Cessna TTx Production Ceases

ByHank Gibson

Sadly, in January, a pretty great airplane was put out to pasture.  Textron (the conglomerate that now owns Cessna, Beechcraft, Hawker, and Lycoming) announced it was ceasing production of the Cessna TTx.  With the end of the Cessna TTx production, an airplane that was the main “competitor” to Cirrus (if you can call it competition; Cirrus consistently outsold the Cessna TTx by a wide margin each year), it leaves the SR series to stand alone atop the High Performance piston single market.

I got to go through Cessna’s FITS Accepted Instructor (CFAI) course back in 2012 and have flown in the Cessna 350 and 400 (which is what they were known as at the time; the Cessna TTx name came around in 2011) for about 120 hours.  I really like the airplanes.  I’m partial to the Cirrus, but the Cessna 350 & 400 are fast airplanes and great for 1-2 people.  I flew a 350 (the non-turbo charged version) from New York to San Antonio last fall and routinely saw 170 knots at 12 GPH.

Columbia started out making the 350 & 400 (the turbo-charged version) in the early 2000s, but went bankrupt in 2007.  Lancair started Columbia to make a certified version of their popular kit planes.  If you see a Lancair ES floating around, you would swear it’s a Columbia with only 1 door.  Cessna bought the design from Columbia in 2007 to begin manufacturing the airplanes themselves.

Cessna then made a huge mistake as they moved the production facility from Bend, Oregon to Mexico. Production completely halted in 2009 as the planes coming out of Mexico were found to have defective composite work.  The sales never really recovered, even though Cessna put the Garmin G2000 panel in the Cessna TTx, complete with a touchscreen key pad.  A FIKI system was added as an option in 2012.

A prospective buyer can still get a great value on a used 350, 400, or TTx, as they are valued a little lower than a Cirrus.  The 350, 400 or TTx all make excellent single pilot or two person speedsters with very comfortable amenities.

Information for this article was taken from Flying Magazine’s website.

Similar Posts

  • Checking The Stall Warning Horn

    ByHank Gibson

    When a pilot first glances at the title of this article, the first thought that probably goes through that pilot’s head is, well that’s easy.

    And it is, if you are flying a high wing Cessna. On other airplanes, there are a few tricks to checking the stall warning horn. If you get them wrong, you’re liable to get a bill from your maintenance shop for an hour of labor for a problem they couldn’t duplicate.

    Cirrus SR22

    Let’s start with the Cirrus. On the pre-FIKI Cirrus aircraft, there was a small little hole in the wing that contained a diaphragm. That diaphragm sensed a change in airflow at a certain angle of attack just below the critical angle of attack and set off the stall warning horn. Unfortunately, the only way to check that is to suck on the hole during pre-flight.

    I don’t. I verify the hole is clear and that’s about it.

    On the FIKI Cirrus aircraft, there is actually a stall warning vane. It looks like a high wing Cessna vane, but if you turn the batteries on and try and get it to come on during your light and pitot heat check, nada.

    Here’s the trick, and the checklist doesn’t do a good job of describing this.

    • Turn on the Avionics Master
    • Turn on the speaker
    • Put the flaps to full
    • Then move the stall warning vane and you’ll hear the horn

    The speaker and the Avionics Master are so you can actually hear the horn (if you had the headset on while you were doing this, the speaker would be unnecessary). The flaps have to be full because the pitch attitude for the critical angle of attack is lower with the flaps down, so the horn goes off when at a different angle. You then don’t have to use as much force to push the vane.

    Piper PA46

    The early -310P Malibus are pretty simple and straight forward. Move the vane, get the horn.

    In the -350P, you can’t get the horn to come on by moving the vane. So, Piper put a stall test button that’s hidden underneath the upper left side of the instrument panel. Push that to test the horn. On the G1000 PA46, it is located directly above the PFD. On the Avidyne, it’s below and to the left of the pilot’s yoke.

    Testing the stall warning horn is a very important part of pre-flight. A pilot needs to know if the aircraft is close to a stall. The advent of Angle of Attack indicators in small, GA aircraft, have added a greater awareness to the angle of attack during all phases of flight to avoid those stall spins.

    If the stall warning horn goes off or the AOA shows yellow, lower that nose immediately.

    When a pilot first glances at the title of this article, the first thought that probably goes through that pilot’s head is, well that’s easy. And it is, if you are flying a high wing Cessna. On other airplanes, there are a few tricks to checking the stall warning horn. If you get them wrong,…

  • Jeppesen vs. Aeroservices Charts

    ByStephanie Mertz

    Many people ask, which set of charts is better? Should I use the FAA Aeroservices charts on Foreflight or pay extra for the Jeppesen charts? Since you have to pay for Jeppesen, they are probably better, right?

    I am not here to say which one is better as a chart preference is just that, a preference for one over the other or for certain features. After a while, muscle memory and routine take over and you probably wont even notice the difference.

    History

    In 1934, Elroy Jeppesen began making his own charts and sold them to other pilots. His little company grew into the giant Boeing chart company we know today. Jeppesen charts are used internationally and therefore include information that might otherwise seem common knowledge, like transition altitudes. The key is, you cannot get FAA Aeroservices charts for international destinations. Jeppesen is the only option for outside the US.

    National Aerospace Charting Office (NACO), or the new(er) name “Aeroservices” or FAA chart, whatever you decide to call them, are United States government issued charts. In addition to civilian use, Aeroservices charts are used by the military so there will be some terminology that does not apply to civilians. The best part about FAA Aeroservices charts are… they’re free!

    If you are in the middle of a transition or trying to decide which charts to use, you have come to the right place. Here are a few key differences.

    Obstacle Departure Procedure Chart
    KAXX (Angel Fire, New Mexico) ODP

    1. Frequencies: FAA Chart provides the AWOS so you have all departure frequencies in once place.
    2. Airport: Jeppesen highlight the airport, which is a nice feature so you can easily see the flow from the airport.
    3. Notes and Remarks: Jeppesen bolds the speed restriction all over the chart so you won’t miss it. All other requirements are in the top right corner. Note the transition altitude 18,000′. Since Jeppesen is used internationally, it is published on the chart since other countries have different transition altitudes. It takes up a chunk of chart real estate, but it’s clear, easy to read, and always in the same place. The FAA charts post all the requirements and restrictions as notes off to the side. Since it’s in the same space as the chart graphic, it’s easy for the eyes to catch while studying the plate.
    4. Take off Minimums: NOT APPLICABLE for PART 91 – however, it’s wise for all pilots to look and abide by them. Jeppesen displays the standard take off minimums table, as well as the rate of climb table, which is nice to have all in one place. The FAA chart gives the non standard information but you need to know/look up the rest in the Digital Terminal Procedures Supplemental document. (Hint: It’s in the Documents section of Foreflight)
    5. Take Off Obstacles: About the same on both charts
    6. Route Description: Similar on both charts, but larger font and clearer description on the FAA chart. When there are different routes from different runways, the FAA chart layout is really helpful.
    7. Graphic Layout: Jeppesen and FAA use the same graphics for all their different charts and plates which makes it easy to read once you are familiar with the respective charts. FAA charts are easy to read and distractions are kept to a minimum. Jeppesen charts make things bold and enlarge pertinent information so you won’t miss it.
    8. Airport altitude: This is only on the Jeppesen chart (the FAA chart doesn’t include it), but it is very helpful for situational awareness. As you brief the arrival altitudes, I think it’s important to have an idea what AGL you are at.

    Approach Charts

    One thing pilots love about Jeppesen approach charts is the clear set up for an approach brief. The top section is created as a “briefing strip” starting with the frequencies, then navigation frequencies, minimums, airport elevation and the missed approach. It’s very natural and user friendly.

    FAA charts have a slightly bigger picture of the approach planview, but the profile view and minimums section can get a bit cluttered. It can feel a little discontinuous when briefing the approach to bounce all over the page. However, some pilots really like the small airport diagram in the corner, which I find really helpful for situational awareness (particularly for students learning circle approaches). Non- standard alternate and takeoff minimums are also clearly noted, but unfortunately we must hunt elsewhere to find them. The Jeppesen alternate minimums and takeoff minimums will both be on the airport diagram

    1. Frequencies: Getting weather and tuning radios is easy on the Jeppesen charts – just follow the briefing strip. The frequency section on the FAA charts is still easy to read, but closer to the center of the page. It’s split up from the nav frequencies and other important briefing information.
      a. FAA charts are created by the government and have military specific information, which are the odd looking frequencies and channels on the chart.
    2. Approach Navigation: On a Jeppesen chart, you will continue to the next line to verify your frequency, course and set minimums (assuming you are straight in on the ILS). On the FAA chart, you will then have to skip to the top of the chart to get the frequency and course, and then scan to the bottom of the page to input your minimums. However, since you could be flying a localizer approach or a circle to land, it’s a good reminder that not everyone using this approach chart will be using the same Decision Altitude (DA). The FAA chart also includes runway distance information so pilots can make determinations of approach speeds and stopping distance if the runway is wet or icy.
    3. Missed Approach – Textual
    4. Approach Lighting
    5. Missed Approach- Graphical: The missed approach information is the same on both charts. The lighting information is key for determining a missed approach and is next to the missed approach text on the FAA chart. It’s found next to the missed approach graphic on the Jeppesen chart. Personally, I find it easier to find and read the lighting information on the Jeppesen chart. Remember, on both charts, the placement of the PAPI on the chart indicates the physical location of the lights (left or right of the runway).
    6. Notes: Both charts have a notes box, but they use them a little differently. Once again, remember that Jeppesen charts are used internationally and include the transition altitudes and altimeter setting info. On both charts, the notes section will be where other critical information will be shared which isn’t really applicable for this airport. On the FAA chart, the tower frequency is starred to note that there are operating hours (you’ll have to check the chart supplement AF/D to find out what those hours are). There is also an L next to the frequency to indicate it is the pilot controlled lighting frequency. You will also find the note about the VGSI and the Approach Glide path next to the profile view on the FAA chart, whereas the Jeppesen chart has that note in the notes section at the top. The FAA chart also has the T and an A in black triangles to note that this airport has non- standard alternate and take off minimums. Again, those are found in separate documents when using FAA charts and on the Airport Diagram when using Jeppesen charts.
    7. Minimum Sector Altitude: Similar on both charts, but in different locations (reminder: ATC vector altitudes may be lower. It is the pilot’s responsibility for safety of flight to maintain safe obstacle clearance, so if you are ever concerned about going below the MSA – just ask ATC).
    8. Planview: Other then differences in size, visuals, and text, the information displayed on both is very similar.
    9. Profile View: Again, the displays look different and pilots will have their preference, but the information is the same.
    10. Minimums: Jeppesen charts not only note the category for each approach with its designated letter, but also displays it in knots. It is recommended that if you increase your approach speed (based on flaps or gusty winds or perhaps a faster speed for a circle to land approach) that you should use the higher category minimums. The reference guide makes that easy to look up. The other benefit of the Jeppesen charts is right the table that contains the time from the final approach fix to the missed approach point for a localizer approach, it also shows the rate of descent with the associated ground speed to maintain a 3 degree glideslope. Now there is no excuse not to set pitch and power! The minimums posted in parenthesis are for the military, but RVR in statute miles is also included.
    11. Airport diagram: Only on the FAA charts, this particular feature is particularly useful for situational awareness. The arrow pointing to the runway shows the direction the approach is arriving from so planning a circle to land is a cinch. There is also a lot of other information that can be gathered from the airport diagram for quick reference or to help a disoriented pilot: lighting, displaced thresholds, closed taxiways, and runway placement and lengths. This is easily one of the best perks of an FAA chart.

    Arrival/ Departure Charts: Sewzy 5 Arrival KAUS

    The Jeppesen lay out is very attractive and draws the pilots eye in a clear way to all the important information. The colors pop out, so the required altitudes and speeds are easy to read and remember. The chart, which is the proper scale, shows MORAs , easy to find airports (and runway layouts) and is over all easy to follow. However, the texts, while very clearly laid out, are small and difficult to read and pushed to the very edges of the chart. FAA charts are simple and fairly easy to read, but the airports are not as obvious and the flow to the airport requires a good look. The table on the Jeppesen chart is a really nice format, but the text and Notes for arrivals on the FAA chart are easy to find and much easier to read quickly.

    1. Frequency: FAA charts include the approach frequency on the arrival, which is helpful for having radios tuned. During a busy time when the controller changes your frequency, all you have to do is verify the frequency you already set, rather then totally stop what you’re doing to switch it. The Jeppesen charts add the airport elevation next to the ATIS, which really aids situational awareness.
    2. Notes: Jeppesen notes are clearly numbered and tucked away nicely in a box, but the FAA chart notes pop out in the middle of the page and are easy to skim for pertinent information.
    3. Planview: I think Jeppesen is the clear winner here- it is so easy to read, it only takes one glance to know where the primary airport is and how the arrival flows. The chart being at the proper scale offers the pilot important geographical information and over all is a clean look. Notice the small series of arrows after SMRFF on the the Jeppesen chart; those indicate the pilot should expect radar vectors. The FAA charts include those instructions in the text, but I find the visual reference on the chart helpful. The FAA charts are equally clean, with altitude and speed restrictions easy to read even if they don’t jump out. When there are multiple airports that the arrival serves, the airports are clearly marked, though, I think it would be nice to have a little more information surrounding the primary airport for better situational awareness.
    4. MSA: only on the Jeppesen chart
    5. Primary airport: The runway alignment and grey highlight on the Jeppesen chart stands out very clearly, while the FAA airports are a little more obscure.
    6. Arrival route description: The table on the Jeppesen chart is easy to follow but the text is very small and pushed to the bottom. The route description is much easier to find and read on the FAA chart.

    Airport Diagram

    The Jeppesen Airport Diagram page has it all: frequencies, airport diagram, runway info, take-off minimums, departure procedures and alternate minimums. It’s a one-stop shop. It makes preflight planning easy when its all at your fingertips.

    The FAA charts usually require a little more searching for different pieces of airport information. The Airport Diagram itself is just the airport layout. Above, you will see a simple FAA Airport diagram. It’s clean and simple, perfect for a knee board print out.

    In the flight planning process, as you look at what approaches you will be using for the airport, you might see an A or T inside a triangle. Those indicate that you will need to look in the Alternate Minimum or Take off minimum documents for more information. The Takeoff Minimums document (see below) is also where you will find any obstacle departure procedures for that airport. Apps like Foreflight help you out by posting the take off minimums under the departure tab. Even though it’s a little more difficult to read, I didn’t crop out the airport information so you can see what it looks like in context.

    FAA Alternate Minimums on the Left and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures on the Right

    Many people ask, which set of charts is better? Should I use the FAA Aeroservices charts on Foreflight or pay extra for the Jeppesen charts? Since you have to pay for Jeppesen, they are probably better, right? I am not here to say which one is better as a chart preference is just that, a…

  • 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.

    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,…

  • Selecting the Proper Altitude

    ByHank Gibson

    One of the first questions a student pilot asks me when starting the cross country portion of his or her training is, how do I know what altitude is best for my flight?  This is a good question, because without taking certain aspects of the flight into account, it’s really just a crap shoot when selecting an altitude.  Craps and flying don’t mix, so let’s take a look at a few considerations when selecting an altitude.

    Sky Coverage

    Sky coverage has several subcategories when it comes to selecting an altitude.  First is how high are the bases?  Is it IFR (VFR pilots would be grounded), marginal VFR (1,000 AGL to 3,000 AGL ceiling), or good VFR (above 3,000 AGL ceiling)?  If the cloud deck is only 2,500 feet off the ground, then VFR pilots are limited to either 1,000 AGL to 2,000 AGL.  This is an excellent segue into why VFR pilots shouldn’t scud run!

    Scattered Clouds

    Second, what kind of cloud deck is it?  Is it an actual ceiling (broken or overcast), or is it a scattered layer?  Few or scattered layers usually allow VFR pilots to find a hole to get higher to some smoother air, making the flight more pleasant.  VFR pilots, always make sure to check the destination weather as it could be scattered where you are departing from, but it might be broken or overcast where you are arriving.

    Last, how high are the tops of the clouds?  Pilots can only get this information in the planning stage from the area forecast or from pilot reports, so most of the time, it’s not very precise information.  If the tops are at 10,000 feet and the pilot is flying a 172 on a 30 mile trip, it doesn’t make much sense to get on top of the clouds.

    Terrain and Obstacles

    Terrain goes hand in hand with sky coverage.  If there are low clouds and high terrain, that doesn’t bode well for trying to stay VFR and not hitting anything.  Obstacles need to be taken into account too, as there are some pretty tall radio towers that can stretch up into a 1,500-2,000 AGL deck of clouds.

    Winds Aloft

    Winds Aloft

    Once the sky coverage and terrain have been considered, it’s time to look at the winds aloft.  Tailwinds are preferred, but, sometimes, a headwind is the only option.  After taking the clouds and terrain into account, this narrows down your altitude to a handful of options.  The winds aloft will further narrow it down.

    Aircraft Performance

    Once you have two or three altitudes in mind, taking a look at the performance charts for your airplane will help nail down that final altitude.  Pull out the POH, compare fuel burn and cruise speed, and you’ll have your altitude selected.

    One of the first questions a student pilot asks me when starting the cross country portion of his or her training is, how do I know what altitude is best for my flight?  This is a good question, because without taking certain aspects of the flight into account, it’s really just a crap shoot when…

  • Cirrus CAPS Pull in Arkansas

    ByHank Gibson

    Cirrus CAPS pull #55 took place at the beginning of November over Fayatteville, AR.  From initial reports, it appears a clamp broke on the oil cooler, causing a loss of oil pressure.  It does not appear that the engine immediately quit, but an annunciator alerted the pilot that the engine was losing oil pressure.  At this point, it appears the pilot elected to do an emergency descent to an airport below him, but ended up not timing it right, missing the airport and pulling the parachute.

    As an experienced Cirrus flight instructor, there appears to be some suspect decision making in handling this operation.  I teach in a Cirrus that if an oil light comes on, given that a pilot has some altitude to work with, it is a better option to physically shut the engine down, leaving control of the situation in the pilot’s hands.  This way, the pilot knows when the engine is stopping and is prepared for it, instead of the engine acting erratically and causing problems on the descent.

    After checking the engine gauges and shutting the engine down, a pilot should establish best glide first, not nose down and descend at a high rate trying to make an airport.  Best glide gives the pilot many more options and a lot more altitude to work with, further allowing him/her to plan how to make an airport directly underneath the airplane.

    To pontificate, it seems that if the pilot had adjusted the plane to best glide, instead of performing an emergency descent, there is the possibility that Drake Field would have been reachable, the chute would not have been needed, and the driver of the truck would not have had to visit the hospital.  Hindsight is 20-20, but this may be an overall training and decision making issue that may need further emphasis.

    The initial NTSB report as well as a link to the CBS story is below.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/pilot-forced-to-deploy-emergency-parachute-in-arkansas/

    NTSB Identification: CEN16LA026
    14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
    Accident occurred Tuesday, November 03, 2015 in Fayetteville, AR
    Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22T, registration: N857SW
    Injuries: 3 Minor, 1 Uninjured.
    This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
    On November 3, 2015, at 0950 central standard time, a Cirrus SR22T airplane, N857SW, descended under the canopy of the cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and landed on a road in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The pilot, pilot rated passenger and one person on the ground received minor injuries. One passenger in the back right seat was uninjured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to WG Aviation LLC, Rogers, Arkansas, and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed. The flight departed from the Bentonville Municipal Airport (VBT), Bentonville, Arkansas, at 0934 and was en route to the Waco Regional Airport (ACT), Waco, Texas.

    According to the pilot, after departure from ACT he leveled off around 10,000 ft mean sea level (MSL) and was in “VFR on top” conditions. The pilot noticed that the crew alerting system (CAS) flashed a yellow caution light for oil pressure; the engine was still producing power. The pilot notified air traffic control (ATC) of the issue and received vectors to the nearest airport, Drake Field Airport (FYV), Fayetteville, Arkansas. The pilot descended and maneuvered toward FYV as the CAS indicated a red warning light for oil pressure, which had dropped below 10 psi. The engine was producing inconsistent power as the airplane descended to 3,300 ft and FYV was still not in sight due to cloud coverage. The pilot was unable to maintain altitude and the airplane’s stall warning horned sounded. The pilot deployed the Cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and descended to the ground. During the landing the airplane collided with a truck and then came to rest on a four lane road.

    At 0953, the weather observation at FYV reported wind from 190 at 9 knots, gusting to 17 knots, 10 miles visibility, clear sky, temperature 61° F, dew point 57° F, and altimeter setting 30.11 inches of mercury.

    An initial postaccident examination was conducted on November 4, 2015, in Fayetteville. Engine oil was observed on the underside of the fuselage. The oil cooler cross fitting was broken and oil was observed in the engine compartment.

    The airplane’s recoverable data module and three data cards were removed and sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory for download.

    The airplane has been retained for further examination.

    Cirrus CAPS pull #55 took place at the beginning of November over Fayatteville, AR.  From initial reports, it appears a clamp broke on the oil cooler, causing a loss of oil pressure.  It does not appear that the engine immediately quit, but an annunciator alerted the pilot that the engine was losing oil pressure.  At…

  • A Proper Cross Country Flight Checklist (Part 1)

    ByAndrew Robinson

    I love cross country flights. Airplanes are designed to travel.  When I was instructing private students, my favorite lessons were always the first cross country flights. I looked forward to getting my students out of the pattern, away from the practice area, and showing them what they could really look forward to as a private pilot.

    When I was in college, my friend and I borrowed his dad’s Cessna 150, did a cross country flight in it from Indianapolis to Kitty Hawk, then down the coast to Florida. We camped in the grass next to the airplane wherever the airport managers would let us and had our own aviation adventure complete with mechanical problems, unexpected weather, and interesting people along the way. These types of trips have produced some of the best memories and experiences that I’ve acquired during my aviation career so far.

    Unfortunately, I know many people whose only cross country flight experience is what was necessary to satisfy their Private and Instrument training requirements. Some of them are nervous about the idea of venturing away from the familiarity of their home airport, while others are relatively new pilots who simply don’t know where to start planning a long cross country flight.

    I’ve taken some notes on my preparations for an upcoming cross country flight that I’ll be flying in my dad’s Bonanza. I’m hoping this checklist might help others feel a little more confident that they have everything they need to get going.

    Oil

    Its always a good idea to bring a few extra quarts of oil. If you stop somewhere and find you need some, its nice to have the right kind on hand. Never assume that the airport you’ll be landing at next will have oil available.

    I like to keep a few extra quarts of 15W50 in the back of the Bonanza, just in case (photo from oil-store.com)
    I like to keep a few extra quarts of 15W50 in the back of the Bonanza, just in case (photo from oil-store.com)

    Fuel Stops

    Here is an example of the 100LL price tool as seen on the Foreflight maps page
    Here is an example of the 100LL price tool as seen on the Foreflight maps page

    I’ve learned the hard way that calling ahead to verify fuel availability can be extremely important. I landed at an airport in Ohio one beautiful Sunday morning to find that the FBO wouldn’t be open until much later in the day. Naturally, there was no other fuel available on the field. I hadn’t called ahead to verify the hours of fuel availability (I assumed they had Self Serve) and had only 2 options: wait a while for the FBO to open, or try and find somewhere else nearby that had gas. As far as price, www.100LL.com is a valuable tool for finding cheap fuel. Foreflight also has posted prices for 100LL and Jet A, but it’s still a good idea to call ahead and verify price and availability.

    Batteries for electronics

    It’s miserable to run out of batteries for a noise canceling headset with hours remaining in your flight. Bring spares, not only for your headset, but for your flashlight and other gadgets as well. Make sure your hand held GPS, iPad, and Stratus are charged (if you have them). I like to carry a charge cable and adapter as a backup so that I can plug things into the cigarette lighter.

    Jumper Cables

    We always carry the ground power cable in the back of the Bonanza just in case we ever need a jump. Last month, when I was flying down to Texas, I was glad I had them; we had a dead battery after our fuel stop and had to borrow some power from an FBO worker’s pick up truck. Don’t assume that wherever you are stopping will have the correct cable to jump your airplane, especially if it requires a specific plug.

    These are the cables we keep in the back of the Bonanza (photo from airchief.com)
    These are the cables we keep in the back of the Bonanza (photo from airchief.com)

    Parking Fees

    Every airport is different. I like to call ahead and find out how much the FBO is going to make me pay in landing/overnight fees. When I flew up to Buffalo last summer, I paid 25 dollars for parking at Niagara International (IAG). Had I parked at Buffalo (BUF), they would have charged me over $200.

    Approach plates and charts

    Make sure you have current approach plates and charts either physically available or downloaded before you blast off. Having a copy of an AFD is a good idea as well, be it digital or paper.

    Rental cars

    If you arrange it beforehand, many FBO’s will have the car ready for you upon arrival. You may also be able to drop the car off at the FBO when are finished, instead of taking it back to the rental agency. It sure is nice to have the car pulled up next to the airplane when it’s time to unload.

    Hotels

    Bigger FBO’s may have discounted rates with local hotels. If you call the desk and explain your needs they may offer to book it for you, or at least point you in the right direction. It may be worth picking an airport with more expensive fuel if it puts you closer to the hotels or restaurants you want to go to.

    Come back next month for Part 2!

    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.

    I love cross country flights. Airplanes are designed to travel.  When I was instructing private students, my favorite lessons were always the first cross country flights. I looked forward to getting my students out of the pattern, away from the practice area, and showing them what they could really look forward to as a private…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *