The Angelina County Airport in Lufkin, TX (KLFK) will be hosting the Angelina County Airfest on Saturday, October 10th. The airport will open up at 9am.
Prepare for a day of food, fun, and some great performances. There will be warbirds and many other classic airplanes on display, not too mention a number of aerobatic performances as the day goes on.
To learn more about the Airfest, visit the Angelina County Airfest website. Tickets start at $10 for adults.
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.
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…
Raise your hand if, after you have officially become a pilot by passing your private pilot check ride, you consistently file VFR flight plans with Flight Service.
Anybody?
Okay, let’s revise the question. Raise your hand if you have filed VFR flight plans at least 5 times in the last year.
Okay, one or two hands go up.
That’s it?
To be perfectly honest, I have filed VFR Flight Plans twice (I think) in the last year. The only reason I did was because I was flying in an area that had poor radar/radio communications and I wanted someone to know where I was (I was ferrying an airplane through southern Oregon and northern Nevada which is mountainous and is hard to get coverage into at lower altitudes). I was so unaccustomed to doing it that I nearly forgot to call and close my flight plan.
This is a common complaint amongst pilots concerning VFR flight plans. It’s extremely easy to get to your destination, hop in the car and completely forget to close your VFR flight plans. Thankfully, now a days, the Flight Service Station will typically call the number you put in your VFR flight plans (your cell phone number most of the time) to make sure you are on the ground before initiating search and rescue services.
Another complaint is that it is cumbersome to call the Flight Service Station after departing to open the VFR flight plans. This is especially true in a busy airspace area or if the pilot is getting a VFR Flight Following and talking to ATC on a different frequency.
I still think it is a great idea to file and utilize VFR flight plans. If you don’t show up at your destination, someone will come looking for you which could mean the difference between getting stranded after an off airport landing and getting a warm cup of coffee at the end of the day. Even if the you get flight following from ATC, it’s still good to file a flight plan.
Lockheed Martin, who runs all the Flight Service Stations across the US, heard these complaints from pilots and decided to come into the modern age and make it easier to open and close flight plans. They developed EasyActivate and EasyClose.
These services are very simple. Just go to Lockheed Martin’s Flight Service Station website, set up a new account, then file VFR flight plans to see the services in action.
File your VFR flight plans first, through calling the FSS or on your favorite iPad app. Then, for EasyActivate, you’ll receive an email 30 minutes prior to your ETD with a link in it. Simply click/tap on the link and your flight plan is activated. No having to call FSS in the air, no having to try to get them on the ground. Just tap the link and you’re good to go.
For EasyClose, you’ll receive an email 30 minutes prior to your ETA at your destination. When you get on the ground, you’ll see the email in your phone or iPad and you just tap the link and your flight plan is closed. Since we all have our phones and iPads with us constantly, there will be no more forgetting to close the flight plan and getting that angry call from the FSS.
Sign up is quick and easy. All Lockheed Martin needs is your email address, last name and phone number. They’ll send you the password to set up your account. Log in (they will have you change your password immediately), then just click on EasyActivate/EasyClose up at the top. You have to register the email address you want (you can also put in a phone number to receive a text message, and you can put multiple email addresses and phone numbers if you’d like), then you are all set to go.
Raise your hand if, after you have officially become a pilot by passing your private pilot check ride, you consistently file VFR flight plans with Flight Service. Anybody? Okay, let’s revise the question. Raise your hand if you have filed VFR flight plans at least 5 times in the last year. Okay, one or two…
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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…
Most of us who have been through instrument training are familiar with the traditional view limiting devices. There is the original hood, which does a decent job of blocking a pilot’s view of outside, but there are still gaps that allow “peeking”, though that peeking doesn’t really help a pilot fly an approach. It does help them figure out which way is up, so it’s not a true simulation.
The other problem with a hood is the process of putting it on to begin simulating IFR conditions, then taking it off when it’s time to land. This process takes time and the instructor has to take the controls (or the autopilot flies), losing some of the realism of the simulation.
Overall, an IFR hood is relatively comfortable. The elastic band sits under your headset, doesn’t squeeze your heard, and doesn’t press underneath your ear cups of the headset, giving you a headache. Hoods are large and somewhat unwieldy.
Foggles are another way to simulate IFR conditions for training. Most of the time, these are safety glasses that have most of the lens blacked out or fogged out, leaving little slits at the bottom for the pilot’s eyes to see the instruments.
Foggles aren’t quite as good as an IFR hood at blocking the outside. Due to their shape, there are often cracks that allow more “peeking” then a hood. The process of beginning to simulate IFR conditions and ending the simulated IFR conditions is easier though, since all the pilot has to do is put the foggles on or slip them off, which can often be done one handed (putting them on can be more difficult one handed since they have to fit underneath your headset). Wearing them for a long period of time can get painful as your headset is probably going to start crushing them against the side of your head.
The best comfort and view limiting combination I have found, so far, is called the ViBAN. It’s very comfortable and does a really good job of simulating IFR by blocking a view of the outside.
What’s the whole goal behind a view limiting device? When a pilot starts instrument training, ideally, all the training would take place in the clouds, since that is why someone get’s an instrument rating. As we all know, this isn’t possible, hence the need to simulate IFR conditions. The problem with simulating IFR is, it’s not true IFR. True IFR conditions are different then what a hood or a set of foggles can simulate. This can lead to spatial disorientation if a fresh instrument pilot enters the clouds for the first time, having done all his training in simulated conditions.
I’ve even heard a story of a pilot who did all his IFR training with a hood, passed his check ride, went into the clouds the first time, and put the hood on because he was getting disoriented since he hadn’t ever experienced true IFR.
What about full motion simulators? How I wish every airport had a full motion simulator for instrument training. Full motion sims are truly the best way to simulate IFR conditions. A pilot can easily get spatially disoriented in a sim if he or she isn’t careful. It’s a great way to simulate IFR conditions, but, alas, this just isn’t possible.
Are we doomed to just do an okay job of training instrument pilots in simulated IFR conditions with a hood or foggles?
Nope, at least not anymore.
Enter the ICARUS Device. The ICARUS Device, which stands for Instrument Conditions Awareness Recognition and Understanding System, is an amazing piece of equipment which truly simulates IFR conditions in the training environment. The ICARUS is a plastic shield that uses a Polymer Dispersed Liquid Crystal film that allows the degradation of a pilot’s visibility. It clips on to a baseball cap and is attached to a battery. That battery is then bluetoothed to an iPad or iPhone App that allows the instructor to put the pilot into and take him out of simulated IFR conditions.
Originally designed for helicopter training, it’s an excellent tool for fixed wing IFR training too. I’ve been using it for the last month and a half and I am hooked. The customer’s that I have used it with truly say that they cannot see a thing outside. Because the plastic shield turns white, it really does give the view that the pilot is in the clouds. The inner ear certainly believes it. The curve of it fits the glare shield in most planes nicely (there is some custom cutting that would have to take place for specifically rounded glare shields, but it fits Cirrus and Piper Saratogas nicely, the two planes I have used it in), and it sits away from the pilot’s face, blocking out all windows, which is what clouds do.
The greatest thing from an instructor’s standpoint is the ICARUS Device app. The pilot puts the device on before taxi and I set the app to VMC. This completely clears the ICARUS Device so the pilot can see just fine for taxi and takeoff. Then, at about 400 AGL, I tap the <1/2 VIS button on the app, and boom, the pilot is in the clouds. I even have a time delay to slowly make the ICARUS Device opaque to simulate slowly entering the clouds. I do the same thing on an approach, except in the reverse order, simulating we are slowly exiting the clouds.
The ICARUS Device is a game changer for IFR training. It’s comfortable, easy to use, the battery lasts for a long time (though bring a standard USB charging cord with you in the plane because the battery failure mode makes the ICARUS Device opaque instead of transparent. You don’t want that to happen at 200 AGL!), and, most important, it truly simulates IFR conditions.
After using it, I believe all flight schools and CFII should get one of these, both in the fixed wing and helicopter world. It’s the best option for simulating IFR conditions.
Checkout the ICARUS Device website for more information and to hear the story of the company.
Texas Top Aviation, LLC was given an ICARUS Device by the ICARUS Device company to test. Texas Top Aviation, LLC was not paid for our above opinion on the ICARUS Device (trust me, if it was terrible, I would have told you!).
Most of us who have been through instrument training are familiar with the traditional view limiting devices. There is the original hood, which does a decent job of blocking a pilot’s view of outside, but there are still gaps that allow “peeking”, though that peeking doesn’t really help a pilot fly an approach. It does…
Type Clubs Lead By Example with Standard Operating Practices
Imagine a year when there are no fatal accidents in general aviation. Does that seem impossible? The airlines achieved that many years ago, and so can we if we focus on the right things in our safety pro- grams. In fact, the overall trend in GA accident rates over the last few years is very encouraging. AOPA’s Air Safety Institute published its annual GA Accident Scorecard recently (see www.EAA.org/ extras), revealing fatal accidents from 2008 to 2017 are down more than 30 percent. Nevertheless, there were 185 fatal accidents in 2017, so we still have a long way to go. But, there are many developments in safety programs across GA that can keep the trend going.
One such development that I’ve advocated through a couple of type clubs is establishing standard operating practices (SOP). When I flew for both the U.S. Air Force and NASA, we had what we called standard operating procedures. They were the law for our flying. That is, we had to follow them procedurally because the folks that paid our salaries said so. The objective was to ensure we all used the same playbook, minimizing the risk that one of us might develop a bad in-flight habit that increased risk to the organization.
One way to think about SOPs is to recognize the difference between procedure and technique. For example, you have to follow the manufacturer’s pilot’s operating handbook (procedure)where it says to lower the landing gear before landing. If you don’t, you are in for a bad day. However, it does not tell you exactly when to lower the gear; that’s left to technique.
In the middle, between procedure and technique, is a best practice. In this example, lowering the gear just before the final approach fix is a “standard practice.” It is the generally accepted “best” place to lower the gear. In GA, however, aircraft owners don’t generally answer to a boss, so I prefer the term practices instead of procedures.
However, whether or not someone is paying us to fly, following best practices just makes sense. If you have a good set of practices, they enable you to do things the same way every time, leaving lots of brain cells to manage the unusual, the things that might go wrong. The safest approach to accomplishing a flight task is one that leverages consistency. On the other hand, if you are inconsistent, doing flight tasks differently each time, you’ll always be struggling to keep up. So, in my involvement with the safety committees for both the Malibu Mirage Owners and Pilots Association and the Citation Jet Pilots Association, there has been broad acceptance of recently developed standard operating practices.
The good news in this development is that a culture of safety is growing broadly across most sectors of GA through these type club initiatives. Perhaps more importantly, there is much to learn from each other about the effectiveness of these various initiatives. EAA has seen a four-year drop of 47 percent in fatal accidents among homebuilts! So, there must be something right going on there — a major focus on appropriate transition training before flying a new homebuilt (as a standard operating practice) is paying off.
So, what is covered in the SOPs these type clubs have developed? The following outlines the kinds of standard practices other type clubs have set up and represent SOPs you could establish for yourself regardless of the type of aircraft you fly. You just have to fill in the blanks for your particular type and commit to sticking to them in your flying. These are notional and are practices (not mandatory procedures). They don’t tell you how to fly your aircraft; they give you things to think about when you do. If you take a bit of time to set your own SOPs and then stick with them, you’ll be a far safer pilot. Here are some ideas:
Duty Day
Set the maximum number of hours of flight time during a calendar day and rest hours off between flying days. One example is a maximum of eight hours in the air and a minimum of 10 hours off until flying again.
Cargo
Establish best practices for what you will carry as cargo. One example is no lithium batteries in the baggage compartment.
Flight Planning and Preparation
What are your limitations for the types of flight you’ll take on? Consider SOPs such as designating a suitable alternate airport for all flights. Another might be for first flights after significant maintenance, such as no flight at night or in IMC until a day-VMC functional check flight has been done.
Runway Field Length Guidelines
Establish an appropriate minimum field length for your aircraft and commit to not going into shorter fields. Consider sea level operations and high-altitude airports as well.
Surface Operations
What should be your maximum wind conditions for taxi, takeoff, or landing? Maximum acceptable crosswinds on landing? Set them in your SOP and stick to them.
En Route
Consider establishing practices like no non-operationally necessary conversation below 10,000 feet MSL, during any segment of an approach procedure, or during the last 1,000 feet before leveloff during climb or descent. Also consider declaring “minimum fuel” when the fuel state becomes less than fuel to destination plus 45 minutes at current burn, even if flying day VFR.
Approach and Landing
Consider establishing personal minimums in your SOPs for things like visual approaches. Perhaps use a 1,500-foot ceiling and 3 miles’ visibility for day and 5 miles for night, even though these exceed the FAA’s requirements.
Pilot Limitations, Training, & Currency
FAR Part 91 rules allow us to fly with pretty marginal levels of currency. Consider setting your own SOP to something more appropriate for the kind of aircraft you fly and the kind of flying you do in it. For example, consider these ideas as SOPs:
Maneuver Standards
Wherever there are “techniques” associated with things like takeoffs and climbs, cruise, use of autopilot, power settings, and approaches and landings, you can write down your preferred technique as your own SOP. Describe each maneuver in enough detail (speeds, altitudes, power settings, configurations, etc.) to define a routine you will use each time. This ensures you fly consistently each flight and leverage the power of the standard operating practice, that is, to give you the bandwidth you need should you encounter an unexpected event or an emergency.
SOPs are among the exciting concepts underway to make safety programs work for us. Hats off to type clubs like MMOPA and CJP and many others that are taking the initiative. But even if you’re not in this kind of group, you can still set up your own SOPs. Let’s all look forward to our first year in GA without a fatal accident — and let’s make it soon!
Fly safe!
Charlie Precourt is a former NASA chief astronaut, space shuttle commander, and Air Force test pilot. He built a VariEze, owns a Piper JetPROP, and is a member of the EAA board of directors.
Type Clubs Lead By Example with Standard Operating Practices This article appeared in the May 2019 edition of EAA’s Sport Aviation Magazine. It is used with permission. For other articles by Charlie Precourt, please visit EAA.org and join for a full subscription. Imagine a year when there are no fatal accidents in general aviation. Does…
I get asked some version of the same question almost every day right now: “Hank, what’s going on with the airplane market?” Owners are nervous. The market has definitely slowed down, and the second quarter has been especially quiet. So let me give you a straight read on what’s actually happening, why, and what it means for your airplane.
Here’s the short version: don’t panic. A slow market is not a market crash. It’s a market that rewards sellers who price realistically and buyers who are ready to pull the trigger. Patience is the name of the game right now.
Used airplane values shot up through the COVID years, peaked somewhere around 2022, and have been softening ever since — really since about 2023. That’s carried into 2026. But in most piston airplanes, it looks a whole lot more like a slow, steady give-back than a crash.
Now, here’s where I’d rather look than at asking prices. An asking price is just what a seller is hoping — or dreaming — to get; it isn’t what the airplane is worth. What an airplane is actually worth is what VREF tracks. And when I pull the VREF values on the single-engine pistons I’ve been appraising lately, a clear pattern shows up:
Call it roughly 5% on average across the segment. That’s more than the under-1% you’d guess from asking prices alone — but it’s still less than 15% down over the last year, not a crash. The rule of thumb: the older and less expensive the aircraft, the better the values are holding; the newer and more expensive the aircraft, the more the value has dropped over the last year.
What a Crash Actually Looks Like
Worth being precise about what I mean. A real crash — like 2008–09 — is sudden and disorderly: values plunge almost overnight, financing dries up, buyers walk away from their deposits, and airplanes sit because there’s no one to buy them at any price. New business-jet deliveries fell nearly 34% in a single year, and it took years to climb back. What we have now is the opposite on every count — value drops of 15% or less, financing that’s tighter but still available, and airplanes that are still changing hands. That’s a soft, orderly market, not a crash.
A handful of things piled up at the same time. None of them is a disaster on its own, but together they explain why the phone has been ringing less.
Rates didn’t come down the way everybody expected. Oil shot past $110 a barrel after the conflict with Iran, inflation came roaring back, and the Fed stopped dropping rates — so financing an airplane still costs more, and that takes the urgency out of buyers. Financing also got tighter; the days of 100% loans with no money down are basically over, and lenders want bigger down payments.
The tax rush already happened, too: when the One Big Beautiful Bill brought back 100% bonus depreciation, it set off a mad dash to close before year-end, and a lot of the folks who’d have been shopping this spring already bought last winter. Plus, there are simply more airplanes to choose from now, which hands buyers options and pulls pricing power away from sellers.
It depends on which side of the deal you’re on.
If you’re selling, price to today’s market — not the 2022 peak, and, unfortunately, not what you paid for the airplane. Realistically priced airplanes are still selling; the ones that sit are the ones chasing a number the market left behind. Keep your logs complete, stay current on inspections (don’t forget those 24-month IFR inspections!) and ADs, and present the airplane well. Have a thorough annual done before putting it on the market. Keep it clean and do whatever cosmetic or avionics fixes or upgrades you’ve been neglecting — you want it to show as well as possible, because there’s a lot of competition out there.
Re-dyeing the leather seats is a cost-effective way to spruce up the interior without replacing the seats. A good wash will certainly help the exterior. Glass in the panel always shows better than steam gauges, so even something simple like an Aspen upgrade, two Garmin GI 275s or G5s, or a 7-inch Garmin G3X will bring value to your airplane and make it show better — any of those are less than $10,000. If you do still have a Garmin 530W or 430W, consider changing them out for a newer Garmin or Avidyne IFD unit; Garmin won’t support the 530W/430W anymore. And Avidyne is quietly ending support for the Entegra system this fall — but the good news is the Avidyne Vantage panels are finally certified.
And if you can wait, give it some thought — the back half of the year is shaping up stronger. The fourth quarter is traditionally the best stretch for used sales, and now that bonus depreciation is permanent, that year-end push resets every fall.
If you’re buying, this is your window. Higher rates have thinned out the competition, there are more airplanes to pick from than there have been in years, and sellers are more willing to deal. If you’ve got cash ready or financing lined up, you’ve got leverage you didn’t have eighteen months ago. Be picky — buy the clean one with good records.
If you’re just holding, relax. There’s no reason to panic-sell. Most piston values are easing off slowly, not collapsing. Patience wins here.
The right move always comes down to your specific airplane, your timeline, and what you’re trying to accomplish. If you’d like a current valuation — or just an honest read on where your airplane sits in today’s market — give me a call. That’s what we’re here for.
An Airplane Market Update, Q2 2026 I get asked some version of the same question almost every day right now: “Hank, what’s going on with the airplane market?” Owners are nervous. The market has definitely slowed down, and the second quarter has been especially quiet. So let me give you a straight read on what’s […]
