7 Reasons An Airplane Buyer Should Use An Airplane Broker

The New Diamond DA50 Line

ByHank Gibson June 13, 2017

Diamond has joined the high performance single engine fray with the announcement of it’s new line of DA50 models.  Cirrus currently has the cornered the market on easy flying, fixed gear, speedy HP single engine airplanes.  But, (assuming that the Diamond DA50 gets certified in a timely manner and the appeal of the Jet A sipping SMA diesel engines appeals to a broad enough audience), Cirrus could have some competition soon.

The proposed Diamond DA50 will come in 3 different configurations, the IV, the V, and the VII.  The IV and the V will each burn under 10 GPH of Jet A. The VII will burn about 14 GPH of Jet A, using the same amount of fuel as a normally aspirated SR22, but at cheaper Jet A prices (plus the discount of fuel companies like CAA or AEG Fuels).

According to AOPA, all 3 Diamond DA50 models will be equipped with the Garmin G1000 NXi panel and the GFC 700 Autopilot. The Diamond DA50 -V will be the first model expected out next year, with the IV to follow soon after.  The wait for the VII will be a bit longer.

In testing, the Diamond DA50 -V showed true airspeeds of 173 knots with an expected range of almost 1100 miles.  Gone is the bubble canopy that greatly increased the green house affect of the airplane.  It’s replaced by two suicide doors, similar to what is on the Cessna TTx.  The single back seat door on the pilot’s side remains.

Carrying capacity will be greater than the Cirrus as well.  The Diamond DA50 -V will have a gross weight of around 4,000 pounds, giving it a useful load of 1,250 pounds, giving pilots a lot more flexibility in weight carrying.  The Diamond DA50 exterior will be fully customizable as well as advances in carbon fiber paint and decals has come a long way since the early 2000s when white was the only option.

Here are some basic specs for each DA50 model:

Diamond DA50 -IV

• 230 HP
• 4 seats
• Less than 10GPH fuel burn

Diamond DA50 -V

• 260 HP
• 5 seats
• 10 GPH Fuel Burn

Diamond DA50 -VII

• 360 HP
• 7 seats
• Retractable Gear
• Turboprop option

I am most excited to see the performance numbers on the VII model when it comes to market.  With a 360 HP engine and retractable gear, it seems like it will be a screamer.

There are also rumors that Diamond is working on a rotorcraft, the Dart 280, but there isn’t a flying model at the moment.

IM SAFE: Are You Really?

ByHank Gibson February 16, 2016

As pilots, we are all familiar with the IM SAFE acronym that the FAA puts out.  It comes up as part of the ground training over Human Factors during private pilot ground school.  We all memorize it, spit it out for our check rides, then most of us promptly forget about it.

When I was training for my pilot’s licenses, I was at a Part 141 school that was very standardized (LeTourneau University, who has a fabulous aviation school).  Before each flight, we had to do a self evaluation based on the weather and the IM SAFE checklist.  Based on our answers, we would then determine if the conditions were conducive to flying as well as if I was physically okay to fly.

This was a great tool because not only do pilots have to pre-flight the airplane, they also need to pre-flight themselves.  It’s very easy to fall into one of the “Hazardous Attitudes” if there is a pressing meeting or you haven’t flown in a while and it’s a beautiful day, but maybe you aren’t physically fit to control an airplane.

Let’s break down the IM SAFE checklist to dig a little deeper into the physically fit side of flying.

Illness

This one is pretty easy.  Are you sick?  If so, how sick?  If you can’t hardly talk or your body feels like it was hit by a truck, then flying probably isn’t in your best interest.

The tricky area can become if you are only a little sick.  Maybe you have a cough or a little cold or a headache is starting to form.  You probably could go fly, but is it really a good idea?  It could be something worse, or it may be nothing.  You have to know yourself and put limits on yourself before you wake up on the day of your big meeting two states over.  Set illness personal minimums and stick to them.

Medication

There are a slew of drugs, both prescription and over the counter, that pilots cannot take and fly.  AOPA has a hotline to call for pilots to find out if they can fly with the medication they are taking, or what meds they can take to give them relief and still operate an aircraft.

Another great resource is your medical examiner.  Just give him/her a call and they will be more than happy to let you know what you can and can’t take.  They’ve been educated in the area of aviation so they are very knowledgeable.

Stress

This is a huge one that pilots ignore a lot.  Maybe it was a stressful day at work, maybe you are running late to the airport, your meeting got moved up, whatever.  Stress can jump on you and mess up a pilot’s thinking very quickly.  If you have a lot of other things on your mind and you aren’t able to focus just on flying, it might be a good idea to stay on the ground.

Alcohol

Out of the whole IM SAFE list, the alcohol limitations are very clearly defined.  8 hours bottle to throttle, no more than 0.04% BAC, no operating an airplane while under the influence, and no carrying passengers who are visibly intoxicated.  For your personal minimums, it’s a good idea to increase that time to 12, 18 or even 24 hours bottle to throttle.

Fatigue

Learning to fly while a college student led to a fair share of canceled flights due to fatigue.  I operate best on 8 hours of sleep in the past 24 hours.  I can function on 6, but anything less than 6 hours, my performance drastically drops off, sometimes to a point where I wouldn’t be safe.  I discovered this while with my flight instructor attempting to do a holding pattern and completely botching it up.

I observed this as a CFI quite often.  If I was doing ground with a student and they were struggling, my first question would be, how much sleep did you get last night?  More often than not, if I had to ask that question, I would get an average answer of 3 to 4 hours (I even had one guy show up for a flight block on 2 hours sleep.  I sent him back to the dorm).

Fatigue is very easily overlooked because it’s not measurable.  Needing to get a flight lesson done or needing to get somewhere when you are obviously fatigued is not a good idea.  Make sure you get a good night’s sleep before a flight and don’t be afraid to cancel if you didn’t.  Set some sleep personal minimums and make them hard and fast.

Eating

Don’t skip meals and fly.  Performance greatly decreases when a pilot is hungry.  At the very least, stick a couple of food bars in your flight bag to give you some nourishment.

Also, stay hydrated, especially in the summer time.  I carry a huge bottle of water with me on all my flights because I get headaches if I don’t drink enough.  Getting dehydrated on a long flight can lead to all sorts of performance problems (over hydration is also a problem in the air, but that’s what Gatorade bottles are for, right?).

All this to say, have some personal minimums when it comes to you and your body.  Check the plane, check the weather and check yourself.  If anything falls in the “red” area in any one of those three categories, stay on the ground and don’t press your luck.

The Do’s and Don’ts of Drones

ByAndrew Robinson June 7, 2016June 14, 2016

I’m surprised how often I’ve been asked about drones by concerned passengers as they load up for a charter flight. Most commonly I’m asked how many drones I’ve seen while I’m flying, or how many drones I’ve hit/ almost hit. Sadly, the media has made this drone crisis into something that it isn’t. I’ve never seen a drone while I was operating a full scale aircraft, and I’ve certainly never been put into a situation where I felt that a drone was a threat to my safety or the safety of the flight. In fact, I only personally know one pilot who has reportedly seen one around an airport and that was an isolated incident (and a non-event).

The reality is that while Unmanned Aerial Vehicles can be a real danger to full scale aircraft, incidents aren’t actually all that common and detailed information is often lacking or missing altogether. It is likely that some of the reported drone incidents were actually a case of a pilot confusing a loose balloon or a bird for a drone. This, combined with the media’s sensationalizing of every “close” encounter nationwide has led the public to believe that the problem is much bigger than it actually is.

In actuality, when the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics, the USA’s governing body for model aircraft) analyzed the data from the FAA’s 764 recorded Drone sightings, only 27 of them (3.5%) were actually recorded as “near misses” or “near collisions.” Additionally, only 10 of the records (1.3%) indicate that pilot was required to take evasive action.

The records also include reports of drone sightings at altitudes which would be impossible for civilian models to attain (19,000-24,000′). Finally, some of the sightings took place in areas which are specifically set aside for model aircraft and drones to operate.   In those cases, the person flying the drone when it was reported was actually doing so in a safe and legal manner in an area designated for that specific purpose. If you’re interested, the whole article is available here and has a lot of great information.

As pilots, it is important that we do our part in helping reduce the risk of drone strikes. The biggest thing that we can do to help is to report any activity that we see so that it can be investigated and hopefully the drone operator can be found and dealt with. Try to get as much detail as possible about the incident, such as the size, color, location, direction and altitude of any sighted UAVs and report it to the closest tower or controlling agency.

Recently, the people in Washington have come up with a bunch of new rules to regulate the operation of model aircraft. As of this year, every unmanned aerial vehicle between 0.5 and 55 lbs must be registered with the FAA and have an FAA issued registration number located on the model itself. The logic here is that if someone crashes a drone where it shouldn’t have been operated, the officials will be able to identify the owner of the model and take action.

Model manufacturers and vendors have also agreed to start providing information about a program called “Know Before You Fly” (KBYF) in the packaging of the drones.  This program seeks to help educate new hobbyists to the rules and responsibilities associated with model aviation. For more information on KBYF, here is a link to their website.

In the end, the sad reality is that it’s a combination of many factors: new technology making models cheaper and easier to fly, GPS navigation and automation, the media blowing the incidents out of proportion, and inexperienced and foolish operators which have caused the growing concern and required the FAA’s action. I think that it is important to understand that thousands of people have been flying radio controlled models for many years responsibly and this has never been a problem. The AMA has rules (which are the same ones now adopted by the FAA) regarding flying location, altitudes, speeds, and more which have kept both the modelers on the ground and the pilots in the air safe until now. Its a classic case of a few foolish individuals who have caused all modelers to be cast in a bad light.

There is no reason to fly in fear, though. A pilot should always be watching for hazards as he or she is flying, regardless of the variety. In fact, according to the FAA’s website, there were 142,000 wild life STRIKES with civil aircraft in the USA between 1990 and 2013. That seems like a much bigger concern to me than the 764 reported drone SIGHTINGS. As with any new technology, drones are suffering from growing pains. As the rules fall into place and new operators become better experienced, hopefully we will hear about fewer incidents on the evening news. Anyway, I’ll stop “droning” on. Fly safe.

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

The Aunt Betty Directive: PFD Failures

ByCharles McDougal April 8, 2015April 15, 2015

Glass panel displays, ballistic parachute aircraft recovery systems, portable tablet computers enabling paperless cockpits, and widely available three axis autopilot systems have changed the way we fly, the way we train, and the way we are expected to perform on check rides. Our training and testing paradigms have tried to stay in synch, yet always seem to be catching up to the latest levels of technology.

This is very apparent when we instructors are preparing a student for an FAA practical test. When training aircraft had no autopilots, no GPS, and certainly no parachutes, the general philosophy was that during training, the student should have the lowest level of technology available. This was also the expectation on the check ride. This theory has changed over the years and now the Practical Test Standards require that an applicant integrate all available technology while demonstrating mastery of his or her aircraft. This raises numerous questions from instructors and students about what technology will be available for each task.

One example of this dilemma is found when contemplating an instrument airplane practical test in a Cirrus SR20/SR22. The test requires the task “Instrument Approach without Primary Flight Display”, which has taken the place of what was the partial panel approach, accomplished without use of gyroscopic heading and attitude indicators. In the Cirrus, the standby attitude indicator, standby airspeed, and standby altimeter are available, as is the Multi-Function Display. Guidance from the FAA has us shooting a GPS approach using the moving map display on the MFD after disabling the PFD. Those of us who trained and tested in steam gauge aircraft think that this task should be fairly easy. With a fully functional Attitude Indicator and a nice big moving map display showing our course, a reasonably competent instrument pilot should have little trouble adapting to this setup and flying a good approach.

But, in the Cirrus specifically, and perhaps in other aircraft as well, another question comes up. Can the applicant use the autopilot (which still works just fine after a display failure) during the approach without the PFD? A rather famous DPE who writes for a national magazine says “yes”, opining that not to allow its use would be introducing simultaneous multiple systems failures, which is strictly forbidden in the minds of some. If we follow this logic, we would not test simulated engine failure emergencies in these aircraft either, because to do so would imply failure of not only the engine, but the CAPS parachute system as well. In my former role as a pilot examiner, I always said no, that the approach should be hand flown. Here is my logic.

I was amazed that flight instructors and examiners would accept the substitution of autopilot technology for the skill required to fly an approach without the PFD. I would argue that the intent and the well described emphasis of the PTS is that the applicant must demonstrate the ability to control the airplane after a loss of the primary flight display, not observe and monitor the autopilot controlling the airplane! This argument was generally unpersuasive, so I approached from a different point of view, that of a concerned family member.

“Aunt Betty” represents a future passenger flying with the soon to be rated instrument pilot. Here is the question posed to Aunt Betty: “When we train and test pilots for instrument proficiency, we require them to demonstrate the ability to safely and skillfully fly the airplane without their primary instruments. Now, Betty, in this airplane, we can test this task in one of two ways. We would like your input on which way you would prefer, seeing as you will be a frequent passenger with your nephew. We can either have the pilot (might be your son, brother, husband, or nephew) demonstrate that he can fly the airplane by hand without the PFD, which does require a little more skill and a slightly different technique, or, we can require the pilot to perform this task using the autopilot so that the pilot basically monitors the airplane flying itself on the approach.

“Now, Aunt Betty, a pilot allowed to use the autopilot system on this approach may not have the skill or technique to fly the approach by hand in the clouds should the autopilot shut down due to turbulence or mechanical failure. Should this happen to a pilot without the skill and practice normally required, the odds of a fatal accident occurring would be quite high.

“So what do you think, Aunt Betty? Would you feel more comfortable flying with this fellow if he has demonstrated mastery of the aircraft (sans PFD) without the autopilot or only with its assistance?”

This leads us to a larger discussion about the use of other technology, iPad, GPS moving map, and more. If technology is used as a replacement for pilot proficiency during training and testing, we end up with less skillful, less competent and ultimately less safe pilots. But, if we require that our students demonstrate mastery with the lowest available level of automation and technology (which, by the way, implies excellent fundamental aircraft control skills) then, when technology is added into the equation, we have a safer pilot.

Technology can be a value added safety multiplier, or it can be a crutch needed to make up for lack of fundamental and advanced skills. Crutch or Safety Multiplier, which one will you choose? I know which one Aunt Betty prefers.

Charles McDougal is a flight instructor, corporate pilot, and former DPE ‎who offers basic and advanced flight instruction in the San Antonio area.  To find out more information about Charles or to contact him, visit his website, www.flighttrainingcoalition.com.

Non-Standard Alternate Minimums

ByHank Gibson August 15, 2016September 2, 2016

When filing an IFR flight plan, part of the process is determining whether or not an alternate airport is required.  An alternate airport is required when the following conditions exist(as is outlined by the FAA in 91.169 (b)):

The weather conditions at the destination airport

• From 1 hour before your arrival time to 1 hour after your estimated time of arrival, the weather conditions are forecast to be below
• 2,000 Feet AGL and/or
• 3 statute miles visibility

Let’s paint a scenario.  You are traveling from KSAT (San Antonio International Airport) to KHBV (Jim Hogg County Airport in Hebbronville, TX).  You start to file your flight plan and get down to the space where you put your alternate in.  Since Laredo (KLRD) is the closest airport with a TAF, you check Laredo’s TAF and see that the forecast conditions there at your ETA are ceilings 1,500 and visibility of 2sm.

Based on this information, you need an alternate airport.  Now, the process of finding one.  In Part 91.169 (c), the forecast conditions at the alternate airport must be at or above:

• 600 Feet AGL and 2sm visibility for a precision approach, or
• 800 Feet AGL and 2sm visibility for a non-precision approach

Alright, now we have some guidance.  Laredo is the nearest airport to KHBV, and we know the forecast from the above TAF showing the conditions are forecast to be above the alternate minimums outlined in Part 91, so let’s pick Laredo.  All done?

Not quite.  A lot of airports have Non-Standard Alternate Minimums.  How do you figure out if they do?  The easiest way is to look at any approach plate for the airport.  In the notes section of the government plates, there will be a black triangle with an A in it.  That means there are non-standard alternate minimums published for that airport (in layman’s terms, different than the ones stated above in Part 91).

Now the question is, where do you find those non-standard alternate minimums?  On Foreflight:

• Go to the Airports page
• Tap the Procedures button
• Tap the Arrival button
• Tap the Alternate Minimums option

This brings up the IFR Alternate Minimums document for all the airports with non-standard alternate minimums in that area.  Scroll through to find Laredo.

As you can see, there are several notes there concerning the different approaches into Laredo.  For our example, we’ll say the winds are out of the south and we are planning on flying the ILS 17R if we cannot get into KHBV and have to come to Laredo.  The note there is that the Alternate Minimums for the ILS 17R are actually 700 AGL ceilings and 2sm instead of the above state 600 AGL ceilings and 2sm, the procedure is NA if the tower is closed, and NA if the local weather isn’t received.

What does this tell us?  If the forecasted ceilings at Laredo were below 600 AGL instead of 700 AGL, we would not be able to use LRD as an alternate airport if we were planning on flying the ILS 17R.  The RNAV approaches are all fair game, so a GPS equipped aircraft would have no problem.

On top of that, some approaches at a certain airport are not authorized to be used in the case of the airport being used as an alternate.  At the Galveston airport (KGLS), the ILS 14 is NA as an alternate procedure, but all the RNAV approaches are available.

Picking an alternate seems simple at first, but there are actually a lot of things to consider in the process.

Need help remember all this stuff?  AOPA has put out a kneeboard sheet that helps all IFR pilots remember those important things when it comes to IFR flying.  Check it out here.