In the fall of 2021, Garmin announced the long awaited confirmation that the Garmin GFC 600 autopilot is now certified for the Piper Meridian. The Garmin GFC 600 autopilot has been certified for all other types of the Piper PA46 line of aircraft, but the Meridian was last in line. The airplane has to have been manufactured prior to 2009 and have Avidyne avionics, Meggitt, or have been retrofitted with a Garmin G500 (no G1000 aircraft since those already have the GFC 700 autopilot).
The Garmin GFC 600 autopilot is the ultimate digital autopilot. The integration with the Garmin G500, GTN 750 and GTN 650 units is a beautiful thing. The autopilot communicates with all the heading and altitude bugs, flies approaches smoothly, and even has a level button.
In the latest technological marvel from Garmin, Garmin Safe Glide, the GFC 600 autopilot is critical in reducing pilot workload in an engine failure situation. It flies the airplane for you and takes you to the nearest airport, reducing the stress and allowing the pilot to troubleshoot the situation.
Texas Top Aviation recommends Abilene Aero in Abilene, Texas for any and all avionics installs. They have worked with several of our customers in the last year, are extremely knowledgable and do excellent work. Call them for a quote on a new Garmin GFC 600 autopilot in your Piper Meridian.
Almost all IFR pilots are familiar with visual approaches and what the requirements are in order to fly a visual approach. As a refresher, the Instrument Procedures Handbook defines a Visual Approach as “an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an [Instrument Approach Procedure]” (page 4-56).
For ATC to issue a Visual Approach, the pilot must have the airport or the traffic to follow in sight. Once the pilot reports the airport or the traffic in sight, ATC can clear the aircraft for a visual approach.
A limiting factor for a visual approach is ATC’s Minimum Vectoring Altitude. “This altitude, based on terrain and obstruction clearance, provides controllers with minimum altitudes to vector aircraft in and around a particular location” (Instrument Procedures Handbook page 1-42). ATC has to restrict aircraft to these MVAs, which can sometimes be quite high due to terrain or obstacles in the vicinity of the airport.
Every pilot has been in a situation with a high MVA that ATC can’t get them below, but it’s solidly MVFR or VFR at the destination airport. The MVA keeps the pilot in the clouds, so a visual approach isn’t possible since the pilot can’t see the airport or the traffic to follow. This can lead to extra time to go out and fly an approach.
Enter a Contact Approach. A Contact Approach is different then a Visual Approach. “The main differences between a visual approach and a contact approach are: a pilot must request a contact approach, while a visual approach may be assigned by ATC or requested by the pilot; and a contact approach may be approved with 1sm visibility if the flight can remain clear of clouds, while a visual approach requires the pilot to have the airport in sight, or a preceding aircraft to be followed, and the ceiling must be at least 1,000 feet AGL with at least 3sm visibility” [Instrument Procedures Handbook page 4-57].
Here’s the simplified explanation: A pilot does not have to have the airport in sight to request a contact approach. All that is required is for the airport to be reporting at least 1sm visibility and for the pilot to remain clear of clouds.
When would this be helpful for an IFR pilot? Good question. Here’s a scenario.
Pilot Smalls is about 20 minutes from his destination, which is an uncontrolled airport with only one approach to runway 17. He is approaching from the south and the initial approach fix for the approach to 17 is about 15 miles north of the airport. The airport is under Center control. When he has arrived at this destination in the past, Center usually could only vector him down to 4,000 AGL. He is very familiar with this airport and the surrounding area as he comes to this destination at least 2-3 times a month for business.
Pilot Smalls listens to the AWOS, which is reporting a 2500 foot scattered layer and 10 miles visibility. He knows it is right traffic for 17 since there is a 2,000 foot antenna on the east side of the field. There is some hilly terrain around, but all the terrain is well below pattern altitude and doesn’t cause a safety issue.
Looking out at the clouds, Pilot Smalls observes that the cloud layer is scattered to broken, but more scattered on the west side of the airport, with several large openings that he can see the ground through. Center asks for his approach request and Pilot Smalls requests a visual approach. Center gives him a descent to 4,000 AGL, their MVA for the area. They tell him to report the airport in sight for the visual approach.
At 4,000 AGL, Pilot Smalls is going through the scattered layer of clouds, but can see the ground in between the clouds and deems he has room to maneuver safely between the clouds and stay clear of them. He can’t see the airport, so a visual approach seems unlikely. He can’t cancel IFR because then he would have to keep the VFR cloud clearance and visibility requirements in Class E airspace (1,000 feet above, 500 below and 2sm horizontally), which isn’t possible in this case.
5 miles from the airport, ATC states, “N12345, I’m going to have to send you out for the approach since you don’t have the airport in sight.” Pilot Smalls then requests a Contact Approach. ATC clears him for the Contact Approach to his destination, so Pilot Smalls descends through a break in the clouds, remaining clear of clouds, until he gets below the base of the ceiling. He maneuvers onto the right downwind, lands and cancels IFR.
Contact approaches can be useful at controlled and uncontrolled airports. The first time you request one, do so with a higher ceiling and some room to maneuver to keep your safety margins. After you’ve done a few, you can determine what your personal minimums are for a Contact Approach.
I would not recommend doing a Contact Approach at an airport you are unfamiliar with. It’s vital to know what obstacles are around since on a Contact Approach, the pilot is now responsible for traffic avoidance and terrain avoidance, whereas on a visual approach, ATC resumes that responsibility.
In January, Cirrus announced the Generation 2 SF50 Vision Jet. After getting the Generation 1 Vision Jet certified in late 2016, Cirrus didn’t waste any time in starting in on improvements.
The improvements are pretty sweet, making the G2 Vision Jet even easier to fly and step into for Cirrus’ target market, SR22 owners.
Here are the improvements on the G2 Vision Jet.
RVSM Approval
The G2 Vision Jet has received RVSM approval, allowing the airplane to fly at 31,000 feet. RVSM stands for Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (read more about RVSM here). RVSM airspace starts at 28,000 feet, the G1 Vision Jet’s ceiling. Now that the G2 Vision Jet is RVSM certified, it can fly at 31,000 feet.
For piston pilots, you are left scratching your head as to the advantage of this. In a jet, the higher you go, the thinner the air, so the faster you go, and the less fuel you burn since the thin air needs less fuel to mix with. This caps out at a certain altitude and the speed begins dropping and you start losing efficiency (even though the fuel burn is quite low).
According to Cirrus, at 31,000 feet, the G2 Vision Jet cruises over 300 KTAS and gets a range boost to almost 1,200 nm.
Garmin Perspective Touch+
Cirrus & Garmin have taken the new NXi interface and paired it with the Garmin Perspective Touch to create the Touch+. You can read about the improvements on the NXi here, all of which are included in the Touch+ in the G2 Vision Jet.
The big improvement that is included in the Touch+ is Autothrottle capability. An Autothrottle is integrated with the autopilot. It automatically adjusts power settings and speeds based on the phase of flight without the pilot having to touch the throttle. Pretty cool.
New Cabin
The G2 Vision Jet has a redesigned cabin as well, making it an extremely passenger friendly airplane. The second row has been redesigned and equipped with a center console. There is also a drop down TV screen that allows passengers to connect their mobile devices to it to watch movies or videos while traveling (no internet on board, yet. That’ll probably be the G3 Vision Jet!).
Cirrus also put in more noise reduction in the cabin, creating a quieter ride for passengers. Cirrus also allows for multiple different seating configurations, depending on the needs of the owner.
As always, Cirrus is on the leading edge of airplane technology, creating airplanes that are easy as well as fun to fly. I’m excited to see how they continue to improve the design to both the SR22 and the 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.
It was a rainy Thursday afternoon and I was eating lunch with my family when my phone rang. My wife and I had just been discussing how miserable the weather was, so it was only natural that about 30 minutes later I was soaking wet and sitting in one of our Aerostars getting ready to take off for Ohio. I didn’t have much information about who I would be flying, or why, but I knew that I was going to pick someone up to fly them home; something about a missing airplane. So off I went into the muck. My biggest concern at that point being whether or not my clothes would ever dry out.
I arrived uneventfully and walked happily into the FBO, but found myself quickly in a very different atmosphere. It turned out I had two passengers to pick up, a husband and wife, and they had arrived at the FBO before me. As I walked in the door, the wife received a phone call. The person on the phone told her that search teams had found her father’s airplane crashed in the woods and that he was dead. I learned the rest of the details quickly and it was hard to stomach.
She was travelling home that day to be with family until they were able to locate her father. She was pregnant with her first baby and was in her third trimester. The baby was to be her dad’s first grandchild. He’d owned a Lake Amphibian for years and had stayed at home to work while his wife was out of town. He was last seen leaving work on Tuesday of that week and was reported missing on Thursday by his co-workers. Airport security footage showed him pulling the airplane out and taking off at 20:48 (after sunset) on Tuesday night.
After a few minutes we loaded the Aerostar and took off. It was the saddest flight I’ve ever done. Understandably, my passanger sobbed on and off from the time she got off the phone until we landed a couple of hours later. The weather seemed appropriate as we flew along through the rain and were greeted at our destination by a grief stricken family and a few reporters.
I said a sad goodbye and left, but I couldn’t help but think about their situation. It really hit close to home with me as it was easy to draw parallels between my family and theirs: she was very close in age to me and pregnant with her first child. My wife and I were new parents. Her dad had owned his airplane for about the same length of time that my dad has owned his Bonanza. Additionally, it isn’t uncommon for my parents to go a couple days without being able to reach each other because they both travel.
A Lake 250, the same type of aircraft involved in the accident.
But what happened..?
In the time since the accident, the NTSB has published their findings and unfortunately, it makes the situation sadder. It was completely avoidable.
Airport security cameras showed that after removing the airplane from the hangar, the pilot did not complete a preflight inspection or even a walkaround of any kind. He simply climbed in and left. The investigators were unable to find any traces or odor of fuel in the wreckage, nor any mechanical abnormalities with the airplane. In fact, according to the report, the engine was put on a test stand and ran perfectly. It would seem that the pilot simply never checked the fuel quantity and took off. The airport cameras captured the take off and a bright flash about 30 seconds after the aircraft departed.
Here is an excerpt from the report:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The pilot’s attempted 180-degree return to the runway immediately after takeoff in dark night conditions, which resulted in collision with trees and terrain. Also causal was the pilot’s inadequate preflight inspection, which resulted in a takeoff with little-to-no fuel on board the airplane.
Interestingly, the report also details their ability to use logbook information and fuel receipts to show the airplane was taken on a long cross country on its last flight and likely not fueled again.
Another thing which stuck out in my mind upon learning the details of the crash was how important it is to let someone know when you’re going flying. Having another person know roughly when a flight is leaving, where it’s going and and when to expect it back could potentially save the lives of the people on board. In the case of this accident, the pilot didn’t alert anyone that he was going flying and therefore, no one realized he was missing for 2 days.
From reading the NTSB report I don’t get the impression that he survived the crash, but I can’t help thinking about the possibility that he, or others in similar circumstances, could survive a crash and then die from their injuries because no one knew to look for them. When I flew charter, we weren’t legally allowed to take off VFR without letting someone at the company know the details of the flight. I’ve adopted this as my personal policy as well. One text message could be the difference between being rescued or not.
Finally, every pilot should ensure that a proper walk around is completed! It’s easy to assume everything is okay with an airplane, especially one that no one else has access too. In addition to a thorough preflight, I like to walk all the way around the airplane and visual check fuel caps, doors, chocks, ropes, etc., immediately before getting in to ensure that everything is ready. I know a couple of pilots who have taken off with various panels and compartments open simply because they got distracted during their walk around and never closed them. (A good policy is to never walk away and leave something open). Perhaps even more mind boggling is that he apparently didn’t look at the fuel gauges after start up and before take off. I also have to wonder how much fuel he had remaining upon completion of the previous flight.
“Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect” is likely a familiar quote to just about every pilot. It is often written on a poster with a picture of an old timey bi-plane hanging out of a tree, but I think that it is absolutely on point. Carelessness in the preflight and neglecting basic pilot responsibilities (in this case fuel planning) cost this father his life and his opportunity to meet his first grandchild.
I know this article is a real downer, but it’s supposed to be. Its tragic that accidents take place which are completely avoidable. Obviously this case was beyond the normal realm of carelessness and neglect, but, we as pilots need to be extremely careful not to get so comfortable with an airplane that we stop doing the things which are so basic and important to safety. One of my professors in school used to say “aviation is fun, but it plays for keeps,” which is an effective way to remind myself how important it is to do it right.
*Out of respect to the family, I have not included any specific names, tail numbers or airports in this article.
Field Condition, or FICON, reports show up in NOTAMs both during the summer time and the winter time. In the southern states, FICON reports are seen more in the summertime during and after hard rains and thunderstorms (with the exception of winter 2021 & 2022, where Texans quickly got familiar with FICON reports after some very unusual winter weather). In cold winter climates, FICON reports are a staple during the winter season, showing up during and after snow & ice storms.
The question is, what do those codes mean in the FICON report? You could see 5/5/5, 3/3/3, 3/4/4 and any combination thereof. And why are there three numbers?
Let’s start with the second question first. The three different numbers in the FICON report indicate the 3 different sections of the runway: the touchdown third, midpoint third, and rollout third of the runway.
Now, what are those numbers describing? The three numbers are the indication of how slippery that portion of the runway is. This is referred to as a Runway Condition Code (or RCC). The lower the number, the more slippery the runway is. The higher the number, the dryer the runway. The scale is 0-6, with 6 being completely dry and zero being no traction at all.
Here is the FAA table for the RCCs.
Now, in order for those RCC codes to generate, at least 25% of the surface must be wet. If there are just spots of standing water, slush or snow, a FICON report will be issued to report the contaminants, but no codes will be generated.
The Runway Condition Codes are only part of a FICON report. In addition to the codes, a descriptor in the NOTAM will be published describing what percentage of the portion of the runway is affected and by what.
For example: RWY 28 FICON 3/3/3 100 PRCNT 2IN DRY SN OVER COMPACTED SN.
Deciphered, that is saying that all sections of Runway 28 have braking deceleration that is noticeably reduced or direction control is noticeably reduced and 100% of each section has 2 inches of dry snow over compacted snow. Sounds like a runway to avoid!
Braking action reports are separate from FICON reports, but also issued via NOTAM. Braking action reports are issued by the airport manager whereas the FICON reports are computer generated.
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.
John Wayne Airport Traffic Patterns
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.
