you reduce the risk and adjust your minimums in this scenario with two pilots?
External Pressures – What external pressures are affecting your flight? Passengers, the owner, “get-there-it is”, the desire to impress someone? Although external pressures should never be a factor when conducting a flight, they almost always play a role in your decision whether to conduct the flight or not. For example, a professional pilot gets hired to do a flight and the weather is below their personal minimums. The pilot could be tempted to lower their minimums by 100 feet to take the flight for a paying customer. This scenario plays out every day across the country whether it’s a professional pilot or owner/pilot. It would be foolish not to consider this type of pressure. Always make sure you have a plan if and when you encounter this situation. Planning your flight and having a plan to deal with these potential scenarios ahead of time ensures you stick to your minimums. It can be as simple as telling your passengers, or the owner, well ahead of your flight what your personal minimums are to accept the flight, and to ensure they, or you, have a back-up plan!
Most pilots will never break a hard limitation such as an airframe cross wind limitation, or engine limit, but the chances of breaking a personal minimum are realistic. Think about the last time you went on a diet and broke your plan because you were tempted by your friends or family during an outing. Self-imposed personal minimums can be hard to enforce and we need to acknowledge this as humans. Here are a few techniques that you can use to assist in making a decision using personal minimums and help reduce the influence of external pressures.
Step 1: Sit down with your CFI/CFII and fill out a personal minimums worksheet. Filling one out by yourself is a good start but having an outside objective view will help in making sure your personal minimums are realistic. Remember, it is easy to convince ourselves that we can do something even though we have set personal minimums. Talk with other pilots to see if you have set realistic expectations.
Step 2: Preflight planning must start a few days in advanced. It can be as easy as checking what the forecast might be and looking at the projected route, near-by alternate airports, and various approaches. This can be done quickly and will give you a heads up on whether the flight can be safely conducted or not. By alerting the passengers or owner early enough, alternate plans can be developed. An extra pilot can be added, the passengers can fly commercial, bring along a CFI, or cancel the trip altogether and seek alternate transportation. The main point is the decision was made well ahead of the flight when conditions didn’t look favorable. This helps in removing external pressures and ensures you don’t go below your personal minimums.
Step 3: Never be afraid to ask for a second opinion. Part 135 operators have set procedures for conducting flights which assist the pilots in making decisions. These set procedures help remove external pressures by allowing the pilot to say, “The rules don’t allow for this, or this is how we will conduct the flight!” However, under Part 91, the pilot has to take ownership for all phases of the flight. This is where talking it out with another pilot helps with mitigating external factors and the environment. Ideally, this person should have more experience and be able to talk through the situation. For instance, if I’m flying to a new destination, I often seek the advice from another pilot who’s familiar with the area. They may have key insights into weather patterns, preferred approaches, or hazards to avoid. In certain situations, asking for another pilot’s opinion might be what influences your go/no-go decision! You’ll be amazed how much you can learn just from talking to other pilots.
Step 4: Continue to build your experience and knowledge base. Building experience requires us to push our abilities, and sometimes this may be to the limit. However, this can be done in a controlled training environment or just going out and experiencing it. Get a new license, fly regularly with a CFI/CFII, and always try and take advantage of training opportunities. For example on your next flight from point A to point B, practice hand flying an approach, do a short field landing, a quick steep turn, etc. Quality flight time is always better than quantity. Continue to challenge yourself and try not to become complacent.
Personal minimums are a tool to assist in every pilot’s aeronautical decision making process. Use your personal minimums to guide your final go/no-go decision and remember to stick to the plan. I encourage you to review the FAA’s Risk Management Handbook (FAA-H-8083-2). Appendix B has Sample Risk Management Scenarios and reviewing them will give a better understanding how to apply the techniques discussed to your everyday flying.
Pedro Vargas-Lebron is a King Air 200 and uH-60 Blackhawk Instructor pilot with the Texas Army National Guard. Pedro is a CFI/CFII/MEI both in airplanes and helicopters with over 4000 hours of flight time, half as an instructor pilot.
Sadly, in January, a pretty great airplane was put out to pasture. Textron (the conglomerate that now owns Cessna, Beechcraft, Hawker, and Lycoming) announced it was ceasing production of the Cessna TTx. With the end of the Cessna TTx production, an airplane that was the main “competitor” to Cirrus (if you can call it competition; Cirrus consistently outsold the Cessna TTx by a wide margin each year), it leaves the SR series to stand alone atop the High Performance piston single market.
I got to go through Cessna’s FITS Accepted Instructor (CFAI) course back in 2012 and have flown in the Cessna 350 and 400 (which is what they were known as at the time; the Cessna TTx name came around in 2011) for about 120 hours. I really like the airplanes. I’m partial to the Cirrus, but the Cessna 350 & 400 are fast airplanes and great for 1-2 people. I flew a 350 (the non-turbo charged version) from New York to San Antonio last fall and routinely saw 170 knots at 12 GPH.
Columbia started out making the 350 & 400 (the turbo-charged version) in the early 2000s, but went bankrupt in 2007. Lancair started Columbia to make a certified version of their popular kit planes. If you see a Lancair ES floating around, you would swear it’s a Columbia with only 1 door. Cessna bought the design from Columbia in 2007 to begin manufacturing the airplanes themselves.
Cessna then made a huge mistake as they moved the production facility from Bend, Oregon to Mexico. Production completely halted in 2009 as the planes coming out of Mexico were found to have defective composite work. The sales never really recovered, even though Cessna put the Garmin G2000 panel in the Cessna TTx, complete with a touchscreen key pad. A FIKI system was added as an option in 2012.
A prospective buyer can still get a great value on a used 350, 400, or TTx, as they are valued a little lower than a Cirrus. The 350, 400 or TTx all make excellent single pilot or two person speedsters with very comfortable amenities.
