| |

Setting Standards

Type Clubs Lead By Example with Standard Operating Practices

This article appeared in the May 2019 edition of EAA’s Sport Aviation Magazine. It is used with permission. For other articles by Charlie Precourt, please visit EAA.org and join for a full subscription.

Imagine a year when there are no fatal accidents in general aviation. Does that seem impossible? The airlines achieved that many years ago, and so can we if we focus on the right things in our safety pro- grams. In fact, the overall trend in GA accident rates over the last few years is very encouraging. AOPA’s Air Safety Institute published its annual GA Accident Scorecard recently (see www.EAA.org/ extras), revealing fatal accidents from 2008 to 2017 are down more than 30 percent. Nevertheless, there were 185 fatal accidents in 2017, so we still have a long way to go. But, there are many developments in safety programs across GA that can keep the trend going.

One such development that I’ve advocated through a couple of type clubs is establishing standard operating practices (SOP). When I flew for both the U.S. Air Force and NASA, we had what we called standard operating procedures. They were the law for our flying. That is, we had to follow them procedurally because the folks that paid our salaries said so. The objective was to ensure we all used the same playbook, minimizing the risk that one of us might develop a bad in-flight habit that increased risk to the organization.

One way to think about SOPs is to recognize the difference between procedure and technique. For example, you have to follow the manufacturer’s pilot’s operating handbook (procedure)where it says to lower the landing gear before landing. If you don’t, you are in for a bad day. However, it does not tell you exactly when to lower the gear; that’s left to technique.

In the middle, between procedure and technique, is a best practice. In this example, lowering the gear just before the final approach fix is a “standard practice.” It is the generally accepted “best” place to lower the gear. In GA, however, aircraft owners don’t generally answer to a boss, so I prefer the term practices instead of procedures.

However, whether or not someone is paying us to fly, following best practices just makes sense. If you have a good set of practices, they enable you to do things the same way every time, leaving lots of brain cells to manage the unusual, the things that might go wrong. The safest approach to accomplishing a flight task is one that leverages consistency. On the other hand, if you are inconsistent, doing flight tasks differently each time, you’ll always be struggling to keep up. So, in my involvement with the safety committees for both the Malibu Mirage Owners and Pilots Association and the Citation Jet Pilots Association, there has been broad acceptance of recently developed standard operating practices.

The good news in this development is that a culture of safety is growing broadly across most sectors of GA through these type club initiatives. Perhaps more importantly, there is much to learn from each other about the effectiveness of these various initiatives. EAA has seen a four-year drop of 47 percent in fatal accidents among homebuilts! So, there must be something right going on there — a major focus on appropriate transition training before flying a new homebuilt (as a standard operating practice) is paying off.

So, what is covered in the SOPs these type clubs have developed? The following outlines the kinds of standard practices other type clubs have set up and represent SOPs you could establish for yourself regardless of the type of aircraft you fly. You just have to fill in the blanks for your particular type and commit to sticking to them in your flying. These are notional and are practices (not mandatory procedures). They don’t tell you how to fly your aircraft; they give you things to think about when you do. If you take a bit of time to set your own SOPs and then stick with them, you’ll be a far safer pilot. Here are some ideas:

Duty Day

Set the maximum number of hours of flight time during a calendar day and rest hours off between flying days. One example is a maximum of eight hours in the air and a minimum of 10 hours off until flying again.

Cargo

Establish best practices for what you will carry as cargo. One example is no lithium batteries in the baggage compartment.

Flight Planning and Preparation

What are your limitations for the types of flight you’ll take on? Consider SOPs such as designating a suitable alternate airport for all flights. Another might be for first flights after significant maintenance, such as no flight at night or in IMC until a day-VMC functional check flight has been done.

Runway Field Length Guidelines

Establish an appropriate minimum field length for your aircraft and commit to not going into shorter fields. Consider sea level operations and high-altitude airports as well.

Surface Operations

What should be your maximum wind conditions for taxi, takeoff, or landing? Maximum acceptable crosswinds on landing? Set them in your SOP and stick to them.

En Route

Consider establishing practices like no non-operationally necessary conversation below 10,000 feet MSL, during any segment of an approach procedure, or during the last 1,000 feet before leveloff during climb or descent. Also consider declaring “minimum fuel” when the fuel state becomes less than fuel to destination plus 45 minutes at current burn, even if flying day VFR.

Approach and Landing

Consider establishing personal minimums in your SOPs for things like visual approaches. Perhaps use a 1,500-foot ceiling and 3 miles’ visibility for day and 5 miles for night, even though these exceed the FAA’s requirements.

Pilot Limitations, Training, & Currency

FAR Part 91 rules allow us to fly with pretty marginal levels of currency. Consider setting your own SOP to something more appropriate for the kind of aircraft you fly and the kind of flying you do in it. For example, consider these ideas as SOPs:

  • If you have less than 100 hours of time-in-type or have not flown at least 15 hours as pilot in command in the last 90 days, use a minimum planned fuel reserve of one hour.
  • Also, if flying IFR in this situation, use a minimum visibility for takeoff of 1 mile.
  • On instrument approaches, increase the published minimums by one- half mile visibility and add 200 feet to the decision altitude or minimum descent altitude.
  • Perform landings at a weight that allows a full stop in 60 percent of available runway length.
  • Consider an SOP that establishes you will fly with a CFI on a refresher flight before flying as pilot in command if you have not logged at least an hour of flight time and one takeoff and landing in an aircraft of the same type within the preceding 45 days.

Maneuver Standards

Wherever there are “techniques” associated with things like takeoffs and climbs, cruise, use of autopilot, power settings, and approaches and landings, you can write down your preferred technique as your own SOP. Describe each maneuver in enough detail (speeds, altitudes, power settings, configurations, etc.) to define a routine you will use each time. This ensures you fly consistently each flight and leverage the power of the standard operating practice, that is, to give you the bandwidth you need should you encounter an unexpected event or an emergency.

SOPs are among the exciting concepts underway to make safety programs work for us. Hats off to type clubs like MMOPA and CJP and many others that are taking the initiative. But even if you’re not in this kind of group, you can still set up your own SOPs. Let’s all look forward to our first year in GA without a fatal accident — and let’s make it soon!
Fly safe!


Charlie Precourt is a former NASA chief astronaut, space shuttle commander, and Air Force test pilot. He built a VariEze, owns a Piper JetPROP, and is a member of the EAA board of directors.

Similar Posts

  • As Fast as a Cirrus — Better Tech, and Less?

    2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT N422TJ on the ramp — a faster, better-value alternative to a Cirrus SR22T
    2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ) — 235 KTAS and Garmin G1000 glass, priced under a comparable Cirrus.

    If you’re weighing a Cessna 400 vs Cirrus, start here. The 2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT cruises at 235 knots true — the fastest fixed-gear piston single ever certified. It’s faster than a turbocharged Cirrus on the same fuel and the same class of engine, and it costs less than a comparable SR22T. If you’re shopping a high-performance single for speed and value, N422TJ deserves a hard look.

    The Airplane Cirrus Shoppers Overlook

    The Cessna 400 is a Lancair design — a clean-sheet, all-composite airframe built to go fast. Cessna certified and refined it, and built N422TJ in 2008. It seats four, carries a real load, and handles weather. Most buyers shopping a high-performance single default to Cirrus, so airplanes like this one get overlooked. That’s where the value is.

    Faster on the Same Fuel

    The 400’s 235 KTAS is a true max cruise at 25,000 feet on oxygen. A 2011–2012 Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) trues about 211 KTAS. Both burn 100LL and run turbocharged Continental engines in the same ~310-horsepower class.

    That’s about 24 knots up high — roughly 45 minutes off a 1,000-nautical-mile leg — with no bigger engine and no more fuel. And it isn’t only a flight-levels number: at 10,000 feet the 400 still trues about 180 KTAS, roughly 10 knots faster than an SR22T at the same altitude.

    Side profile of the all-composite, fixed-gear airframe
    Lancair-designed, all-composite, fixed-gear — the airframe that makes 235 knots possible.

    The Value Gap

    N422TJ is priced at $350,000. A comparable Gen 3 SR22T typically trades between $450,000 and $550,000 used. (A new SR22T is a $1M-plus airplane — not the comparison.) Against the newer turbo Cirrus, that’s roughly $100,000 to $175,000 less for a faster airplane.

    Cessna 400 Corvalis TT N422TJ on the ramp, front three-quarter view
    N422TJ — no damage history, complete logs since new, Van Bortel-maintained.

    Cross-Shopping a Turbonormalized Cirrus SR22

    A lot of buyers looking at N422TJ also weigh a Cirrus SR22 with the Tornado Alley turbonormalized engine. It’s a fair comparison — the same ~310-horsepower-class Continental, the same all-composite fixed-gear layout, the same 100LL — so here’s the honest math.

    Speed and engine: the turbonormalized SR22 trues around 211 KTAS; the 400 does 235. The 400 also runs a true twin-turbocharged TSIO-550-C, not a turbonormalized system — a true turbo makes boosted power up high, which is a big part of that speed edge.

    Avionics and price — 2006–2008: those Cirrus came with the Avidyne Entegra panel. N422TJ’s Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision is a clear step up — better glass for comparable or less money.

    Avionics and price — 2009 and later: Cirrus moved to Garmin Perspective (G1000-class) glass, but the price moved with it. A 2009 SR22 turbonormalized with Perspective typically runs around $400,000 or more — one representative listing is $429,900. N422TJ is $350,000: less money, comparable glass, and 24 knots faster.

    The SR22 still brings the CAPS parachute and the Cirrus owner community. But on speed, engine, and price, the Cessna 400 stays ahead.

    MetricCessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ)Cirrus SR22T — Gen 3 (2011–2012)Cirrus SR22 Turbonormalized (2006–2009)
    Max cruise (25,000 ft)235 KTAS~211 KTAS~211 KTAS
    Cruise at 10,000 ft~180 KTAS~170 KTAS~170 KTAS
    EngineTwin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C (true turbo, ~310 hp class)Turbocharged Continental (~310 hp class)Turbonormalized Continental IO-550-N (~310 hp class)
    Glass panelGarmin G1000 — WAAS + Synthetic VisionCirrus Perspective (Garmin)Avidyne Entegra (2006–08) / Garmin Perspective (2009+)
    Fuel100LL100LL100LL
    Airframe / gearAll-composite, fixed gearAll-composite, fixed gearAll-composite, fixed gear
    Useful loadComparable (often equal or a touch better)ComparableComparable
    Whole-airframe parachuteNoYes (CAPS)Yes (CAPS)
    Typical used price$350,000~$450,000–$550,000~$300,000–$450,000 (est.; 2009 Perspective ~$400K+)
    Cessna 400 Corvalis TT vs. Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) and the turbonormalized SR22. Speeds and prices are typical estimates; verify against the aircraft records and current market.

    The fastest fixed-gear piston single ever certified — and it out-runs a turbo Cirrus on the same fuel.

    The Avionics You Can’t Buy Anymore

    Garmin G1000 glass panel with WAAS and Synthetic Vision (SVT)
    Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision (SVT) and the GFC-700 autopilot.

    N422TJ has a Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision (SVT) and the GFC-700 autopilot. WAAS gives you LPV approaches — near-ILS precision at runways nationwide.

    This matters because the WAAS upgrade path for the G1000 in these airframes is closed. A Cessna 400 that left the factory without WAAS can’t be upgraded — it will never fly an LPV approach. So a WAAS-plus-SVT 400 like this one is a scarce find. You either buy one that has it, or you don’t get it.

    Glass cockpit with dual Garmin G1000 displays and leather interior
    Both G1000 displays with synthetic vision — a modern, integrated flight deck.

    Built to Actually Go

    This airplane is equipped to be flown hard and often:

    • Thermawing electric de-ice with a backup alternator — a de-ice system (not certified known-ice)
    • Factory air conditioning
    • Speed brakes
    • Hot prop, built-in oxygen, and ADS-B Out
    Cabin door open showing cabin access and seating
    A comfortable four-seat cabin built for real trips.

    The engine is a twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C with about 1,503 hours total time — the original engine, 1,503 since new. No damage history, complete logs since new, maintained by Van Bortel.

    Leather interior seating
    Leather interior, comfortable for four.

    An Honest Word: What the Cirrus Does Better

    One thing every Cirrus has that the 400 doesn’t: the CAPS whole-airframe parachute. Pull the handle and the airplane comes down under canopy. For a lot of buyers that’s the deciding factor, and it’s a fair reason to choose a Cirrus. Cirrus also has a large owner community and a strong support network.

    Useful load is comparable across all three airplanes — the 400 is often equal or a little better. If the parachute and the community are your priorities, a Cirrus may be the right airplane, and we can help you find one. If your priorities are speed, avionics, and value, the 400 is hard to beat at this price.

    Cessna 400 vs Cirrus: Quick Answers for Shoppers

    Is the Cessna 400 faster than a Cirrus SR22T?

    Yes. The Cessna 400 Corvalis TT trues up to 235 KTAS at 25,000 feet versus about 211 KTAS for a Gen 3 Cirrus SR22T — about 24 knots faster on the same 100LL and the same ~310-horsepower class of turbocharged Continental engine, or roughly 45 minutes saved on a 1,000-nautical-mile leg. At 10,000 feet the 400 still trues about 180 KTAS, roughly 10 knots faster than an SR22T at that altitude.

    How does the Cessna 400 compare to a turbonormalized Cirrus SR22?

    The Cessna 400 trues 235 KTAS versus about 211 KTAS for a turbonormalized SR22, and it uses a true twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C rather than a turbonormalized system. A 2006-2008 SR22 turbo has the older Avidyne Entegra panel, while the 400 has a Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision. A 2009-and-later SR22 turbo with Garmin Perspective glass typically costs around $400,000 or more, versus $350,000 for N422TJ. The SR22 still offers its CAPS whole-airframe parachute.

    Does the 2006-2008 Cirrus SR22 have a Garmin G1000?

    No. Cirrus SR22s from 2006-2008 typically came with the Avidyne Entegra glass panel; Garmin-based Perspective glass arrived in 2009. The 2008 Cessna 400 came with the Garmin G1000, and N422TJ has the WAAS and Synthetic Vision version.

    How much less is a Cessna 400 than a comparable Cirrus SR22T?

    N422TJ is priced at $350,000, while a comparable 2011-2012 Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) typically sells for about $450,000 to $550,000 used — roughly $100,000 to $175,000 less for a faster airplane.

    What is the fastest fixed-gear single-engine airplane?

    The Cessna 400 Corvalis TT, at 235 KTAS maximum cruise, is the fastest fixed-gear piston single-engine airplane ever certified.

    Does the Cessna 400 have a parachute like the Cirrus?

    No. A whole-airframe CAPS parachute is the one meaningful capability the Cirrus offers that the Cessna 400 does not. On speed, avionics, and useful load, the 400 matches or beats a comparable SR22 or SR22T.

    Can the Cessna 400’s Garmin G1000 be upgraded to WAAS?

    No. The WAAS upgrade path for the G1000 in these airframes is closed, so a non-WAAS Cessna 400 can never gain LPV approach capability. N422TJ already has WAAS plus Synthetic Vision, which makes it a scarce find.

    Does the Cessna 400 carry less than a Cirrus SR22?

    No. Useful load is comparable — the Cessna 400 is often equal to or a little better than a comparable SR22 or SR22T.

    Contact Texas Top Aviation

    ✈️ See the full N422TJ listing, specs & photos →

    Call to see N422TJ or to talk through the Cessna 400 vs Cirrus decision: (512) 270-1298 · txtopaviation.com. Austin & San Antonio, TX.

    The 2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ) trues 235 KTAS at FL250 — faster than a Cirrus SR22T — for roughly $100–175K less. An honest speed-and-value comparison.

  • Jeppesen vs. Aeroservices Charts

    Many people ask, which set of charts is better? Should I use the FAA Aeroservices charts on Foreflight or pay extra for the Jeppesen charts? Since you have to pay for Jeppesen, they are probably better, right?

    I am not here to say which one is better as a chart preference is just that, a preference for one over the other or for certain features. After a while, muscle memory and routine take over and you probably wont even notice the difference.

    History

    In 1934, Elroy Jeppesen began making his own charts and sold them to other pilots. His little company grew into the giant Boeing chart company we know today. Jeppesen charts are used internationally and therefore include information that might otherwise seem common knowledge, like transition altitudes. The key is, you cannot get FAA Aeroservices charts for international destinations. Jeppesen is the only option for outside the US.

    National Aerospace Charting Office (NACO), or the new(er) name “Aeroservices” or FAA chart, whatever you decide to call them, are United States government issued charts. In addition to civilian use, Aeroservices charts are used by the military so there will be some terminology that does not apply to civilians. The best part about FAA Aeroservices charts are… they’re free!

    If you are in the middle of a transition or trying to decide which charts to use, you have come to the right place. Here are a few key differences.

    Obstacle Departure Procedure Chart
    KAXX (Angel Fire, New Mexico) ODP

    1. Frequencies: FAA Chart provides the AWOS so you have all departure frequencies in once place.
    2. Airport: Jeppesen highlight the airport, which is a nice feature so you can easily see the flow from the airport.
    3. Notes and Remarks: Jeppesen bolds the speed restriction all over the chart so you won’t miss it. All other requirements are in the top right corner. Note the transition altitude 18,000′. Since Jeppesen is used internationally, it is published on the chart since other countries have different transition altitudes. It takes up a chunk of chart real estate, but it’s clear, easy to read, and always in the same place. The FAA charts post all the requirements and restrictions as notes off to the side. Since it’s in the same space as the chart graphic, it’s easy for the eyes to catch while studying the plate.
    4. Take off Minimums: NOT APPLICABLE for PART 91 – however, it’s wise for all pilots to look and abide by them. Jeppesen displays the standard take off minimums table, as well as the rate of climb table, which is nice to have all in one place. The FAA chart gives the non standard information but you need to know/look up the rest in the Digital Terminal Procedures Supplemental document. (Hint: It’s in the Documents section of Foreflight)
    5. Take Off Obstacles: About the same on both charts
    6. Route Description: Similar on both charts, but larger font and clearer description on the FAA chart. When there are different routes from different runways, the FAA chart layout is really helpful.
    7. Graphic Layout: Jeppesen and FAA use the same graphics for all their different charts and plates which makes it easy to read once you are familiar with the respective charts. FAA charts are easy to read and distractions are kept to a minimum. Jeppesen charts make things bold and enlarge pertinent information so you won’t miss it.
    8. Airport altitude: This is only on the Jeppesen chart (the FAA chart doesn’t include it), but it is very helpful for situational awareness. As you brief the arrival altitudes, I think it’s important to have an idea what AGL you are at.

    Approach Charts

    One thing pilots love about Jeppesen approach charts is the clear set up for an approach brief. The top section is created as a “briefing strip” starting with the frequencies, then navigation frequencies, minimums, airport elevation and the missed approach. It’s very natural and user friendly.

    FAA charts have a slightly bigger picture of the approach planview, but the profile view and minimums section can get a bit cluttered. It can feel a little discontinuous when briefing the approach to bounce all over the page. However, some pilots really like the small airport diagram in the corner, which I find really helpful for situational awareness (particularly for students learning circle approaches). Non- standard alternate and takeoff minimums are also clearly noted, but unfortunately we must hunt elsewhere to find them. The Jeppesen alternate minimums and takeoff minimums will both be on the airport diagram

    1. Frequencies: Getting weather and tuning radios is easy on the Jeppesen charts – just follow the briefing strip. The frequency section on the FAA charts is still easy to read, but closer to the center of the page. It’s split up from the nav frequencies and other important briefing information.
      a. FAA charts are created by the government and have military specific information, which are the odd looking frequencies and channels on the chart.
    2. Approach Navigation: On a Jeppesen chart, you will continue to the next line to verify your frequency, course and set minimums (assuming you are straight in on the ILS). On the FAA chart, you will then have to skip to the top of the chart to get the frequency and course, and then scan to the bottom of the page to input your minimums. However, since you could be flying a localizer approach or a circle to land, it’s a good reminder that not everyone using this approach chart will be using the same Decision Altitude (DA). The FAA chart also includes runway distance information so pilots can make determinations of approach speeds and stopping distance if the runway is wet or icy.
    3. Missed Approach – Textual
    4. Approach Lighting
    5. Missed Approach- Graphical: The missed approach information is the same on both charts. The lighting information is key for determining a missed approach and is next to the missed approach text on the FAA chart. It’s found next to the missed approach graphic on the Jeppesen chart. Personally, I find it easier to find and read the lighting information on the Jeppesen chart. Remember, on both charts, the placement of the PAPI on the chart indicates the physical location of the lights (left or right of the runway).
    6. Notes: Both charts have a notes box, but they use them a little differently. Once again, remember that Jeppesen charts are used internationally and include the transition altitudes and altimeter setting info. On both charts, the notes section will be where other critical information will be shared which isn’t really applicable for this airport. On the FAA chart, the tower frequency is starred to note that there are operating hours (you’ll have to check the chart supplement AF/D to find out what those hours are). There is also an L next to the frequency to indicate it is the pilot controlled lighting frequency. You will also find the note about the VGSI and the Approach Glide path next to the profile view on the FAA chart, whereas the Jeppesen chart has that note in the notes section at the top. The FAA chart also has the T and an A in black triangles to note that this airport has non- standard alternate and take off minimums. Again, those are found in separate documents when using FAA charts and on the Airport Diagram when using Jeppesen charts.
    7. Minimum Sector Altitude: Similar on both charts, but in different locations (reminder: ATC vector altitudes may be lower. It is the pilot’s responsibility for safety of flight to maintain safe obstacle clearance, so if you are ever concerned about going below the MSA – just ask ATC).
    8. Planview: Other then differences in size, visuals, and text, the information displayed on both is very similar.
    9. Profile View: Again, the displays look different and pilots will have their preference, but the information is the same.
    10. Minimums: Jeppesen charts not only note the category for each approach with its designated letter, but also displays it in knots. It is recommended that if you increase your approach speed (based on flaps or gusty winds or perhaps a faster speed for a circle to land approach) that you should use the higher category minimums. The reference guide makes that easy to look up. The other benefit of the Jeppesen charts is right the table that contains the time from the final approach fix to the missed approach point for a localizer approach, it also shows the rate of descent with the associated ground speed to maintain a 3 degree glideslope. Now there is no excuse not to set pitch and power! The minimums posted in parenthesis are for the military, but RVR in statute miles is also included.
    11. Airport diagram: Only on the FAA charts, this particular feature is particularly useful for situational awareness. The arrow pointing to the runway shows the direction the approach is arriving from so planning a circle to land is a cinch. There is also a lot of other information that can be gathered from the airport diagram for quick reference or to help a disoriented pilot: lighting, displaced thresholds, closed taxiways, and runway placement and lengths. This is easily one of the best perks of an FAA chart.

    Arrival/ Departure Charts: Sewzy 5 Arrival KAUS

    The Jeppesen lay out is very attractive and draws the pilots eye in a clear way to all the important information. The colors pop out, so the required altitudes and speeds are easy to read and remember. The chart, which is the proper scale, shows MORAs , easy to find airports (and runway layouts) and is over all easy to follow. However, the texts, while very clearly laid out, are small and difficult to read and pushed to the very edges of the chart. FAA charts are simple and fairly easy to read, but the airports are not as obvious and the flow to the airport requires a good look. The table on the Jeppesen chart is a really nice format, but the text and Notes for arrivals on the FAA chart are easy to find and much easier to read quickly.

    1. Frequency: FAA charts include the approach frequency on the arrival, which is helpful for having radios tuned. During a busy time when the controller changes your frequency, all you have to do is verify the frequency you already set, rather then totally stop what you’re doing to switch it. The Jeppesen charts add the airport elevation next to the ATIS, which really aids situational awareness.
    2. Notes: Jeppesen notes are clearly numbered and tucked away nicely in a box, but the FAA chart notes pop out in the middle of the page and are easy to skim for pertinent information.
    3. Planview: I think Jeppesen is the clear winner here- it is so easy to read, it only takes one glance to know where the primary airport is and how the arrival flows. The chart being at the proper scale offers the pilot important geographical information and over all is a clean look. Notice the small series of arrows after SMRFF on the the Jeppesen chart; those indicate the pilot should expect radar vectors. The FAA charts include those instructions in the text, but I find the visual reference on the chart helpful. The FAA charts are equally clean, with altitude and speed restrictions easy to read even if they don’t jump out. When there are multiple airports that the arrival serves, the airports are clearly marked, though, I think it would be nice to have a little more information surrounding the primary airport for better situational awareness.
    4. MSA: only on the Jeppesen chart
    5. Primary airport: The runway alignment and grey highlight on the Jeppesen chart stands out very clearly, while the FAA airports are a little more obscure.
    6. Arrival route description: The table on the Jeppesen chart is easy to follow but the text is very small and pushed to the bottom. The route description is much easier to find and read on the FAA chart.

    Airport Diagram

    The Jeppesen Airport Diagram page has it all: frequencies, airport diagram, runway info, take-off minimums, departure procedures and alternate minimums. It’s a one-stop shop. It makes preflight planning easy when its all at your fingertips.

    The FAA charts usually require a little more searching for different pieces of airport information. The Airport Diagram itself is just the airport layout. Above, you will see a simple FAA Airport diagram. It’s clean and simple, perfect for a knee board print out.

    In the flight planning process, as you look at what approaches you will be using for the airport, you might see an A or T inside a triangle. Those indicate that you will need to look in the Alternate Minimum or Take off minimum documents for more information. The Takeoff Minimums document (see below) is also where you will find any obstacle departure procedures for that airport. Apps like Foreflight help you out by posting the take off minimums under the departure tab. Even though it’s a little more difficult to read, I didn’t crop out the airport information so you can see what it looks like in context.

    FAA Alternate Minimums on the Left and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures on the Right

    Many people ask, which set of charts is better? Should I use the FAA Aeroservices charts on Foreflight or pay extra for the Jeppesen charts? Since you have to pay for Jeppesen, they are probably better, right? I am not here to say which one is better as a chart preference is just that, a…

  • A Complex Clearance?

    I was flying in the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas a few weeks ago and heard an IFR clearance given to a King Air that pricked my ears up.  It was a clearance from CRP to LRD, but the routing was one you don’t hear too often anymore.  Because of active military airspace, the routing was via a radial and DME off the CRP VOR (so a point defined by the radial and DME) to another radial and DME point off the LRD VOR.

    It took me a second to think about how to do this the easiest (without setting up the VOR and watching the DME).  After a moment’s thought, it’s actually a snap with the G1000.  You create 2 user waypoints, one for each Radial/DME spot, then put those 2 user waypoints in your Flight Plan.

    Here’s how.

    Step 1

    Using the big knob, go to the Waypoint chapter.  Once there, scroll down to the User Waypoint page using the small knob.

    Step 2

    Press the New soft key.  If you want to name the waypoint something specific, you can do that at the top of the page.  If not, it will default to something like VOR 1 or VOR 2.

    Step 3

    Under Waypoint Type, use the small knob to select RAD/DIS (stands for Radial/Distance).

    Step 4

    Under Reference Waypoints, again using the small knob (or your keypad), type or dial in the VOR identifier, the radial from that VOR, and the DME distance.  Press enter and you are done.

    Once you have both User Waypoints created, then just put them in your flight plan (if you forget what you named them, you can just go back to the User Waypoint page), and off you go.

    I was flying in the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas a few weeks ago and heard an IFR clearance given to a King Air that pricked my ears up.  It was a clearance from CRP to LRD, but the routing was one you don’t hear too often anymore.  Because of active military airspace, the…

  • Jet A Fueling Mismanagement

    I’m sure at this point, most pilots in Texas have heard about the Cessna 421 that went down two weeks ago in Lufkin.  The Golden Eagle suffered a dual engine failure (the pilot lost the first at 2300 feet, then the second at 1700 feet) in IMC on climb out.  He broke out at 1,000 AGL miraculously lined up with US 59, south of the Lufkin airport.  The pilot had to dodge a car as he was attempting his landing, stalled the airplane, sheared off the landing gear, then slid into the median.  No one died, but lots of bumps and bruises.  All were airlifted to Houston.

    Jet A Lufkin Plane Crash

    The cause was a lineman at LFK put Jet A in the 421, which is a piston airplane and takes 100LL Avgas.  The story that I saw said the pilot and two passengers were returning to Houston from Kansas City and diverted to LFK due to weather.  They landed in driving rain and spent the night.  I have not seen any reports saying whether the pilot sumped the tanks or not the following morning.

    There were several factors that led to this accident.  If you take one factor out, the accident probably wouldn’t have happened.  Let’s take a look at the sequence of events.

    The 421 arrived in a driving rain storm, so the pilot and passengers probably disembarked quickly to get out of the weather.  Factor number 1 presents itself here.  We don’t know whether or not the pilot told the lineman to put Avgas in it or not (he may have just said fill it up), so we’ll leave that aside.

    Understandably, the pilot dashed inside to get out of the rain, but they neglected to monitor the fueling.  Whether or not the fueling took place that night or the next morning, we can’t say.  I have started to greatly encourage my customers to monitor the fueling of their airplanes, especially when it’s a fuselage that can either have Avgas piston engines or Jet A turboprops, as is the case with the Cessna 421.

    Factor number 2, we already know about.  The lineman messed up and put the wrong fuel in.  If their was uncertainty about what type of fuel, he would have been prudent to await the return of the pilot to ask, even if that meant delaying the pilot’s departure.

    Factor number 3 is the matter of sumping the fuel.  We don’t know if the pilot sumped the fuel or not. The tricky thing about sumping is Jet A doesn’t settle out of Avgas like water does unless it sits for a long, long time.  The two ways to determine if you have Jet A in your Avgas airplane are to smell it, as Jet A has a very strong diesel smell, or do the paper towel test.  The paper towel test consists of dumping a fuel sample onto a paper towel, then let the Avgas evaporate.  If you are left with a nasty, oily residue, you’ve got Jet A in your tanks (not to mention it will smell like diesel).

    To prevent misfueling of your airplane, take the following steps:

    • Be specific in telling the lineman what type of fuel you want, not just “fill ‘er up”
    • Monitor the fueling and watch which truck pulls up to your airplane
      • This is especially important with fuselages that can have either Pistons or Turbo-Prop engines, like the PA-46 line or the Twin Cessna line
    • Always sump your fuel, definitely smell it, and if there are any doubts, try a paper towel test

    I’m sure at this point, most pilots in Texas have heard about the Cessna 421 that went down two weeks ago in Lufkin.  The Golden Eagle suffered a dual engine failure (the pilot lost the first at 2300 feet, then the second at 1700 feet) in IMC on climb out.  He broke out at 1,000…

  • Learning From Other’s Mistakes:  An Overview of the 2024 Piper PA-46 Accidents

    The Piper PA-46 series, which includes models like the piston engine Piper Malibu and Piper Mirage, and the turboprops Piper Meridian, M500, and M600, is a popular choice for private pilots and business aviation. Known for its impressive speed, range, and pressurization, the PA-46 is a very capable single pilot aircraft. However, like all high-performance aircraft, it presents its own set of challenges and risks, especially when pilot error or adverse conditions come into play.

    The 2024 PMOPA (Piper M-Class Owner’s and Pilot’s Association) Convention was the first weekend in November and one of the sessions every year is the PA-46 Safety Review.  Sadly, in 2024, the accidents involving various PA-46 models pointed out several areas related to decision making that all pilots need to put be aware of. These accidents highlight critical issues in weather awareness, pilot training, and decision-making, and they provide valuable lessons for other pilots in any type of aircraft.

    Overview of the 2024 Piper PA-46 Accidents

    The Piper PA-46 is generally regarded as a reliable and capable aircraft, but the safe outcome of a flight often times depends on the pilot’s decision making.  There always can be mechanical malfunctions, but those still require good pilot decision making to be able to walk away from the accident.

    In 2024, multiple accidents occurred involving different variants of the PA-46, with many of the accidents occurring during critical phases of flight like takeoff or landing. Some of the key factors contributing to these accidents included:

    1. Weather Challenges: In several cases, adverse weather conditions, such as low visibility, thunderstorms, or high winds, contributed to accidents. Despite most PA-46’s being equipped with NexRad and weather radar, pilots sometimes underestimated or misjudged the weather risks.
    2. Pilot Decision-Making: A recurring theme in these accidents was pilot error—specifically, poor decision-making when faced with challenging conditions. In some cases, pilots continued flights despite deteriorating weather or failed to react appropriately to emergency situations.
    3. Mechanical Failures: As with every airplane, systems fail on a Piper PA-46.  Several accidents were due to engine power loss.  Proper training teaches pilots how to have the right mindset and skills to handle those engine power loss situations, taking a bad situation and having the best possible outcome due to good decision making and gliding skills.

    Three Key Lessons for Pilots

    The Piper PA-46 accidents of 2024 serve as valuable reminders about the importance of pilot preparation, decision-making, and risk management. Here are three critical lessons pilots can take away from these accidents:

    1. Prioritize Pre-Flight Weather Planning

    Poor weather conditions were a significant factor in some of the crashes in 2024. Pilots of high-performance aircraft must place a strong emphasis on weather pre-flight planning, especially when flying into regions prone to rapidly changing weather or severe conditions and across frontal systems. Pilots should:

    • Stay up-to-date with weather briefings before and during the flight, including calls to Flight Service Station if there is serious weather along the route.
    • Be proactive in altering flight plans or delaying departures when weather conditions become unfavorable.
    • Utilize onboard weather radar and other tools to monitor changing conditions in real time and avoid nasty looking weather systems.  ADS-B and XM Weather are delayed information.  They are not meant to be used to find holes through storm systems.
    • Finally, don’t try to shoot through holes!  They are called sucker holes for a reason.

    2. Master Emergency Procedures

    Pilots of all aircraft, not just PA-46 models, need to practice engine-out procedures multiple times a year with an instructor, not just at recurrent training.  The goal is to make emergency procedures second nature which creates the right mindset to handle the emergency, creating a much better outcome. Training should focus on:

    • Engine-out procedures immediately after takeoff, climbing out at low altitude, and at cruise.
    • Performance with the propeller feathered and unfeathered, recognizing how the feathered prop increases glide range.
    • Practicing forced landings and other emergency scenarios regularly to build confidence and competence.

    3. Always Plan for an Emergency Landing

    It is very important to know your options in the event of an emergency. When flying over mountainous or remote areas, pilots should always have a contingency plan for where to land if something goes wrong.  An emergency engine out brief should be a part of every pre-takeoff briefing to put the pilot in the right mindset. Pilots should:

    • Brief an engine failure on the runway, low altitude, and at an altitude that allows for a safe return to the airport in the event of an engine failure as part of every pre-takeoff briefing.
    • Study the flight route in detail and identify suitable emergency landing sites along the way, especially when flying in areas with limited options.
    • Consider the terrain, weather conditions, and available options in the event of an engine failure or other emergency.
    • Use terrain awareness and other onboard tools to help identify suitable landing areas in real-time, including the ForeFlight Glide Advisor.

    Conclusion

    The Piper PA-46 series, while a capable and reliable aircraft, demands a high level of skill and preparation from its pilots. The accidents in 2024 serve as a sobering reminder of the critical importance of weather awareness, emergency training, and proper flight planning. By learning from these accidents, pilots can make better decisions, have the right mindset, and reduce the risk of similar accidents in the future.

    By prioritizing weather awareness, mastering emergency procedures, and always having a contingency plan for forced landings, pilots of the Piper PA-46 can improve their ability to handle the challenges posed by these high-performance aircraft. These lessons are not just for PA-46 pilots, but for all pilots striving to fly safely and confidently.

    The Piper PA-46 series, which includes models like the piston engine Piper Malibu and Piper Mirage, and the turboprops Piper Meridian, M500, and M600, is a popular choice for private pilots and business aviation. Known for its impressive speed, range, and pressurization, the PA-46 is a very capable single pilot aircraft. However, like all high-performance…

  • Making An Aircraft Purchase

    You have finally decided it’s time to make an aircraft purchase.  You’ve got your private pilot certificate with an instrument rating.

    You’ve been flying for 3 years, mainly renting the Piper Arrow at the local flight school.  You’ve had some frustrations at times with scheduling, since the Arrow is also used for training at the flight school.  The airplane isn’t very well taken care of, is kind of old, and breaks a lot.

    After several weekends of trying to book the airplane to take a weekend trip to the family cabin, your frustration finally boils over.  It’s time to make an aircraft purchase.

    Time for Trade-A-Plane?

    Here’s a better question:  Have you bought an airplane before?  Do you know the process?  Do you know what to look for in maintenance records?  Do you know what ADs are required?  Is the airplane priced higher than it’s valued?

    Help

    Overwhelmed yet?  Texas Top Aviation is here to help in your Aircraft Purchase.  Visit our Aircraft Purchase Consultation page for more information.  Ready to buy?  Contact Texas Top Aviation today!

    You have finally decided it’s time to make an aircraft purchase.  You’ve got your private pilot certificate with an instrument rating. You’ve been flying for 3 years, mainly renting the Piper Arrow at the local flight school.  You’ve had some frustrations at times with scheduling, since the Arrow is also used for training at the…

Leave a Reply

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