What’s Going On With the Airplane Market?

3 Tips to Better Landings

ByHank Gibson December 21, 2017December 21, 2017

In my 3,000+ hours of flight training, I have developed some tips and tricks to help people fly better.  With teaching landings, I have 3 specific tips that will make smoother landings every time, guaranteed.

A Good Pattern

A wise flight instructor whom I would love to give credit to (but don’t know who it is!) once said that a good landing starts off with a good traffic pattern.  So true!  A good landing all begins with the setup.  This is true for a VFR rectangular traffic pattern or an IFR instrument approach.  Flying the proper speeds and being at the proper AGL altitudes helps immensely in making a good landing. Being at 600 feet AGL on a 1/2 mile final (or the alternative of 60 feet off the ground on a mile final!) makes it hard to make a good landing.

Proper Use & Understanding of Pitch and Power

Once flaps are used in the pattern, the plane is now on the back side of the power curve (or in the region of reverse command).  Power is now being used to control the plane’s rate of descent while pitch is being used to control airspeed.  The key is, both pitch and power work together, so if the pilot changes the power, he’ll also need to change the pitch and vice versa.

The common mistake I see here is when the airplane gets low on final, the pilot tends to (quite naturally) pitch up.  All this does is bleed off airspeed and cause the airplane to sink faster.  The proper input would be to add power, then adjust the pitch for airspeed.

Look Down the Runway

Now that we have gotten to the point of the round-out and touchdown, it’s the most important part.  The best thing the pilot can do to make the best landing possible, is to look at the trees at the end of the runway.  When I worked with college students, I told them to find the owl in the trees at the end of the runway.

The tendency is to stare at the pavement (or concrete) the whole way down to the landing.  When a pilot’s eyes are fixated on the ground, this destroys his depth perception and causes a level off too low to the runway, resulting in a 3 point landing and/or a bounce.

By looking at the trees at the end of the runway, this gives the pilot much better depth perception and allows him to properly judge where to level off the airplane.

The question now is when should the pilot start looking at the trees?  My recommendation is crossing the threshold of the runway.  For some, it works better to start looking at the trees when turning final.  Others, right before the level off.  Regardless, find that owl!

Circle to Land Approaches

ByHank Gibson November 20, 2015November 21, 2015

When I was doing my instrument and multi-engine training, we did a lot of circle to land approaches.  As a student, I could never figure out why these types of approaches would ever be practical when you could an approach straight in to another runway.  But, as a good student, I never asked my instructors the purpose of them, I just did them to the best of my ability.

Now, having been flying in the IFR system for almost a decade, I’m finally beginning to fully understand the practical purpose of a circle to land approach.  I have actually elected to do an approach where I had to circle to land on several occasions in actual IMC conditions.

One important note to remember on circle to land approaches is that the minimum descent altitude (MDA) is always higher than on a straight in approach.  The reason for this is that you are basically joining the pattern for a different runway and you have to be able to visually keep yourself clear of towers and other obstacles.  So, you need a higher visibility and a higher ceiling than if you were just lining up to come straight in.

Here are a couple of practical circumstances where it would make sense to do a circle to land approach.

Airports with only 1 straight in approach

This one is easy.  There are a number of airports scattered around the US that have only 1 straight in instrument approach published for it.  Around my part of Texas, the first one that pops into my mind is the RNAV 31 at T85 in Yoakum, TX.  Most of the year, the prevailing wind is out of the south, so 13 is the favored runway at T85.  During the winter is when most of the IMC weather happens in South Texas, so that is why the approach is for 31.

Of course, especially this year during the summer, there are some IMC days where an approach to T85 would be necessary.  When there is a strong wind out of the south, landing on 31 is impractical, so a pilot would fly the approach to 31, then circle to land on 13.

Approaching from the opposite direction

Take a look at the RNAV 19 at KBMQ, Burnet, TX.  The two initial approach fixes (IAF) are IXANY and JIBAJ.  If a flight is approaching BMQ from the west or north, this is an easy approach to join.  If a flight is coming from Austin (directly the the east and a little south) or San Antonio (almost directly south), it would be a bit of extra flying to get configured properly for the approach.  Especially coming from Austin, because the degree of turn to join at JIBAJ wouldn’t make the approach practical.

Well, how about vectors?  Unfortunately, Houston Center doesn’t have this approach depicted so vectors aren’t a possibility.  Center can give you vectors north to make the angle a little easier to join at JIBAJ, but they can’t vector you onto the approach.

Direct DLORA to join is another option, but again, if you are approaching from the southeast, the angle is wrong.

Insert the RNAV 01 approach with a circle to land.  AMUSE is right on V163, so it’s really easy to join the approach there coming from the south.  Coming from Austin, joining the approach at SUBIE works out great. Fly down to the MDA, join the left downwind for 19, and everyone is happy.

VOR Circle to Land Approaches

Every instrument pilot has had an instructor “force” them to do a VOR A or VOR B approach and no one enjoys them.  I personally think they are good practice.  With the number of RNAV systems and RNAV approaches out there, though, VOR approaches are becoming a bit archaic.

They do have a place in this discussion, though.  A VOR approach is given an A or B designation when the angle of the final approach course is greater than 30 degrees to the runway (VOR A KLZZ), or the final approach course is lined up with the runway, but the MDA is too high to practically descend and land (VOR A KGRK or the VOR/DME C KASE).

So, there are practical uses for a Circle to Land approach.  The next time you do some IMC work with an instructor, ask him/her if you can include one.

Hold Anywhere

ByHank Gibson December 21, 2016September 24, 2018

The latest Garmin software version on the Garmin G1000 and Cirrus Perspective by Garmin has a really neat feature.  It gives the pilot the ability to create a hold at any fix, VOR, NDB, or even airport.  If the point is in the GPS database, a hold can be created over it.

How does it work?  Here are the steps.

Let’s say ATC tells you to hold over an intersection on a Victor Airway that you are already on.  Since you are tracking the airway already, the airway should be in your flight plan complete with all the waypoints on it.

Bring up your flight plan and highlight the waypoint to hold at.  Press the menu key.  Using the big knob, scroll down to highlight the hold at waypoint option at the bottom of the bottom of the menu.  Press enter.

Now you can build the hold.  You select what the inbound or outbound course will be.  Select a timed hold or a distance hold.  Then select left or right hand turns.  You can even input your expect further clearance time.  Press enter and now you have a hold as a waypoint in your flight plan.  Assuming you have a WAAS unit, the autopilot will fly the hold for you.

If you are ever told to “Hold Present Position,” Garmin has you covered.  Simply press menu on the flight plan page, scroll down to Hold Present Position, then follow the prompts on the screen to build a hold at your present position.

Dallas Airspace Changes

ByHank Gibson September 25, 2014

As was the case with the Class B Airspace around Houston several months ago, the Class B Dallas airspace has been overhauled as well.  These changes were implemented at the last database update on September 18th.  If you’ll be flying into any of the Dallas airspace airports IFR, make sure you have current charts and your GPS databases are updated.

According to AOPA, 14 SIDs and STARs were deleted, a number of new procedures were added, and changes were made to most of the other remaining procedures.  The new procedures in the Dallas airspace consist mainly of RNAV procedures for turboprops and jets, so most GA aircraft won’t be affected by those.  The legacy procedures that remained in place over went changes, including new frequencies, so piston aircraft going into the Dallas airspace are still affected.

From AOPA, departures from Dallas Love (KDAL) that file their flight plan with special equipment /G in their flight plan will automatically be given an RNAV departure procedure.  This does not appear to affect piston aircraft as all the new RNAV SIDs in the Dallas airspace are for turboprops or turbojets.

The reason for the changes to the Dallas airspace?  Similar to the changes in Houston, these airspace changes are meant to streamline departures and arrivals in the Dallas airspace area, reduce controller workload, and give continuous descent angles for arriving high altitude traffic.

Don’t be surprised the next time you are in the Dallas airspace area if you receive a clearance that states:  “Descend via the arrival.”  In that case, just check the chart and aim for the appropriate altitudes at the appropriate fixes.  As we move closer to the ADS-B requirement, I believe we will see more and more of these terminal procedure overhauls, so be prepared and keep those charts and databases up to date.

A Flying Car in the Future?

ByHank Gibson July 31, 2016August 11, 2016

EAA Airventure at Osh Kosh always draws great innovators every year, leading the aviation consumer to discover something new and different.  Flying cars have always been a dream for the everyday pilot.  Why not fly to work?  Why not park the plane in the parking lot?  Why not drive from the runway onto the freeway?  All excellent questions!

Well, Samson Motorworks is trying to make those dreams a reality.  Samson’s Switchblade flying car is in the (hopefully) finally stages of development this summer.  The company expects to be able to conduct test flights early next year, then begin selling the experimental kit.

The Samson Switchblade will be in the Experimental category, but Samson has a builder assist program that only adds $20,000 to the final cost of the kit.  The total price of the kit, which comes 49% completed and only takes 3 weeks to complete with the builder assist program, comes in at $140,000.  That includes the engine, avionics (it’s equipped with Dynon’s 7″ Skyview glass panel display, a Dynon radio and transponder, a Dynon intercom, a Dynon AOA, an iPad mini, and an ADS-B GPS), and the builder assist program.  Similar to a Cirrus, it is also equipped with a Ballistic Parachute Recovery system.

The Samson Switchblade has several different engine options, including a supercharged, liquid cooled, V-4 similar to a Corvette engine that will produce 190 HP.  Max cruise in the air should be around 170 knots.  The Switchblade will hold 30 gallons of mogas, burn 9 GPH in the air, and get 35 mpg on the ground.  The gross weight will be 1,750 pounds.

How does the car to plane transition happen?  Samson has developed a fly by wire system to retract the rudder down while the car is in drive mode.  The wings use a mechanical linkage to fold up into the belly.

There are several different packages for the Samson Switchblade:  the Snowbird, the Aurora, and the Trek options.  Details can be found on Samson’s website.

I, for one, will be keeping an eye on the freeways next summer to keep an eye out for cars sprouting wings.  No more traffic jams!

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.