Avidyne Entegra Chart Updates

New Houston Airspace Procedures

ByHank Gibson May 29, 2014

If you are based in Houston, or heading into or out of the Houston airspace under IFR, have you updated your charts?  If not, you may hear a clearance stating: “N67889, cleared to Amarillo via the BORRN 1 Departure, CRGER Transition, Direct.  Climb via the departure, expect 8000 in 10 minutes.  Departure frequency 123.8, Squawk 3365.”  You manage to get the clearance written down, but have completely messed up the spelling of both BORRN and CRGER, so you have no idea where the intersections are.  After stumbling through a readback, you ask ground to spell the fixes for you.

Then, more bad news.  You haven’t updated your GPS cards yet, so the departure isn’t in your 430.  It’s an RNAV only departure, so you can’t fly it based on the NAV Radio.  You were planning on updating your iPad when you got to Amarillo, so you don’t have the departure on there, either.

This has probably already happened to a few people today already.

Houston airspace got a major overhaul today.  There are 20 new DPs and 29 new STARs guiding IFR traffic into and out of Houston airspace (including one named the DOOBI 1 Arrival, named after the Dooby Brothers band).

The FAA’s goal in all these changes, according to AOPA, is to “bring fuel efficiencies, time efficiencies, and reduce carbon emissions” (from Benet J. Wilson’s May 15th article on AOPA.com).  The FAA issued a NOTAM today valid until June 6th describing what routes for pilots to file.  The NOTAM also contains contingency plans for pilots flying without updated charts (like our example above).

Pilots should expect these wide scale procedure additions and changes to start showing up in other Class B airspace across the country.  As always, make sure those charts are updated, GPS databases are current, and you do some studying of your route before you file your flight plan.

The Do’s and Don’ts of Drones

ByAndrew Robinson June 7, 2016June 14, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas Top Aviation at the AOPA Fly-In

ByHank Gibson May 9, 2014

Where were you on April 26th?

Texas Top Aviation was at the AOPA Regional Fly-In at the San Marcos Regional Airport (KHYI).  If you weren’t there, you certainly missed out spending time with 2,500 other airplane and flying enthusiasts!

The day began somewhat gloomy and windy with the threat of rain.  Organizers feared that weather would keep a lot of people from coming.  Boy, were they wrong!

There were many classic airplanes, many modern and pretty nicely equipped airplanes, and everything in between.  There were aviation celebrities, Rod Machado and the Kings of King Schools fame, to name a few.  Not to mention the fabulous BBQ!

Texas Top Aviation had several drawings for free training and 3 lucky winners.  We also had a Lancair Super ES for sale, N132BB (which made the San Marcos Record newspaper!). It definitely stood out with it’s unique paint job.  The flames on the tail drew many oohs and aahs.

Departing the San Marcos Airport after the fly in was like battling traffic in Austin at rush hour (though, Austin doesn’t have any air traffic controllers).  The San Marcos controllers probably hadn’t seen that much traffic since the airport was an Army Air Base back during WWII.  It was quite a sight to see all the exhibitor’s airplanes lined up ready to head skyward.

Thanks to all of you who stopped by the Texas Top Aviation booth!  It was a pleasure meeting all of you and we look forward to working with you in the future!

Lightspeed Zulu 2 vs. The Bose A20

ByHank Gibson September 13, 2014

The debate about which headset is the better product will never cease.  We do know this for sure, though, Lightspeed and Bose make the best noise canceling headsets out there.  David Clark’s offering doesn’t match up with these two.  Newcomer AKG has a light (weight-wise that is, as the headset is equipped with a pair of LED lights as well) ANR headset that the jury is still out on.  For now, Lightspeed and Bose sit atop the ANR kingdom.

The comparison for this article will be between the Lightspeed Zulu 2 and the Bose A20 headsets, both of which I have used quite extensively in my flying career.  I am officially in the Lighspeed camp at this point and after reading my comparison below, you’ll see why.

ANR Functionality

Between the two, the Bose A20 cancels out more noise, no argument there.  This isn’t to say that the Lightspeed Zulu 2 doesn’t.  Quite the opposite, actually.  The Lightspeed Zulu 2 does a great job of canceling the noise.  But with the A20 on in a C172, you can barely hear the engine running.  The difference before you press the power button and after is extremely noticeable.  I had one client turn to me after turning on the noise canceling function of his new A20 headset and state, “These things are awesome!”

The other advantage Bose has is a continuation of the noise canceling.  About the only thing I don’t like about the Lightspeed is if you don’t have the headset sized just right on your head, each time you turn your head to look at something, then the suction gets broken around the ear cup and you get some ambient noise.  My glasses probably don’t help with this.  It’s not that big of a deal, you just have to readjust the size of the headset, but, since I’m a little OCD, it bugs me.  Once I get the set sized right, it’s smooth sailing.

Comfort

Far and away, the Lightspeed Zulu 2 is much more comfortable than the Bose A20.   I flew for 5 hours in the right seat with my Lightspeed set on the other day.  I switched to the left seat for the last leg and used the owner’s A20 headset since it was plugged in on that side already and I noticed quite a bit of difference.  The ear cups seemed to press against my head more.  The pad on top of my head didn’t seem to be as cushiony.  It just wasn’t overall as comfortable as the Lightspeed Zulu 2.

Bose has made a lot of progress from their original noise canceling headsets.  Those didn’t have much of a cushion on top at all.  After about 2.5 hours, the slim ear cushions began to dig in to the side of your head.  So, the A20 has made some progress, but the Lightspeed Zulu 2 takes the cake in comfort.

Weight Distribution

“Wait!”  You Bose boys scream (no pun intended).  “The A20 is lighter than the Zulu 2!”  While this is true (the Zulu 2 weighs in at 15.7 oz while the A20 is only 12 oz), the way that weight is distributed makes a massive amount of difference.  The Lightspeed Zulu 2 feels lighter on top of your noggin than the A20 because the weight of the A20 is firmly planted on the top of your head in a single point.  With the Zulu 2, the weight is distributed evenly across the top of your scalp, so even though the set is heavier, it feels lighter on your head because the weight is not all concentrated on one point.

All this adds up to why I like the Lightspeed Zulu 2 more than the Bose A20.  As for a practical example, I wore my Lightspeed Zulu 2 set for 9.1 hours one day two weeks ago.  Needless to say, it was a long day.  But, once I climbed out of the airplane, I had no pain on the top of my head and only a very little where my glasses ran along the side of my head.  Now I call that a winner.

The RDD LX7

ByHank Gibson December 11, 2017December 23, 2017

Have a Lancair IV-P?

Want to make it better than a Cirrus or a Cessna TTx?

Meet the team at RDD creating the LX7.  Just make sure you are sitting down as you are about to be blown away.

RDD (Research. Design. Development) is a professional building company for the Lancair line of experimental aircraft (Lancair unveiled the Mako at Osh Kosh this summer, which performs slightly less than the advertised values of the LX7, but is available as a new kit).  For those unfamiliar with the experimental world, when an experimental kit is bought, the owner/builder can build the entire aircraft himself, partially build it then send it to a completion center, or have a professional build company put it together.  This last option is what RDD did with Lancair aircraft before Lancair moved from Oregon to Uvalde, TX.

Once Lancair was sold, RDD started thinking on how to make the IV-P better.  Boy, did they.  What resulted is the LX7.

The LX7 is a retractable gear, single engine piston, pressurized aircraft that sits 4.  See it on the ramp and it looks like a Lancair or a Columbia.  Sit in the cockpit and you’ll know something is different.

Starting with the power plant, RDD put a Continental TSIO 550-E engine in the IV-P airframe, giving the airplane 350 HP.  They redesigned the wing to hold 180 gallons of usable fuel and a much better stalling envelope (anyone who has looked at a Lancair IV or IV-P wing knows that there isn’t much wiggle room with angle of attack on those airplanes), lowering the stall speed to 62 knots dirty.

The cabin is roomier and the panel is beautiful.  Equipped with 2 or 3 Garmin G3X Touch panels (the experimental equivalent of the G2000), plus a GTN 750 and a fully digital backup flight instrument from Grand Rapids, plus ESP technology built in to the autopilot, this plane seems like a pilot’s dream.

I haven’t even gotten to the best part:  the speed.  Being pressurized, the LX7 has a 25,000 foot service ceiling where it can achieve cruise speeds of 260 knots at best power (24 GPH) and 250 knots at best economy (18 GPH).

Yes, I did just say 250 knots at 18 GPH in a single engine piston.

With 180 gallons of fuel.

Make sure you bring a Travel John.

Worried about an experimental?  The airframe is equipped with a full BRS system similar to the Cirrus SR22, keeping everyone safe and sound.

There is one flying LX7 currently and RDD is working on 3 more.  The price tag for the full conversion is $550,000.  The kicker is, the owner has to provide the Lancair IV-P airframe.  There are currently 10 Lancair IV-Ps for sale on Controller, varying in price from $200,000-$400,000, bringing the total price of the project to $750,000-$950,000.  Owners who already have a IV-P or a IV-P kit can send it on over to RDD to get started on their project.