Author: Hank Gibson

  • Using the ICARUS Device to Simulate IFR Conditions

    ByHank Gibson

    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!).

  • Epic E1000 Gets the GFC 700

    ByHank Gibson

    When the Epic E1000 was finally certified in the spring of 2020, there was much celebrating across the aviation world. Epic Aircraft expended a lot of time and energy getting the E1000 certified and into production (more information on that journey here and in Flying Magazine here).

    The airplane is amazing. In the single engine, 6 seat turboprop market, it easily blows away the competition. With it’s 1,200 SHP PT6-67A, it has double the horsepower of the M600 (600 SHP), and 350 more horsepower than the TBM 940 (850 SHP). It’s 60 KTAS faster than the M600 and, even though the TBM can keep up (both airplanes have equal top cruise speeds of 330 KTAS), the Epic E1000 can carry a payload of 1,024 pounds with full fuel, while the 940 can only carry 584 pounds with full fuel. The TBM carries about 15 minutes more of fuel, but to me, that’s pretty negligible.

    Did I mention climb rates? The E1000 climbs at an average of 1500 FPM at Vy (it’s capable of 4,000 FPM), making it to 25,000 feet in 10 minutes. The TBM climbs at 1000 FPM, taking 13 minutes to climb to the same altitude, while the M600 settles in at about 800 FPM, reaching FL250 in 21 minutes.

    If you expand the comparison to include the Pilatus PC-12, the two airplanes have 1,200 SHP, but the Epic is 50 KTAS faster and they both have about the same weight carrying ability.

    In the most important arena, price, the E1000 is around a million dollars cheaper than the TBM 940.

    The one drawback to the Epic E1000 that immediately was noticeable was the autopilot. Epic originally installed the STEC 2100 autopilot to pair with the G1000 (and later the G1000 NXi). Epic decided to stick with the STEC 2100 through certification for the plane since that autopilot was on all of the E1000s paperwork going through all the levels of FAA approval. To change to the GFC 700 during the certification process would have been a massive undertaking that probably would have delayed certification.

    The STEC 2100 is a good autopilot, but, as any G1000 pilot can tell you, the lack of integration between any STEC autopilot and Garmin panel leaves some to be desired. Not all the bugs talk, which often requires dual data entry, which can lead to forgetting to do both the bug and the autopilot when things get busy. Hello, altitude deviation.

    The goal for Epic was never to leave the STEC autopilot in the airplane. The first E1000s were rolled off the line with the STEC, but Epic didn’t take long to change the autopilot to the much more integrated Garmin GFC 700. That took place this winter (2020), and the E1000 received it’s first upgrade, with Epic dubbing the airplane the Epic E1000 GX.

    I expect the innovators in Bend, OR, where Epic is based and where tons of innovation in aviation happens (Lancair/Columbia started in Bend while RDD is based there as well), to quickly come out with more avionics upgrades for the airplane. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a G3000 version at some point, complete with auto throttles and the new Garmin Autoland. Epic would be smart to follow in the steps of Daher and offer two models, one with the G1000 and one with the G3000 (the TBM 910 has the G1000 NXi while the TBM 940 has the G3000).

    I have yet to fly in an Epic E1000, but I would certainly jump at the chance to do so. Someone asked me yesterday what airplane I would buy if I had a blank check. With the GFC 700 now in the Epic, it would absolutely be the E1000 GX.

  • The Avidyne Equipped Cirrus Upgrade

    ByHank Gibson

    A History Lesson

    11 years ago, in April of 2009, the Avidyne Corporation unveiled the much bally-hooed Release 9, or R9 as it is commonly known, as a hardware replacement for the Avidyne EX5000 Entegra system in Cirrus Aircraft. The Entegra system was way outdated by that point. Even though Avidyne was the first company to put together a glass PFD in a single engine piston airplane, the company had quickly fallen behind Garmin in keeping up with the ever changing technology landscape.

    Rewind to 2008. Cirrus had been going strong with the Avidyne Entegra since the SR20 and SR22 went to full glass in 2003 (a PFD and an MFD; prior to that, Cirrus aircraft only had an MFD with steam gauges and a Sandel Electronic HSI). Cessna, on the other hand, vaulted past the Avidyne Entegra and went straight to the Garmin G1000 in it’s aircraft, starting in 2004 with the 182 G1000 and 2005 with the 172 G1000. Beechcraft and Columbia went to the G1000 (Columbia started with the Avidyne as well) in 2005.

    Garmin’s technology in 2007 was so much better than Avidyne’s technology that Cirrus decided to switch. I’m sure there were many promises made by Avidyne to Cirrus about what Avidyne was working on (the R9), but the G1000 was out there, available, and being used in a lot of different airplanes with very good results.

    So, in 2008, Cirrus made the switch from the Avidyne Entegra to the Garmin G1000, dubbing it the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin avionics package. Avidyne finally got the R9 to market in 2009, but by that time, Piper was the only airplane manufacturer left putting factory Avidyne panels in their airplanes, and they switched to G1000 later that year.

    The R9 is a fabulous product. It’s fully integrated, has great graphics, has fully redundant displays, a QWERTY keypad (which, by the way, Garmin didn’t do for another 8 years), and a lot of other neat features. There’s a bit of a learning curve, but it’s a really good product for what it is.

    Avidyne, though, was late to the game with their technology. By the time it debuted in 2009, all the GA aircraft manufacturers had long since switched to the Garmin G1000 and weren’t looking back. That left Avidyne with the retrofit market for the many different Avidyne Entegra Cirrus aircraft out there. The only problem was, the retrofit was $80,000 ($95,000 if you wanted to throw in the DFC 100 Autopilot, which is a must have) and not many owners were up for paying that much money, then or now.

    To sum up our brief history lesson, Avidyne knew the Entegra needed to go, but couldn’t get the R9 out quickly enough to convince anyone to stick with Avidyne products. The retrofit market didn’t amount to many sales, so Avidyne doesn’t even make the R9 anymore.

    As a side note, I really, really like the Avidyne R9 and am sad that it didn’t make it into more airplanes.

    So, when the Avidyne Entegra starts to have issues, what’s an owner to do? Keep reading!

    There is Hope

    There are thousands of Cirrus aircraft out there flying with the Avidyne Entegra instrumentation, which is basically 20 year old technology (I’ve had a computer engineer tell me the programming in an Entegra is Windows 98 tech). These things are going to start having problems at some point (many already have), but what solution do owners have that is cost effective and get’s them new technology?

    Remember that little company named Garmin? Well, they have come through again. Announced this summer, the Garmin G500 TXi is now certified as a replacement in the Cirrus Avidyne Entegra equipped aircraft. This means pulling out both the PFD and MFD and replacing them with the G500 TXi on both sides. Engine data is also displayed on the G500TXi MFD, including the percent power and TIT indications, if equipped.

    Cirrus SR22 Equipped with Dual G500 TXi Screens and Dual Garmin GTN 650Xi GPS Units

    The cost for the panel? Two 10.6″ G500 TXi’s run about $16,000 apiece for the units, not including labor. $32,000 for a brand new panel isn’t terrible. Plus, the G500 TXi’s work with the DFC90 autopilot if the Cirrus is already equipped with it. If not, the Garmin GFC 500 autopilot is now approved for the Cirrus at a relatively low price of $7,000, including the servos.

    Still have the original Garmin 430s in your Cirrus? Upgraded to the Avidyne IFD 540/440 stack? Put in dual GTN 650Xi’s? Put in a GTN 750Xi? All are compatible with the G500 TXi panel.

    Want to upgrade everything? It does get kind of pricey at that point, but for just equipment, the cost for a complete panel conversion is somewhere in the area of $65,000 plus labor, still below what the R9 cost, but not cheap either. That would include 2 G500 TXi’s, 2 GTN 650Xi’s, a GFC 500 Autopilot, and all the engine monitoring equipment that the G500 TXi would need.

    Cirrus SR22 Equipped with Dual G500 TXi Screens, a GTN 750Xi, and a GTN 650Xi

    Thankfully, some new technology has finally come to the Generation 1-3 Cirrus. Oh, and by the way, your steam gauge Cirrus is fully upgradable as well.

    Want to read more? Check out Garmin’s website.

  • Flying Through Rain

    ByHank Gibson

    For the most part, flying through rain is a non-event. If the NexRad or Radar is showing light green or dark green, usually there aren’t that many bumps and your plane just gets a wash. Sometimes the visibility drops down a little bit making us IFR pilots have to transition to our instruments.

    It get’s a little more exciting when the precipitation on your screen turns to yellow. This means there is a lot more precipitation echoes either in the clouds or coming out of the clouds, meaning harder rain. I usually tend to stay away from yellow unless it’s absolutely necessary to go through it.

    I had a situation a few weeks ago where I deemed it necessary to fly through some yellow NexRad returns. I was flying a G1000 Columbia into Monroe, Louisiana, KMLU. The winds were mostly light, but slightly favoring runway 04, which was the runway in use. As I got closer, a decent size rain shower with mostly yellow returns was sitting over the final approach fix for runway 04 and slowly tracking to the northeast.

    I didn’t particularly want to spend the entire approach getting beat on with rain, so I decided to fly the RNAV 14 approach at MLU and circle to land on runway 04. The rain hadn’t quite reached the airport yet, so I decided that circling to 04 should be no problem.

    I started the RNAV 14 at the FLESH IAF. Since I was approaching from the west, I did not need to do the procedure turn, so I joined the Final Approach Course (FAC) after crossing FLESH.

    In the meantime, that rain shower was inching closer to the FAC for the RNAV 14. I wasn’t concerned about my safety if I flew through some of it and I didn’t have passengers on board who would get nervous, so I elected to continue. I wasn’t seeing any lightning coming out of the clouds, so it appeared to only be moderate rain.

    Just before I got to JIVEY, the FAF, I entered the clouds and the rain. About 20 seconds later, my altimeter and airspeed started bouncing around a lot. Now, based on all I’ve said so far, what would cause that, and what would you do?

    (Jeopardy theme song playing while contestants ponder questions)

    The answers? Due to the moderate precipitation, water had gotten into my static port and caused the unusual readings on my altimeter and airspeed indicators on the G1000.

    I had experienced this before, so I knew what to do. I reached down and turned the static source from primary to alternate, which starts taking static pressure from inside the cabin in the Columbia. Instantly, everything went normal.

    The other time I had experienced this was also in a Columbia, so I’m under the impression that the way the Columbia static ports are designed, they are a little bit more susceptible to water creeping into them than other airplanes.

    Moral of the story? If your pitot/static instruments start jumping around, the first thing you do is turn your alternate static source on.

  • Removing a Hold on Foreflight Approach

    ByHank Gibson

    I’m a big fan of having my Foreflight map always match up exactly with the way I am flying. Having a Flight Stream in the airplane helps a lot with that as it always prompts me to load the new flight plan from the GPS into my Foreflight map. When I load an approach in the GPS flight plan, Foreflight will put it into my Foreflight flight plan via the Flight Stream.

    The problem I run into on Foreflight is when there is a published hold at the Initial Approach Fix (IAF), but ATC has told me to fly the straight in approach and skip the hold. Up until recently, I didn’t think there was a way to set up a straight in approach on Foreflight, so I just settled for the hold staying on there.

    Not anymore! There is a simple trick that I discovered that allows you to remove the hold from the Foreflight flight plan. Here’s how to do it.

    Load the Approach

    The first step is still to load the approach into your Foreflight flight plan on the Map page. In this scenario, we are flying from KAQO, the Llano Airport, to KHYI, the San Marcos Airport. Austin Approach has told us to expect the straight in RNAV 17 KHYI via PUKIY. So, on Foreflight, we have KAQO and KHYI in our flight plan. Then, I tap the Procedures button on the upper right hand corner of the screen. I then tap Approach, then RNAV 17 KHYI. Then I select my transition.

    The options given are either PUKIY with the hold, seen below;

    Or Vectors to Final, which lines me up inside of PUKIY. Neither of these are what I want.

    But, to get this to work, I select PUKIY, then tap add to route. Now we have our approach loaded into our flight plan.

    Removing the Hold

    The RNAV 17 is now in the Foreflight flight plan, but the hold is displayed at PUKIY. To remove the hold, the first step is to tap the approach in green and a menu pops up.

    The 7th option down is “Remove Hold in lieu of PT.” Eureka! Tap that, then the approach is displayed without the hold. Houston, we have success! It even says “NoPT” in the flight plan.