There has always been something that felt wrong to me about how the walkway on many models of Beechcraft extends onto the right hand flap. I have never felt right about stepping onto the flap as I make my way into and out of my dad’s E33A Bonanza and therefore I generally try to step over top of it and place my foot on the wing instead. But does this effort actually make any difference, or am I just making my self look silly for no reason?
Well, as it turns out, it wasn’t such a bad idea. In 2007, a pilot flying a Beech reported a split flap condition. Upon inspection, it was found that there was damage to the actuation rod attachment as well as the nose rib and nut plates. Six other aircraft were checked and found to have similar damage. These findings were submitted to Hawker Beechcraft and in 2008 and they issued a maintenance alert regarding the issue. In 2011 the FAA issued SAIB CE-11-21 (Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin) to alert owners, operators, and maintenance personnel about the problem; specifically warning of the potential for cracking in the nose flap rib (part number 35-165050-84). And while its true that this type of damage is not limited to the right hand flap, it is known to be much more common on that side. Stepping over the flap instead of on it is recommended by both the FAA and Beechcraft as a solution.
Unfortunately, the flap cracking is known to span a wide variety of aircraft types. A 2011 “Safety Communique” issued by Hawker Beechcraft lists the affected models as:
-Bonanza 33, 35, and 36
-Baron 55, 56, 58, and 95
-Duke 60
Damage at the flap actuator point (Photo Courtesy of AOPA)
According the the FAA, the cracking can been found most commonly on airframes which are between 4,000 and 6,500 hours, but has also been found on aircraft with as few as 2,000.
So, what do we do about it?
First off, although much of the damage is difficult to detect without dis-assembly, the paperwork from both the FAA and Beechcraft recommend taking a look at the flap yourself to see if there are any obvious signs of problems. They also suggest taking special care looking in this area during your preflight inspections.
Next, if you have an airplane which may be susceptible to cracking, talk to who ever is doing your maintenance work and have them look carefully during your annual inspections. I talked to one of the IA’s at our shop who has dealt with this issue before and he told me that most shops will remove the flap and send it away to a repair station to have it fixed. It’s possible that if you purchased your airplane used it may have already had this issue taken care of; a quick look through the maintenance logbooks should clear up any questions.
Repaired rib next to a damaged rib (Courtesty: AOPA)
Regardless of whether your airplane is known to suffer from this problem or not, do your best to avoid stepping on the flap when getting in and out of the cockpit. It is also a good idea to ask your passengers to do the same as this simple act could end up saving you big headaches and big money someday down the road.
For more information regarding the flap issues discussed above, talk to your maintenance provider and visit these links:
Thunderstorms are not to be taken lightly. I know you have probably heard that many times in your flying career. Weather related accidents account for approximately 25% of airline and GA accidents.
The Airman’s Information Manual suggests giving a 20 mile berth around thunderstorms. If you are an experienced aviator or a newbie please take this piece of advice seriously. At one flight school where I taught, we had the policy of maintaining a 25 mile buffer around isolated thunderstorms. A bit excessive you think? Maybe, but safety is a good thing!
On this particular day, I was operating a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter during a power line patrol. Power line patrol by itself offers numerous challenges. The job consists of flying along electric power transmission lines at approximately 40 feet above the ground at 40 knots. The crew consisted of me (the pilot) and an observer. The observer is an employee of the power company and it is his job to determine which line(s) will be patrolled during the given day. As I fly along the lines, the observer is checking for anything out of the ordinary such as broken, cracked, or even shot out insulators, excessively large bird nests at the top of structures, or woodpecker holes in wooden poles. The observer knows the lines and he is also a great help in letting me know there is a crossing, and potentially higher, line in our flight path. That makes him a true safety asset! It was late afternoon during the summer and we were about to finish up for the day. We only had about another 10 miles of line to follow before calling it a day. Up ahead, I noticed an isolated thunderstorm near our power line. I could see the heavy rain falling below the anvil shaped leading clouds. It appeared to be well beyond the end of our day’s work so we pressed on.
As we drew closer to the thunderstorm, we were suddenly tossed up on our left side like a dog toy in mid-flight! It seemed like we were 90 degrees to our normal cruise attitude and, to make it worse, we had the doors off on that hot summer day. I was able to recover and we did an immediate about face and high tailed it home. Forget the rest of that line, tomorrow is another day.
The destructive force of thunderstorms cannot be overstated. In addition to extremely heavy rain, they can contain strong wind shear, large hail, and severe turbulence, each of which can damage or destroy an aircraft. Take care when one of these bad boys is near your flight path. Give it plenty of respect and a lots of room, for safety’s sake.
Alan VanDoren is a 7000 hour ATP pilot. He has flown both fixed wing and helicopters as a police pilot, missionary pilot, flight instructor, and most recently as an EMS pilot. He has flown in five countries around the world and also teaches university level aviation courses in his spare time.
Thunderstorms are not to be taken lightly. I know you have probably heard that many times in your flying career. Weather related accidents account for approximately 25% of airline and GA accidents. The Airman’s Information Manual suggests giving a 20 mile berth around thunderstorms. If you are an experienced aviator or a newbie please take…
Earlier this month, Eclipse Aerospace and Kestrel Aircraft merged to form ONE Aviation. Most pilots are familiar with Eclipse, who makes the Eclipse 550 jet, but not many have heard of Kestrel Aircraft.
Kestrel Aircraft is run by Alan Klapmeier, co-founder of Cirrus Aircraft and brother to Dale Klapmeier, who still runs Cirrus. Klapmeier joined Kestrel in 2010 and brought innovation to the K350 Turboprop design that Kestrel was developing. Kestrel has been lacking in investors to further their project, but the merger will help a lot in getting more funding. Klapmeier assumed the CEO role for ONE Aviation.
The merger will also help bring more innovations to the Eclipse 550. The original Eclipse Jet was a miserable failure and the company went into bankruptcy in 2009. The Eclipse Jet came back to market in 2013 as the Eclipse 550 with many much needed improvements, including making GPS a standard amenity.
Klapmeier and his genius will lead ONE Aviation in good directions. The K350 will come to market a lot sooner as more investors will be drawn to the company, while the Eclipse 550 will continue to see new and innovative developments.
Earlier this month, Eclipse Aerospace and Kestrel Aircraft merged to form ONE Aviation. Most pilots are familiar with Eclipse, who makes the Eclipse 550 jet, but not many have heard of Kestrel Aircraft. Kestrel Aircraft is run by Alan Klapmeier, co-founder of Cirrus Aircraft and brother to Dale Klapmeier, who still runs Cirrus. Klapmeier joined…
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 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:
If you have less than 100 hours of time-in-type or have not flown at least 15 hours as pilot in command in the last 90 days, use a minimum planned fuel reserve of one hour.
Also, if flying IFR in this situation, use a minimum visibility for takeoff of 1 mile.
On instrument approaches, increase the published minimums by one- half mile visibility and add 200 feet to the decision altitude or minimum descent altitude.
Perform landings at a weight that allows a full stop in 60 percent of available runway length.
Consider an SOP that establishes you will fly with a CFI on a refresher flight before flying as pilot in command if you have not logged at least an hour of flight time and one takeoff and landing in an aircraft of the same type within the preceding 45 days.
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…
My first chief flight instructor had an addage he would impart to his flight instructors when we began working at that flight school. “Pitch + Power = Performance” he would tell us. Then he’d glare at us and follow up with, “nobody teaches that right, so make sure your students know it.”
Now, having been a CFI for seven years, I would tend to agree with him. I have moved on from doing mostly primary training to transition training. Transition training is taking someone who is already a pilot and teaching them how to fly a different type of airplane. In jets, you get a type rating. In piston engine airplanes, there is no FAA requirement to go through any type of extra training as long as you are rated in category and class (eg. single engine piston). But, insurance companies know that Mr. Fresh Private Pilot can’t just hop from a Cessna 172 into a Cirrus SR22 or a Bonanza, so they require transition training before insuring those pilots.
What did my chief instructor mean when he imparted his wisdom? He was speaking about a particular phase of flight, the final approach phase, regardless of whether it’s a VFR approach or an IFR approach. The pitch of the airplane and the power setting of the airplane have to be utilized together to achieve the proper speed and descent rate (performance).
VFR
On the final approach leg of a VFR pattern, most piston engine aircraft are configured with landing gear down and flaps down in the landing position. This puts the airplane on the back side of the power curve in the region of reverse command. In the region of positive command, in cruise, for example, the more power you add, the faster you are going to go and, if you pitch up, you will go up and you pitch down, you will go down. But, they work together (if you point the nose down, you will accelerate unless you reduce the power); remember, Pitch + Power = Performance.
In the region of reverse command, the pitch controls the airspeed and the power controls your rate of descent, but, again, they work together. Let’s say the airplane is 5 knots above it’s approach speed on final. Initially, the pilot will need to pitch up slightly to bleed off that airspeed. The airplane will want to climb, so as he is pitching up, he’ll need to make a slight power reduction to stay on glide slope.
Alternatively, let’s say the airplane is high, but is on speed. The pilot will make a power reduction to descend to the glide path, but he’ll also need to pitch down to maintain the proper airspeed.
What you don’t want to do is this: if the airplane is high on final, don’t push the nose down to try and get down. This does cause the airplane to lose altitude quickly, but the airspeed increases quickly. With a higher airspeed, the airplane has a lot more energy to dissipate when it gets to the runway, meaning you’ll float longer which can lead to forcing the airplane down or using up too much runway and not being able to get the airplane stopped in time.
IFR
On an instrument approach, you are on the front side of the power curve. When trying to stay on glide slope, the power is controlling the speed of the airplane and the pitch is keeping the airplane on glide slope. This can be a little bit confusing for VFR pilots transitioning to instrument approaches as they are not used to being on the front side of the power curve.
Keeping in mind that Pitch + Power = Performance, let’s put the airplane above the glide slope on an ILS approach. In order to get down to the glide slope, the pitch needs to be lowered as much as needed (it’s always better to pick a pitch attitude to fly and see if it is working to bring the glide slope back to center. If it doesn’t work, pick a new one. Don’t just push the nose down until the glide slope moves) and the power needs to be reduced to maintain airspeed (again, pick a specific power setting). Once the glide slope centers, then the pitch will be raised slightly and the power will need to be increased to hold glide slope and speed respectively.
My first chief flight instructor had an addage he would impart to his flight instructors when we began working at that flight school. “Pitch + Power = Performance” he would tell us. Then he’d glare at us and follow up with, “nobody teaches that right, so make sure your students know it.” Now, having been…
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.
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…
Almost all IFR pilots are familiar with visual approaches and what the requirements are in order to fly a visual approach. As a refresher, the Instrument Procedures Handbook defines a Visual Approach as “an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an [Instrument Approach Procedure]” (page 4-56).
For ATC to issue a Visual Approach, the pilot must have the airport or the traffic to follow in sight. Once the pilot reports the airport or the traffic in sight, ATC can clear the aircraft for a visual approach.
A limiting factor for a visual approach is ATC’s Minimum Vectoring Altitude. “This altitude, based on terrain and obstruction clearance, provides controllers with minimum altitudes to vector aircraft in and around a particular location” (Instrument Procedures Handbook page 1-42). ATC has to restrict aircraft to these MVAs, which can sometimes be quite high due to terrain or obstacles in the vicinity of the airport.
Every pilot has been in a situation with a high MVA that ATC can’t get them below, but it’s solidly MVFR or VFR at the destination airport. The MVA keeps the pilot in the clouds, so a visual approach isn’t possible since the pilot can’t see the airport or the traffic to follow. This can lead to extra time to go out and fly an approach.
Enter a Contact Approach. A Contact Approach is different then a Visual Approach. “The main differences between a visual approach and a contact approach are: a pilot must request a contact approach, while a visual approach may be assigned by ATC or requested by the pilot; and a contact approach may be approved with 1sm visibility if the flight can remain clear of clouds, while a visual approach requires the pilot to have the airport in sight, or a preceding aircraft to be followed, and the ceiling must be at least 1,000 feet AGL with at least 3sm visibility” [Instrument Procedures Handbook page 4-57].
Here’s the simplified explanation: A pilot does not have to have the airport in sight to request a contact approach. All that is required is for the airport to be reporting at least 1sm visibility and for the pilot to remain clear of clouds.
When would this be helpful for an IFR pilot? Good question. Here’s a scenario.
Pilot Smalls is about 20 minutes from his destination, which is an uncontrolled airport with only one approach to runway 17. He is approaching from the south and the initial approach fix for the approach to 17 is about 15 miles north of the airport. The airport is under Center control. When he has arrived at this destination in the past, Center usually could only vector him down to 4,000 AGL. He is very familiar with this airport and the surrounding area as he comes to this destination at least 2-3 times a month for business.
Pilot Smalls listens to the AWOS, which is reporting a 2500 foot scattered layer and 10 miles visibility. He knows it is right traffic for 17 since there is a 2,000 foot antenna on the east side of the field. There is some hilly terrain around, but all the terrain is well below pattern altitude and doesn’t cause a safety issue.
Looking out at the clouds, Pilot Smalls observes that the cloud layer is scattered to broken, but more scattered on the west side of the airport, with several large openings that he can see the ground through. Center asks for his approach request and Pilot Smalls requests a visual approach. Center gives him a descent to 4,000 AGL, their MVA for the area. They tell him to report the airport in sight for the visual approach.
At 4,000 AGL, Pilot Smalls is going through the scattered layer of clouds, but can see the ground in between the clouds and deems he has room to maneuver safely between the clouds and stay clear of them. He can’t see the airport, so a visual approach seems unlikely. He can’t cancel IFR because then he would have to keep the VFR cloud clearance and visibility requirements in Class E airspace (1,000 feet above, 500 below and 2sm horizontally), which isn’t possible in this case.
5 miles from the airport, ATC states, “N12345, I’m going to have to send you out for the approach since you don’t have the airport in sight.” Pilot Smalls then requests a Contact Approach. ATC clears him for the Contact Approach to his destination, so Pilot Smalls descends through a break in the clouds, remaining clear of clouds, until he gets below the base of the ceiling. He maneuvers onto the right downwind, lands and cancels IFR.
Contact approaches can be useful at controlled and uncontrolled airports. The first time you request one, do so with a higher ceiling and some room to maneuver to keep your safety margins. After you’ve done a few, you can determine what your personal minimums are for a Contact Approach.
I would not recommend doing a Contact Approach at an airport you are unfamiliar with. It’s vital to know what obstacles are around since on a Contact Approach, the pilot is now responsible for traffic avoidance and terrain avoidance, whereas on a visual approach, ATC resumes that responsibility.
Almost all IFR pilots are familiar with visual approaches and what the requirements are in order to fly a visual approach. As a refresher, the Instrument Procedures Handbook defines a Visual Approach as “an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is…
