Guardian Seven Trauma

Cirrus CAPS Pull in Arkansas

ByHank Gibson December 9, 2015December 21, 2015

Cirrus CAPS pull #55 took place at the beginning of November over Fayatteville, AR.  From initial reports, it appears a clamp broke on the oil cooler, causing a loss of oil pressure.  It does not appear that the engine immediately quit, but an annunciator alerted the pilot that the engine was losing oil pressure.  At this point, it appears the pilot elected to do an emergency descent to an airport below him, but ended up not timing it right, missing the airport and pulling the parachute.

As an experienced Cirrus flight instructor, there appears to be some suspect decision making in handling this operation.  I teach in a Cirrus that if an oil light comes on, given that a pilot has some altitude to work with, it is a better option to physically shut the engine down, leaving control of the situation in the pilot’s hands.  This way, the pilot knows when the engine is stopping and is prepared for it, instead of the engine acting erratically and causing problems on the descent.

After checking the engine gauges and shutting the engine down, a pilot should establish best glide first, not nose down and descend at a high rate trying to make an airport.  Best glide gives the pilot many more options and a lot more altitude to work with, further allowing him/her to plan how to make an airport directly underneath the airplane.

To pontificate, it seems that if the pilot had adjusted the plane to best glide, instead of performing an emergency descent, there is the possibility that Drake Field would have been reachable, the chute would not have been needed, and the driver of the truck would not have had to visit the hospital.  Hindsight is 20-20, but this may be an overall training and decision making issue that may need further emphasis.

The initial NTSB report as well as a link to the CBS story is below.

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/pilot-forced-to-deploy-emergency-parachute-in-arkansas/

NTSB Identification: CEN16LA026
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, November 03, 2015 in Fayetteville, AR
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22T, registration: N857SW
Injuries: 3 Minor, 1 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On November 3, 2015, at 0950 central standard time, a Cirrus SR22T airplane, N857SW, descended under the canopy of the cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and landed on a road in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The pilot, pilot rated passenger and one person on the ground received minor injuries. One passenger in the back right seat was uninjured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to WG Aviation LLC, Rogers, Arkansas, and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed. The flight departed from the Bentonville Municipal Airport (VBT), Bentonville, Arkansas, at 0934 and was en route to the Waco Regional Airport (ACT), Waco, Texas.

According to the pilot, after departure from ACT he leveled off around 10,000 ft mean sea level (MSL) and was in “VFR on top” conditions. The pilot noticed that the crew alerting system (CAS) flashed a yellow caution light for oil pressure; the engine was still producing power. The pilot notified air traffic control (ATC) of the issue and received vectors to the nearest airport, Drake Field Airport (FYV), Fayetteville, Arkansas. The pilot descended and maneuvered toward FYV as the CAS indicated a red warning light for oil pressure, which had dropped below 10 psi. The engine was producing inconsistent power as the airplane descended to 3,300 ft and FYV was still not in sight due to cloud coverage. The pilot was unable to maintain altitude and the airplane’s stall warning horned sounded. The pilot deployed the Cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and descended to the ground. During the landing the airplane collided with a truck and then came to rest on a four lane road.

At 0953, the weather observation at FYV reported wind from 190 at 9 knots, gusting to 17 knots, 10 miles visibility, clear sky, temperature 61° F, dew point 57° F, and altimeter setting 30.11 inches of mercury.

An initial postaccident examination was conducted on November 4, 2015, in Fayetteville. Engine oil was observed on the underside of the fuselage. The oil cooler cross fitting was broken and oil was observed in the engine compartment.

The airplane’s recoverable data module and three data cards were removed and sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory for download.

The airplane has been retained for further examination.

Epic E1000 Gets the GFC 700

ByHank Gibson December 29, 2020December 31, 2020

When the Epic E1000 was finally certified in the spring of 2020, there was much celebrating across the aviation world. Epic Aircraft expended a lot of time and energy getting the E1000 certified and into production (more information on that journey here and in Flying Magazine here).

The airplane is amazing. In the single engine, 6 seat turboprop market, it easily blows away the competition. With it’s 1,200 SHP PT6-67A, it has double the horsepower of the M600 (600 SHP), and 350 more horsepower than the TBM 940 (850 SHP). It’s 60 KTAS faster than the M600 and, even though the TBM can keep up (both airplanes have equal top cruise speeds of 330 KTAS), the Epic E1000 can carry a payload of 1,024 pounds with full fuel, while the 940 can only carry 584 pounds with full fuel. The TBM carries about 15 minutes more of fuel, but to me, that’s pretty negligible.

Did I mention climb rates? The E1000 climbs at an average of 1500 FPM at Vy (it’s capable of 4,000 FPM), making it to 25,000 feet in 10 minutes. The TBM climbs at 1000 FPM, taking 13 minutes to climb to the same altitude, while the M600 settles in at about 800 FPM, reaching FL250 in 21 minutes.

If you expand the comparison to include the Pilatus PC-12, the two airplanes have 1,200 SHP, but the Epic is 50 KTAS faster and they both have about the same weight carrying ability.

In the most important arena, price, the E1000 is around a million dollars cheaper than the TBM 940.

The one drawback to the Epic E1000 that immediately was noticeable was the autopilot. Epic originally installed the STEC 2100 autopilot to pair with the G1000 (and later the G1000 NXi). Epic decided to stick with the STEC 2100 through certification for the plane since that autopilot was on all of the E1000s paperwork going through all the levels of FAA approval. To change to the GFC 700 during the certification process would have been a massive undertaking that probably would have delayed certification.

The STEC 2100 is a good autopilot, but, as any G1000 pilot can tell you, the lack of integration between any STEC autopilot and Garmin panel leaves some to be desired. Not all the bugs talk, which often requires dual data entry, which can lead to forgetting to do both the bug and the autopilot when things get busy. Hello, altitude deviation.

The goal for Epic was never to leave the STEC autopilot in the airplane. The first E1000s were rolled off the line with the STEC, but Epic didn’t take long to change the autopilot to the much more integrated Garmin GFC 700. That took place this winter (2020), and the E1000 received it’s first upgrade, with Epic dubbing the airplane the Epic E1000 GX.

I expect the innovators in Bend, OR, where Epic is based and where tons of innovation in aviation happens (Lancair/Columbia started in Bend while RDD is based there as well), to quickly come out with more avionics upgrades for the airplane. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a G3000 version at some point, complete with auto throttles and the new Garmin Autoland. Epic would be smart to follow in the steps of Daher and offer two models, one with the G1000 and one with the G3000 (the TBM 910 has the G1000 NXi while the TBM 940 has the G3000).

I have yet to fly in an Epic E1000, but I would certainly jump at the chance to do so. Someone asked me yesterday what airplane I would buy if I had a blank check. With the GFC 700 now in the Epic, it would absolutely be the E1000 GX.

Mooney Enters the Training Market with the Mooney M10

ByHank Gibson November 19, 2014December 5, 2014

Earlier this week, Mooney announced they would be following competitors Piper (with their Archer DX) and Redbird (with their retrofitted 172 known as the Redhawk) into the training market with the Mooney M10 T and Mooney M10 J.  Mooney, which hasn’t manufactured a primary trainer since the Mooney M10 Cadet in 1970, is planning on putting Jet A burning Continental Engines in the new aircraft.  The mockup was unveiled at Airshow China.

The Mooney M10 T is a 3 seat, fixed gear trainer sporting a Continental CD-135 engine.  At 135 HP, the initial design data claims the Mooney M10 T will be able to cruise at 140 KTAS at 75% power, allowing the Jet A engine to burn between 4-5 gallons per hour while holding 42 gallons of fuel.  As with other Jet A piston powered airplanes, the Mooney M10 T will have a Fully Automated Digital Engine Control (or FADEC) system.  This leaves just a single power lever in the cockpit, allowing the pilot to set a percent power and the FADEC computer will set the manifold pressure, prop speed, and mixture.

The Mooney M10 J has a slightly bigger engine, the 155 HP Continental CD-155.  It also is equipped with retractable gear.  Initially, Mooney is predicting 160 KTAS at 75% power for the Mooney  M10 J.  The airplane will come as a two-seater, but will have a third seat as an option.  Mooney says that the Mooney M10 J will allow pilots to make an easy transition to the bigger and faster M20J that has been popular for many years amongst “Mooniacs.”

In a new direction for Mooney, the Mooney M10 T Mooney M10 J will both be composite airplanes with side sticks, instead of the traditional sheet metal exterior with a yoke as Mooney aircraft have been in the past. Also venturing from the more powerful Mooney aircraft is the fact that the Mooney M10 T and Mooney M10 J will have two doors.  Remaining, though, is the swept tail that Mooney aircraft are known for.  Both airplanes will be equipped with Garmin G1000 panels, while the Mooney M10 J will also have the GFC 700 autopilot, marketing more toward aircraft owners rather than students.

The only downside that I read about was the time between replacements for the engines.  For the CD-135 engine in the Mooney M10 T, time between replacement is 1,500 hours, whereas the CD-155 only has a 1,200 hour replacement time.

Mooney expects certification and deliveries to begin for the Mooney M10 T and Mooney M10 J in 2017.

Information courtesy of AOPA and Mooney International.  Images courtesy of Mooney International.

Determining Pattern Altitude

ByHank Gibson October 23, 2015October 23, 2015

Figuring out the pattern altitude at an airport should be pretty simple, right?  But, in this day of helpful technology, most pilots actually get it wrong.  How can you always get it right?  Well, it just takes about an extra 15 seconds.  Here’s how.

As outlined in the Aeronautical Information Manual, section 4-3-3, “traffic pattern altitudes for propeller-driven aircraft generally extend from 600 feet to as high as 1,500 feet above the ground.”  Further, in the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge on page 13-10, it states:  “1,000 AGL is recommended pattern altitude unless established otherwise.”

Okay, so for piston driver’s, we’ve got it narrowed down to 1,000 AGL (Above Ground Level for those who don’t like acronyms).  But wait!  There’s that very important phrase at the end of the last quote:  “unless established otherwise.”  That means not all airports have traffic pattern altitudes of 1,000 AGL, or else they wouldn’t put that line in there!

How do you find out what the TPA (Traffic Pattern Altitude) is for a certain airport if it’s not 1,000 AGL?  Great question!  Your first guess is probably to look on Foreflight.  Though this is a good start, it is not the full answer.

Let’s use an example.  Look up KAQO, the Llano Airport on Foreflight.  At the top of the page, the airport elevation is stated as 1,101′ MSL and the pattern altitude is stated as 1,902′ MSL.  From what we just learned, 1,902′ MSL is not 1,000 AGL, so is 1,902′ MSL otherwise established?

On the Airports page with KAQO pulled up, tap the A/FD tab, second to last on the left.  Scroll down to Llano Muni.  Read the whole entry.  Does it state in the entry that pattern altitude is different than 1,000 AGL?  It sure doesn’t.  So, because it is not otherwise established, pattern altitude at KAQO is 2,102′ MSL not 1,902′ MSL.

Where did Foreflight get that?  I have no idea.  Too often, though, pilots look at the Foreflight pattern altitude and don’t actually check the Airport Facilities Directory (A/FD).  Then, they get the pattern altitude wrong.

What does it look like when pattern altitude is otherwise established?  Look up KSGR, Sugar Land Regional, on your Foreflight app.  Foreflight states the elevation as 82′ MSL and the Pattern Altitude as 1,000′ MSL.  Is this correct?  Well, tap that A/FD button again and let’s find out.

On the second line of the A/FD entry, it says TPA-See Remarks.  Down in the remarks section, we find the following:

TPA-1000 (918) single engine piston acft, TPA-1500 (1418) for twin and turbojet acft, TPA-500 (418) for helicopters within 2NM.

Foreflight got it right this time for single engine pistons, but if you are in a twin, the pattern altitude is different.  What’s the lesson here?  Always check the A/FD and don’t always go by what Foreflight says.  The A/FD is always right and usually has a little more detail to help set you straight.

One last thing.  Both the AIM and the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, when talking about pattern altitude, state, “When operating at an airport, traffic pattern altitudes should be maintained unless otherwise required by the applicable distance from cloud criteria in…section 91.155.”  91.155 defines basic VFR weather minimums.  So, to fully interpret what the AIM is saying, we have to take into account the type of airspace we are in to determine if we can safely and legally operate at pattern altitude at a particular airport.

For example, let’s say we are at KCVB, the Castroville Airport.  Pattern altitude there is 1,602 feet, which is 829 AGL.  CVB is Class G airspace up to 700 AGL, then Class E above that.  Let’s say there is a 700 AGL broken cloud layer.  Pattern altitude is 829 AGL, so you won’t be able to get up that high with a broken ceiling.  What altitude can you do pattern work at to stay legal?

Class G VFR weather minimums during the day below 1,200 AGL is 1 SM visibility and clear of clouds.  So, legally, you could fly at 699 AGL (which at CVB would be 1,472 MSL) while in the pattern and be legal.  Safe?  Maybe, but probably not if you are skimming the base of the clouds.  Is 1300 MSL a safer pattern altitude in this example?  Well, that is 527 AGL, so probably not, since towers tend to stick up that high sometimes.

Let’s go back to KSGR and put a 1,000 AGL overcast ceiling there.  SGR is Class D airspace and we already determined pattern altitude there was 1,000 MSL for piston singles.  VFR visibility and cloud clearance requirements in Class D airspace are 1,000 feet above clouds, 500 feet below clouds, and 2,000 feet horizontally from the clouds with 3 SM visibility.  In order to stay 500 feet below the clouds, you would be flying a 582 MSL pattern.  Safe?  Probably not, though it is legal.

To summarize, don’t take Foreflight’s word for pattern altitude.  Cross reference the A/FD (it only takes 15 seconds at the most) to verify.  If it’s cloudy, it’s really best to stay on the ground, but if you want to find out your legal pattern altitude with a cloud deck, cross reference 91.155.  I don’t recommend flying below pattern altitude because it is there for a reason.

Make The Upgrade to Pressurization

ByHank Gibson August 23, 2018August 24, 2018

Are oxygen cannulas rubbing your nostrils raw?

Is turbulence giving you back problems?

Would you like to be above the bumps, breathing without tubes stuck up your nose or a mask on?  Would you like a quiet ride?

Sounds like you need pressurization.  Need more convincing?

What’s that you say?  You don’t have a multi-engine rating?  You don’t want to spend the money on a turbo prop?

Have no fear, there are options galore for you to choose from in the single engine piston marketplace, both certified aircraft and experimental.

A word of caution, though; once you go pressurized, you don’t go back….

Here is my review of the certified, pressurized single engine piston options.

Piper PA46 Malibu/Mirage/M350

In 1983, Piper shocked the world with an amazing airplane.  The pressurized, Continental TSIO-520 (310 HP) powered PA46 Malibu hit the market in the fall of that year taking the piston world by storm.  A six seat, cabin class, pressurized single engine piston that easily cruised at 190-200 knots while only burning 16-17 GPH. It was awesome.  It even had an air stair door that felt like getting on a private jet.

I love the original Continental powered Malibu, specifically the ’86-’88 models.  Piper initially had hydraulic flaps, which were clunky and had several issues (most notably, the hydraulic system would randomly kick offline while the flaps were in motion at very in-opportune moments).  Piper switched to the electric flaps in ’86, making the ’86-’88 year models very desirable.

Unfortunately for Piper, the Continental TSIO-520 was not the engine manufacturer’s best product.  There were several Malibu crankshaft problems and engine failures, so much so that Piper decided to go with the Lycoming TIO-540 engine in 1989, creating the Malibu Mirage (all the current Malibu’s operating the -520 engine have been overhauled many times over, so there are no safety concerns with the -520 engine).  The Lycoming powered Mirage (350 HP), cruises a little bit faster than the Continental powered Malibu, but burns about 5 more GPH.  Piper still makes the Mirage, now dubbed the M350, complete with the Garmin G1000 NXi panel.

The 4 seat, cabin class back seat is very roomy (unlike a Bonanza or Saratoga).  There is plenty of rooms for bags, both behind the back seat and in the handy nose compartment, which is wide enough to fit golf clubs, minus the driver.  The 1600 pound useful load (880 pound payload with full fuel), allows for a lot of people and gear to be loaded on board.  The airplane is a little stingy on CG, though.  You do not want to have a CG that is out of the rear limits.

The airplane is fun to fly.  It has a heavy elevator, similar to a Bonanza, which requires a lot of trim on landing.  It’s very long wings cause it to float a bit on landing if the pilot comes in too fast.  It’s very docile in stalls and extremely comfortable for cross country flying.  The air conditioning system works very well, though it is still hot on the front seats when sitting on the ramp on a Texas July afternoon.

Many of the airplanes have upgraded to glass panels.  Most are still equipped with the King KFC 150 autopilot, some with a Yaw Damper, some not.  The KFC 150 is a good autopilot, but when Garmin certifies their GFC 600 for the PA46, that will be a popular retrofit.

If I had my pick, I would buy an ’86-’88 Malibu with an upgraded Continental TSIO-550 engine.  Climbs a bit better and does a bit better in cruise than the original -520 engine.  See why here.

I would rate the PA46 line as the best pressurized single engine piston option out there.

Cessna P210 Centurion

The P210 was introduced by Cessna in 1978.  It also came with the Continental TSIO-520 engine that the Malibu was certified with.  Climbing at about 700-800 fpm (equal to the Malibu), the P210 cruises at around 190 KTAS as well, burning around 17-18 GPH.  Like the Malibu, the P210 had a Continental TSIO-520 power plant, but, unlike the Malibu, the P210 makes the pilot work to keep the CHTs cool.  With smaller cowl openings and a tighter cowl, cooling isn’t as good as the Malibu.

Even though the P210 has six seats, the forward facing, Cessna style 3 rows aren’t quite as comfortable as the Malibu.  The single door on the pilot’s side makes loading and unloading a bit of a chore (especially compared to the air stair door in the Malibu).  The third row of seats isn’t extremely useful, as the ceiling is lower and the proximity of the second row of seats decreases the amount of leg room, making it uncomfortable for a full size adult.  Most operators remove the pilot’s side second row seat to add an aisle to get to the back row for people and bags.  It also has a smaller cabin then the Malibu.

There is less baggage in the P210, with the singular baggage compartment accessed through a baggage door behind the cabin.  The Air conditioning system is also not as good as the Malibu.

It’s hard to get the P210 out of CG and overloaded.  A useful load of 1500 pounds (with 90 gallons of fuel, it drops to only 960 pounds) allows the airplane to be loaded to the gills without being overweight.

There are some engine upgrades out there for the P210 (the Silver Eagle conversion puts a Rolls Royce turboprop on it).  The best piston conversion is the Vitatoe Conversion that swaps the engine out for a Continental Turbo-Normalized IO-550, which is a much better engine than the -520.  You still have to monitor the CHTs, but cooling is less of an issue.  These are much higher priced on the market, though.

Because of the size of the cabin and the true reputation the P210 has of being a maintenance hog, I would rate it below the PA46 line.

Extra EA-400

There are 3 pressurized, single engine piston airplanes out there today: the Piper PA46, the Cessna P210, and the Extra EA-400.  Extra is the famous German aerobatic aircraft manufacturer that created the Extra 300 and 330.  In the early 2000s, Extra tried it’s hand at the pressurized single market with the EA-400 (Extra also tried to get into the single engine turbo-prop market with the EA-500, but the project fizzled before much progress was made).  Sadly, only 27 EA-400s were built before the company ran into financial trouble.

The concept sounds cool.  A fully composite, pressurized, liquid cooled, cabin class piston.  The engine was the Continental TSIOL-550, liquid cooled power plant.  Liquid cooling means no concern about hot CHTs while you are climbing.  The problem with the engine is that there are so few liquid cooled Continental engines out there, finding a mechanic familiar with one could be an issue.

I have never flown an Extra 400, but there are several floating around out there.  Most have steam gauges and the STEC-55x autopilot.  The price on the only one on Controller right now is comparable to the P210N but above the Continental powered Malibu.

If you are in the market, an Extra 400 might be fun to test fly and who knows, you might fall in love with it!

Experimental Options

There are a handful of experimental pressurized singles out there.  I have not flown any of them, so I can’t be a good resource on recommending them.  Here is the list, however.

Lancair Evolution Piston

Lancair IV-P

Lancair ES-P

Lancair LX7

As far as availability on the market goes, there are 8 Malibus on Controller (1 1986 model) ranging from $315,000 and down, 24 Mirages ranging from $705,000 (equipped with the Garmin G1000) and down, 25 P210s ranging from $405,000 and down, and 2 Extra EA 400s, priced at $369,000 and down.  Check out the available Experimental Lancair options here.

Have you decided to upgrade, but don’t know what to buy or how to buy it?  Check out Texas Top Aviation’s Acquisition Services.  We’ll get you the best airplane for you, your mission, and your budget.  Contact Us today to find out more information.

Lightspeed Zulu 2 vs. The Bose A20

ByHank Gibson September 13, 2014

The debate about which headset is the better product will never cease.  We do know this for sure, though, Lightspeed and Bose make the best noise canceling headsets out there.  David Clark’s offering doesn’t match up with these two.  Newcomer AKG has a light (weight-wise that is, as the headset is equipped with a pair of LED lights as well) ANR headset that the jury is still out on.  For now, Lightspeed and Bose sit atop the ANR kingdom.

The comparison for this article will be between the Lightspeed Zulu 2 and the Bose A20 headsets, both of which I have used quite extensively in my flying career.  I am officially in the Lighspeed camp at this point and after reading my comparison below, you’ll see why.

ANR Functionality

Between the two, the Bose A20 cancels out more noise, no argument there.  This isn’t to say that the Lightspeed Zulu 2 doesn’t.  Quite the opposite, actually.  The Lightspeed Zulu 2 does a great job of canceling the noise.  But with the A20 on in a C172, you can barely hear the engine running.  The difference before you press the power button and after is extremely noticeable.  I had one client turn to me after turning on the noise canceling function of his new A20 headset and state, “These things are awesome!”

The other advantage Bose has is a continuation of the noise canceling.  About the only thing I don’t like about the Lightspeed is if you don’t have the headset sized just right on your head, each time you turn your head to look at something, then the suction gets broken around the ear cup and you get some ambient noise.  My glasses probably don’t help with this.  It’s not that big of a deal, you just have to readjust the size of the headset, but, since I’m a little OCD, it bugs me.  Once I get the set sized right, it’s smooth sailing.

Comfort

Far and away, the Lightspeed Zulu 2 is much more comfortable than the Bose A20.   I flew for 5 hours in the right seat with my Lightspeed set on the other day.  I switched to the left seat for the last leg and used the owner’s A20 headset since it was plugged in on that side already and I noticed quite a bit of difference.  The ear cups seemed to press against my head more.  The pad on top of my head didn’t seem to be as cushiony.  It just wasn’t overall as comfortable as the Lightspeed Zulu 2.

Bose has made a lot of progress from their original noise canceling headsets.  Those didn’t have much of a cushion on top at all.  After about 2.5 hours, the slim ear cushions began to dig in to the side of your head.  So, the A20 has made some progress, but the Lightspeed Zulu 2 takes the cake in comfort.

Weight Distribution

“Wait!”  You Bose boys scream (no pun intended).  “The A20 is lighter than the Zulu 2!”  While this is true (the Zulu 2 weighs in at 15.7 oz while the A20 is only 12 oz), the way that weight is distributed makes a massive amount of difference.  The Lightspeed Zulu 2 feels lighter on top of your noggin than the A20 because the weight of the A20 is firmly planted on the top of your head in a single point.  With the Zulu 2, the weight is distributed evenly across the top of your scalp, so even though the set is heavier, it feels lighter on your head because the weight is not all concentrated on one point.

All this adds up to why I like the Lightspeed Zulu 2 more than the Bose A20.  As for a practical example, I wore my Lightspeed Zulu 2 set for 9.1 hours one day two weeks ago.  Needless to say, it was a long day.  But, once I climbed out of the airplane, I had no pain on the top of my head and only a very little where my glasses ran along the side of my head.  Now I call that a winner.