AOPA recapped the year in the general aviation industry recently. A lot happened in 2016 including the certification of both the Cirrus Vision Jet and the Honda Jet. Several other manufacturers debuted new models, including Mooney with their Ovation Ultra and it’s 2 doors and Cub Crafters with their faster XCub.
To read the full year in review, you can read the AOPA Article here.
The Bluebonnet Fly-In at Redbird Skyport has been rescheduled due to weather and the recent flooding in San Marcos. The new date for the Bluebonnet Fly-In will be Saturday, June 6th from 10am-4pm.
Hank Gibson of Texas Top Aviation will still be presenting on Garmin 430/530 Approaches this Saturday at 2pm in the large conference room at Redbird.
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.
There are a number of airplanes out there equipped with the Avidyne Entegra PFD and MFD system, most notably the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 models from the early 2000s and the Columbia 350 and 400 from the same era. The Entegra is pretty simple and easy to learn, but doesn’t have the capability that it’s Garmin glass panel counterparts do (I have not, however, tried the R9, which could prove much more capable than it’s predecessor). I have found that pilots master the Entegra a lot quicker because of the reduced functionality.
One of the nice features of the Avidyne Entegra is the CMAX Chartview option. With a yearly subscription, you can get all the Jeppesen approach plates and airport diagrams for the entire US on your MFD. Just like your GPS, though, you have to update the charts monthly to keep them legal. After a period of time when you don’t keep up with the updates (I believe it is 90 days), then the charts disappear.
The update process is a little tricky if you don’t have someone to explain it to you. Once you go through it a few times, you’ll have it down pat. Here’s the process for the Avidyne Entegra Chart Updates.
The first step in performing your Avidyne Entegra Chart Updates is to create an account with Jeppesen, who handles all the GPS NavData and MFD Chart updates for both Garmin and Avidyne. If you already have a Jeppesen subscription, you can skip down to the next section. To do that, simply go to jeppdirect.jeppesen.com, and then do the following:
There are two different programs depending on if you have a PC or a Mac. If you have a PC, you need the Jeppesen Services Update Manager (JSUM). If you have a Mac, you need the Jeppesen Distribution Manager (JDM). Download whichever one you need, then login, and your updates will show up.
First, we’ll go through the process of performing the Avidyne Entegra Chart Updates process for a Windows computer, using JSUM. You’ll need two 2 GB USB drives formatted to FAT 16. Here’s how to format to FAT 16.
Once the USB drive is formatted to FAT16, open up the JSUM program. Login and your updates will be displayed on the screen
Next, we’ll go through the Avidyne Entegra Chart Updates process on a Mac, using the JDM program. You’ll need two 2 GB USB flash drives formatted to FAT 16 (the easiest way to format to FAT 16 is on a Windows computer, using the process above).
Once everything is programmed the your USB drives, the rest of the process is simple. Just go out to your airplane, plug in the first USB drive with the Electronic Charts on it, turn your battery on and the avionics master, and the system will upload the information automatically. Once it’s finished, turn everything off, pull the USB drive out, then insert the second USB drive and do the same thing.
Now, you’re all updated!
If you’d like to see a video on the process, Jeppesen has some very good videos on the updating procedure. The links are below. If you have questions, please contact Texas Top Aviation and an expert will help you through the process.
The FAA defines personal minimums “as an individual pilot’s set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines for deciding whether and under what conditions to operate (or continue operating) in the National Airspace System.” Have you actually given thought as to why we choose the personal minimums we do? From the beginning of initial pilot training, weather minimums were established for day-to-day training and during solo flight. I didn’t realize it at first, but I later learned these limits were not just an insurance mandate, but these minimums were set at the time to safely operate an aircraft based on my “then” current experience.
So here’s the question: what are your personal minimums and WHY do YOU have them? Do you ever lower or raise your minimums? Are your minimums based solely on your overall experience level or do they take into account other variables such as advanced avionics? For pilots that fly multiple aircraft like I do, can and do your minimums change in regard to category or type of aircraft you are flying? It’s a judgment decision on how you chose your minimums. However, it’s important that time is taken before you strap into the cockpit for each flight to critically think about the different risk factors and variables which may affect your decision for the minimums you choose.
To guide us, let’s try briefly apply the FAA’s Personal Minimums Checklist to see how risk factors might shape what personal minimums or decisions we make for the day. Remember, just because you have been flying with a certain set of minimums one day, doesn’t mean you can’t adjust your minimums to a higher value given an ever-changing situation.
The acronym most pilots have heard is PAVE:
Pilot– We all should be familiar with the acronym IMSAFE associated with this. It addresses variables such as Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, and Emotion. But how do you adjust your personal minimums using this guideline? Have you ever thought about raising your minimums for a training flight if you only got 4-6 hours of sleep, instead of 8? Or if you anticipate a hard IFR flight with a long day, maybe taking a safety pilot to mitigate the chance of a mistake if you’re forecasting having to shoot an approach to your weather planning minimums.
Aircraft– Personally, this is a really important factor for me when deciding what minimums to apply. I often spend a large majority of my time asking myself; is this aircraft properly equipped for the flight? This question goes beyond just looking at the logbook for a properly equipped and legal aircraft. A professional pilot should think further. Am I flying a traditional 6-pack “steam gauge” layout, non-slaved compass card, with a separate OBS gauge for course guidance? What if the aircraft doesn’t have an auto-pilot? What if I’m flying an aircraft equipped with a dual auto-pilot, dual GPS with an integrated glass cockpit? I can comfortably say my personal minimums change depending on the equipment I have available.
A pilot should also look at his/her recency with the aircraft. For example, if you are qualified to fly both airplanes and helicopters, maybe you should choose to have higher personal minimums in one particular airframe or if you haven’t flown that airframe within 30, 60 or 90 days. This is a very important factor for the owner/pilot.
EnVironment– Most of the time, when we think of environment, we ask ourselves, is the weather legal for me to take off and, more importantly, can I conduct this flight safely? Basic flight planning should have taught us to take into consideration crosswind limits, day versus night, and the type of airspace the flight is conducted in. Thought should also be given to how you set your personal minimums in regards to the particular type of environment you might rarely encounter. Flying an approach to your minimums in the flat plains of Texas during the day is one thing, but how would you adjust your weather minimums flying to a new airport, at night, with no moon illumination, in the mountains of Colorado? Could you reduce the risk and adjust your minimums in this scenario with two pilots?
External Pressures – What external pressures are affecting your flight? Passengers, the owner, “get-there-it is”, the desire to impress someone? Although external pressures should never be a factor when conducting a flight, they almost always play a role in your decision whether to conduct the flight or not. For example, a professional pilot gets hired to do a flight and the weather is below their personal minimums. The pilot could be tempted to lower their minimums by 100 feet to take the flight for a paying customer. This scenario plays out every day across the country whether it’s a professional pilot or owner/pilot. It would be foolish not to consider this type of pressure. Always make sure you have a plan if and when you encounter this situation. Planning your flight and having a plan to deal with these potential scenarios ahead of time ensures you stick to your minimums. It can be as simple as telling your passengers, or the owner, well ahead of your flight what your personal minimums are to accept the flight, and to ensure they, or you, have a back-up plan!
Most pilots will never break a hard limitation such as an airframe cross wind limitation, or engine limit, but the chances of breaking a personal minimum are realistic. Think about the last time you went on a diet and broke your plan because you were tempted by your friends or family during an outing. Self-imposed personal minimums can be hard to enforce and we need to acknowledge this as humans. Here are a few techniques that you can use to assist in making a decision using personal minimums and help reduce the influence of external pressures.
Step 1: Sit down with your CFI/CFII and fill out a personal minimums worksheet. Filling one out by yourself is a good start but having an outside objective view will help in making sure your personal minimums are realistic. Remember, it is easy to convince ourselves that we can do something even though we have set personal minimums. Talk with other pilots to see if you have set realistic expectations.
Step 2: Preflight planning must start a few days in advanced. It can be as easy as checking what the forecast might be and looking at the projected route, near-by alternate airports, and various approaches. This can be done quickly and will give you a heads up on whether the flight can be safely conducted or not. By alerting the passengers or owner early enough, alternate plans can be developed. An extra pilot can be added, the passengers can fly commercial, bring along a CFI, or cancel the trip altogether and seek alternate transportation. The main point is the decision was made well ahead of the flight when conditions didn’t look favorable. This helps in removing external pressures and ensures you don’t go below your personal minimums.
Step 3: Never be afraid to ask for a second opinion. Part 135 operators have set procedures for conducting flights which assist the pilots in making decisions. These set procedures help remove external pressures by allowing the pilot to say, “The rules don’t allow for this, or this is how we will conduct the flight!” However, under Part 91, the pilot has to take ownership for all phases of the flight. This is where talking it out with another pilot helps with mitigating external factors and the environment. Ideally, this person should have more experience and be able to talk through the situation. For instance, if I’m flying to a new destination, I often seek the advice from another pilot who’s familiar with the area. They may have key insights into weather patterns, preferred approaches, or hazards to avoid. In certain situations, asking for another pilot’s opinion might be what influences your go/no-go decision! You’ll be amazed how much you can learn just from talking to other pilots.
Step 4: Continue to build your experience and knowledge base. Building experience requires us to push our abilities, and sometimes this may be to the limit. However, this can be done in a controlled training environment or just going out and experiencing it. Get a new license, fly regularly with a CFI/CFII, and always try and take advantage of training opportunities. For example on your next flight from point A to point B, practice hand flying an approach, do a short field landing, a quick steep turn, etc. Quality flight time is always better than quantity. Continue to challenge yourself and try not to become complacent.
Personal minimums are a tool to assist in every pilot’s aeronautical decision making process. Use your personal minimums to guide your final go/no-go decision and remember to stick to the plan. I encourage you to review the FAA’s Risk Management Handbook (FAA-H-8083-2). Appendix B has Sample Risk Management Scenarios and reviewing them will give a better understanding how to apply the techniques discussed to your everyday flying.
Pedro Vargas-Lebron is a King Air 200 and uH-60 Blackhawk Instructor pilot with the Texas Army National Guard. Pedro is a CFI/CFII/MEI both in airplanes and helicopters with over 4000 hours of flight time, half as an instructor pilot.
When it comes to turboprop engines, a hot start is a really bad thing. For you piston drivers out there thinking, “What’s the big deal, you are just starting a hot engine,” then here’s a little education for you.
In a PT6 turboprop engine, there is a very important temperature gauge that a pilot monitors very closely during each and every start. It is called the Inter-Turbine Temperature gauge, or ITT. This temperature is a measurement of the exhaust gases between the compressor turbine and the power turbine (s). In the picture below, the probe is located where the blue and red colors meet.
In a turboprop engine, specifically the Pratt & Whitney PT-6 in all it’s different sizes and variations, there will always be a specific temperature that the pilot will want to keep the ITT below. This article will deal specifically with a Piper Meridian.
A Piper Meridian starts hotter than almost any other PT6 engine because of the way it’s air intake is designed. Unlike other turboprops, the Meridian has a permanently open inertial separator. This means that not all the intake air makes it to the engine during start because some of it goes out the inertial separator opening. So, coming to a Meridian from operating other turboprop engines can lead to a little bit of a surprise on the ITT temperature being higher than what a pilot is used to when starting.
As a rule of thumb, when starting a Meridian, never let a start continue when the ITT hits 875 degrees. Based on the chart below, you are still in the safe zone at 875 and have about a 50 degree buffer before you have to start getting worried.
On cold starts with a good battery or a GPU, 875 is typically not an issue. Most starts when cold are going to be in the high 700s or low 800s. On a cold start, if you are seeing starts in the mid to upper 800s, try starting with a GPU and see if that lowers the start temperature. If it does, then that means your battery is weak and needs to be replaced. Another tell-tale sign of a weak batter is the Ng doesn’t spool up properly (meaning it settles around 12-13%) or takes a really long time to spool up. Also, never start on the battery with less than 24 volts.
When there are multiple flights in one day, the pilot has to take into consideration the warm engine prior to starting. If the ITT, prior to the start sequence, is above 150 degrees, it is time to do some motoring of the engine.
What is motoring? It is simply using the starter to turn the engine, which leads to air being sucked into the engine allowing the engine to cool off prior to start. The theory is, the cooler your engine prior to start, the cooler the ITT peaks at during start.
Here’s the steps on how to dry motor a Piper Meridian:
The starter has a 30 second limit on the Meridian, followed by a 30 second rest period. You can do the sequence twice, then, after the 3rd start, there is a 30 minute rest period. Typically, if the ITT won’t cool down to 150 after the 3rd time, there is probably something wrong.
The most important thing a pilot can remember is never, ever push the condition lever forward if the ITT is above 150 degrees. You’ll be well on your way to avoiding hot starts that way.
The Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program is coming back to the Lone Star Airport in Conroe, TX (KCXO) on October 23rd-25th. Wondering what the CPPP program is?
“CPPP offers a weekend event for Cirrus owners and their partners that focuses on Cirrus-specific knowledge and flying proficiency. We bring some of the most experienced flight instructors who regularly teach in all kinds of Cirrus airplanes flown for all kinds of missions. We have prepared an extensive syllabus of ground courses that complement the transition training and delve into areas of greatest need for Cirrus pilots.” (from CirrusPilots.org)
The weekend starts off with a group dinner on Friday night. The Saturday morning ground session focuses on General Aviation Safety with special focus on the Cirrus accident statistics. Normal and emergency procedures are also reviewed.
In the afternoon on Saturday, the attendees are split into two groups. The first group has a myriad of options for ground sessions covering all topics related to Cirrus aircraft and operations. The second group flies, then they switch for the second 3 hour session. Sunday brings the same split, with more courses offered and more flying.
While the Cirrus pilots are flying and learning more about their airplanes, CPPP offers a Partner in Command course for flying partners on Saturday. This allows flying partners to be more comfortable in the airplane and teaches them what to do if something were to happen to the pilot.
All in all, attending a CPPP will improve both Cirrus knowledge and Cirrus flying skills. It’s highly recommended for all Cirrus pilots.
To register for the CPPP event in Conroe, check out the CPPP website.
