Cirrus SR20 vs. Diamond DA40

ByHank Gibson

Note:  For this article I am comparing a 2008 Cirrus SR20 G3 and a 2008 Diamond DA40 XLS.

Aircraft shopping can be a tedious process.  First, a buyer needs to know what the mission is.  How far will flights typically be, how many people will be on board, and how fast does the airplane need to be.  Then, the buyer has to figure out what the budget is.  Finally, a prospective owner needs to figure out how much airplane he or she can handle.

Two very good airplanes for newer pilots transitioning from a flight school 172 who need a faster airplane to build experience in, but also want to experience a glass panel, are the Cirrus SR20 G3 and the Diamond DA40 XLS.

Cirrus SR20 G3

The 2008 Cirrus SR20 G3 is a good airplane.  The G3 is equipped with the 6 cylinder, Continental IO-360-ES, 200 HP engine.  Performance-wise, an owner can expect 135-140 knots true at 9 GPH (Lean of Peak) or 145-150 knots true at 11.5-12 GPH (Rich of Peak).  The 3 blade propeller equipped models have better takeoff and climb performance than the 2 blade propeller equipped planes, especially in high density altitude conditions.

Cirrus SR20 Comparison

The airplane is equipped with the Avidyne Entegra EX 5000 glass panel system.  Most models out there will have Avidyne’s CMAX (Chart View) and all will have the Avidyne EMAX (Engine Monitoring).  All came from the factory with the STEC 55x autopilot (though a handful will have the STEC 55 SR, which doesn’t have glideslope functionality).  They also came from the factory with dual Garmin 430s. Most units have been upgraded to WAAS.

Some owners have upgraded the autopilot to the Avidyne DFC 90, which is a nice upgrade.  The STEC 55x is a rate based autopilot which takes it’s commands from a hidden turn coordinator that is behind the instrument panel in front of the co-pilot’s seat.  The STEC has some crosswind limitations on approaches where the pilot can actually fly better than the autopilot.

The DFC 90, however, is an attitude based autopilot that  takes it’s commands from the attitude indicator on the Primary Flight Display (PFD).  It also adds a Straight and Level button as well as an Indicated Airspeed hold button, adding safety and functionality.  It does much better in crosswinds on an instrument approach then the STEC.

A select few SR20s have been upgraded to a single (or dual) Garmin GTN 650 touch screen GPS unit.  The GTN 650 is a very nice upgrade.  The Garmin 430 is a great unit, but the learning curve with the GTN 650 is much less.  The touch screen setup makes a little more sense to the new user.

Values on the 2008 SR20 G3 with 1,000 hours or less run somewhere between $220,000-$260,000, depending on total time and equipment.

Diamond DA40 XLS

A handful of 2007 XLS DA40s were made, but not many.  Most XLS models you will see are 2008 and later. These are equipped with the Lycoming IO-360, 4 cylinder, 180 HP engine with the Powerflow Exhaust STC. Due to the Powerflow Exhaust, the performance is equal to the SR20.  At 6,000-8,000 feet, you will routinely see 140 knots true at 10-10.5 GPH.  Higher altitudes will give slightly better performance and lower fuel burn.  Like the SR20, the Diamond DA40 XLS comes with either a 2 blade or 3 blade prop.  Go with the 3 blade as the takeoff and climb performance is much better.

Diamond DA40 Comparison

Where the DA40 XLS has a leg up on the 2008 SR20 G3 Avidyne is in the avionics.  Diamond got on the Garmin G1000 train a little sooner than Cirrus did and the XLS is equipped with the G1000 and GFC 700 autopilot.  The Garmin GFC 700 autopilot is the best GA autopilot I have flown with.  It is an amazing piece of equipment.

Most, if not all, DA40 XLS models will have both WAAS and Synthetic Vision.  Cirrus didn’t get Synthetic Vision till they put the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin in their aircraft in the middle of 2008.

The DA40 has great visibility due to the massive amount of glass surrounding the pilot.  The big glider wings give it excellent pop off the runway, but quite a different climb pitch attitude than most other piston single engine airplanes.  The airplane does like to float on landing if the pilot doesn’t get the speed right.

Values on the 2008 Diamond DA40 XLS equipped with the Garmin G1000 are around the low-mid $200,000 range.

Comparison

Performance wise, the airplanes are about equal.  Rich of peak, the Cirrus out performs the Diamond, but uses more fuel.  Both have about 5 hour ranges (though the Cirrus has bigger fuel tanks, 56 gallons usable compared to the Diamond long range tanks of 50 gallons usable).  Useful load is slightly better in the Diamond due to the fact that the Lycoming engine has 2 fewer cylinders than the Cirrus.  The Cirrus does have a roomier back seat, a larger baggage area, and a side stick instead of a center stick, but the DA40 has a back door.  The Cirrus also has the CAPS system, though an owner has to do a $15,000 repack every ten years.  Airplane values are about the same.

I give a slight edge to the Diamond, though, and here’s why.  For about the same price, a purchaser can get the Garmin G1000 system complete with the GFC 700 autopilot in the DA40 XLS.  The Avidyne and STEC system is great, but the Garmin system is definitely above and beyond.  To get the Garmin G1000 in an SR20, you’d have to look at the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin, which came out in late 2008, and you’d be paying $300,000 or more for a single engine piston with 200 HP (though you do get Air Conditioning!).

So for my money, I would go for the Diamond DA40 XLS.  I believe you get a little bit more bang for your buck and you don’t lose anything with the DA40 XLS.  Don’t get me wrong, I love the Cirrus, but comparing the two, I think the Diamond DA40 XLS rates a little higher.

Similar Posts

  • A Complex Clearance?

    ByHank Gibson

    I was flying in the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas a few weeks ago and heard an IFR clearance given to a King Air that pricked my ears up.  It was a clearance from CRP to LRD, but the routing was one you don’t hear too often anymore.  Because of active military airspace, the routing was via a radial and DME off the CRP VOR (so a point defined by the radial and DME) to another radial and DME point off the LRD VOR.

    It took me a second to think about how to do this the easiest (without setting up the VOR and watching the DME).  After a moment’s thought, it’s actually a snap with the G1000.  You create 2 user waypoints, one for each Radial/DME spot, then put those 2 user waypoints in your Flight Plan.

    Here’s how.

    Step 1

    Using the big knob, go to the Waypoint chapter.  Once there, scroll down to the User Waypoint page using the small knob.

    Step 2

    Press the New soft key.  If you want to name the waypoint something specific, you can do that at the top of the page.  If not, it will default to something like VOR 1 or VOR 2.

    Step 3

    Under Waypoint Type, use the small knob to select RAD/DIS (stands for Radial/Distance).

    Step 4

    Under Reference Waypoints, again using the small knob (or your keypad), type or dial in the VOR identifier, the radial from that VOR, and the DME distance.  Press enter and you are done.

    Once you have both User Waypoints created, then just put them in your flight plan (if you forget what you named them, you can just go back to the User Waypoint page), and off you go.

  • Drones: A Brief History

    ByAndrew Robinson

    Drones; these technological wonders have, seemingly, come out of nowhere over the course of a few years. Although they bring with them the promise of convenience and fun, they have also brought problems and uncertainty for the government, general public, and, specifically, the aviation community. But, where did drones come from and are they really something to be worried about? Let’s take a look at Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and hopefully put to bed some of the concerns which seem to be following them around.

    It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone when I say that drones have recently become overwhelmingly popular. The military, businesses, and hobbyists are increasingly utilizing them for all kinds of purposes, which range from enemy surveillance to package delivery. Drone pilots are in high demand and several aviation universities are even offering majors designed to produce graduates which specialize in UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles).

    Drones are relatively new to the landscape of unmanned flying machines. Although model airplanes have been popular since the dawn of aviation, the first “drones” didn’t start becoming commercially available until a few years ago. As electronic technology advanced, so did model aviation. Models became more and more sophisticated and could be flown remotely as long as they remained within sight of the person flying it.

    It wasn’t until about 3 or 4 years ago that the technology became available to develop drones. This is due to the need for very small and light electric motors, batteries, and stabilization systems. Once these started to become popular, it didn’t take long for drones to become bigger, cheaper, and completely automated.

    It is important to note that there is a difference between drones and conventional model airplanes and helicopters. Drones are defined most simply as an unmanned vehicle which can be operated without user input from the ground. Conventional model aircraft can take all shapes and sizes, but must be operated within line of sight from the operator; as they have no ability to fly, takeoff, land, or navigate without input via a radio transmitter. So, if you happen to see a model aircraft flying, don’t assume automatically that it is a drone. Most of the time, model airplanes, helicopters and even drones are being flown safely and legally.

    Generally, a drone is designed with several arms which come off of a central body. Each of the “arms” typically has a motor with a rotor mounted on it to provide lift while the main body is home to the radio equipment, landing skids and camera gear. If you see a model flying that looks like a conventional airplane or helicopter, odds are it isn’t a drone. Most likely it is being flown recreationally by someone nearby.

    Historically, model airplanes and helicopters have been difficult to learn to fly. Before the times of pre-built foam airplanes and ready to fly drones, a modeler had to build their flying machine and find someone to teach them how to fly it. (Otherwise, they would likely only get one short flight). New modelers would be directed toward the local model flying club and would get plugged in with a group of established fliers who could outline the rules for model aircraft as well as get them up in the air safely.

     

    However, because most everything is purchased online in today’s market, drones are bought and flown by enthusiasts who have not been taught the rules, safety protocols, and procedures necessary to safely operate their new kits. In addition, the drones incredible stability and ability to be flown without any skill means that anyone with great enough funds and an equally great lack of common sense can buy a model and program it to fly over any location they choose. Unfortunately, sometimes that includes places which cause problems.

    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.

  • Garmin Perspective Tips & Tricks

    ByHank Gibson

    The Garmin Perspective and Perspective + are awesome pieces of equipment.  There is so much a pilot can do with this system that it can sometimes get overwhelming. There are two very important features of the Garmin Perspective that all IFR pilots need to know, but are tricky to do if the correct buttons aren’t pushed.

    The two features of the Garmin Perspective I want to focus on today are the “Load Airway” feature and the “Hold at Waypoint” feature.  The “Load Airway” feature is especially handy when flying IFR long distances with several airways as part of the clearance.  Here’s how to utilize both on the Garmin Perspective.

    Load Airway

    • On your flight plan page, insert the waypoint where you will be joining the airway, or, if your clearance was radar vectors to join an airway, then insert the waypoint on the airway that begins the leg you will be joining on
    • Press the Menu key on the keypad
    • A menu will pop up. Scroll down to highlight Load Airway
    • Highlight the Airway you want from the next menu that pops up then press Enter
    • Then, a list of waypoints will display to exit the airway. Highlight the waypoint where you will be exiting the airway and Press Enter
    • The cursor will then move down to Load at the bottom of the menu. Press Enter to load the airway
    • The Airway and all the waypoints in between your entry and exit waypoints appear in your flight plan
    • If you are getting vectors to join the airway, you’ll need to use the Activate Leg function to activate the leg you will be joining the airway on
      • On the Flight Plan page, highlight the waypoint that ends the leg you want to activate
      • Look for the ACT LEG soft key on the lower right hand side of the MFD and press
      • This Activates the leg on the airway. Then, just simply fly the heading assigned by ATC until the CDI needle centers showing you are on the airway

    Hold At Waypoint

    The Garmin Perspective allows pilots to place a holding pattern at any waypoint that is in the Nav Database (or any user created waypoint).  Here’s how to do it.

    • On the Flight Plan page, highlight the Waypoint that you want to hold over and press Menu on the keypad
    • On the menu that pops up, highlight Hold At Waypoint and press Enter
    • On the next menu that pops up, input either the inbound or outbound course, right or left turns, leg time or distance, and the EFC time, then highlight Load and press Enter
    • You will see the hold now as a Waypoint in your flight plan

  • Make The Upgrade to Pressurization

    ByHank Gibson

    Are oxygen cannulas rubbing your nostrils raw?

    Is turbulence giving you back problems?

    Would you like to be above the bumps, breathing without tubes stuck up your nose or a mask on?  Would you like a quiet ride?

    Sounds like you need pressurization.  Need more convincing?

    What’s that you say?  You don’t have a multi-engine rating?  You don’t want to spend the money on a turbo prop?

    Have no fear, there are options galore for you to choose from in the single engine piston marketplace, both certified aircraft and experimental.

    A word of caution, though; once you go pressurized, you don’t go back….

    Here is my review of the certified, pressurized single engine piston options.

    Piper PA46 Malibu/Mirage/M350

    In 1983, Piper shocked the world with an amazing airplane.  The pressurized, Continental TSIO-520 (310 HP) powered PA46 Malibu hit the market in the fall of that year taking the piston world by storm.  A six seat, cabin class, pressurized single engine piston that easily cruised at 190-200 knots while only burning 16-17 GPH. It was awesome.  It even had an air stair door that felt like getting on a private jet.

    I love the original Continental powered Malibu, specifically the ’86-’88 models.  Piper initially had hydraulic flaps, which were clunky and had several issues (most notably, the hydraulic system would randomly kick offline while the flaps were in motion at very in-opportune moments).  Piper switched to the electric flaps in ’86, making the ’86-’88 year models very desirable.

    Unfortunately for Piper, the Continental TSIO-520 was not the engine manufacturer’s best product.  There were several Malibu crankshaft problems and engine failures, so much so that Piper decided to go with the Lycoming TIO-540 engine in 1989, creating the Malibu Mirage (all the current Malibu’s operating the -520 engine have been overhauled many times over, so there are no safety concerns with the -520 engine).  The Lycoming powered Mirage (350 HP), cruises a little bit faster than the Continental powered Malibu, but burns about 5 more GPH.  Piper still makes the Mirage, now dubbed the M350, complete with the Garmin G1000 NXi panel.

    The 4 seat, cabin class back seat is very roomy (unlike a Bonanza or Saratoga).  There is plenty of rooms for bags, both behind the back seat and in the handy nose compartment, which is wide enough to fit golf clubs, minus the driver.  The 1600 pound useful load (880 pound payload with full fuel), allows for a lot of people and gear to be loaded on board.  The airplane is a little stingy on CG, though.  You do not want to have a CG that is out of the rear limits.

    The airplane is fun to fly.  It has a heavy elevator, similar to a Bonanza, which requires a lot of trim on landing.  It’s very long wings cause it to float a bit on landing if the pilot comes in too fast.  It’s very docile in stalls and extremely comfortable for cross country flying.  The air conditioning system works very well, though it is still hot on the front seats when sitting on the ramp on a Texas July afternoon.

    Many of the airplanes have upgraded to glass panels.  Most are still equipped with the King KFC 150 autopilot, some with a Yaw Damper, some not.  The KFC 150 is a good autopilot, but when Garmin certifies their GFC 600 for the PA46, that will be a popular retrofit.

    If I had my pick, I would buy an ’86-’88 Malibu with an upgraded Continental TSIO-550 engine.  Climbs a bit better and does a bit better in cruise than the original -520 engine.  See why here.

    I would rate the PA46 line as the best pressurized single engine piston option out there.

    Cessna P210 Centurion

    The P210 was introduced by Cessna in 1978.  It also came with the Continental TSIO-520 engine that the Malibu was certified with.  Climbing at about 700-800 fpm (equal to the Malibu), the P210 cruises at around 190 KTAS as well, burning around 17-18 GPH.  Like the Malibu, the P210 had a Continental TSIO-520 power plant, but, unlike the Malibu, the P210 makes the pilot work to keep the CHTs cool.  With smaller cowl openings and a tighter cowl, cooling isn’t as good as the Malibu.

    Even though the P210 has six seats, the forward facing, Cessna style 3 rows aren’t quite as comfortable as the Malibu.  The single door on the pilot’s side makes loading and unloading a bit of a chore (especially compared to the air stair door in the Malibu).  The third row of seats isn’t extremely useful, as the ceiling is lower and the proximity of the second row of seats decreases the amount of leg room, making it uncomfortable for a full size adult.  Most operators remove the pilot’s side second row seat to add an aisle to get to the back row for people and bags.  It also has a smaller cabin then the Malibu.

    There is less baggage in the P210, with the singular baggage compartment accessed through a baggage door behind the cabin.  The Air conditioning system is also not as good as the Malibu.

    It’s hard to get the P210 out of CG and overloaded.  A useful load of 1500 pounds (with 90 gallons of fuel, it drops to only 960 pounds) allows the airplane to be loaded to the gills without being overweight.

    There are some engine upgrades out there for the P210 (the Silver Eagle conversion puts a Rolls Royce turboprop on it).  The best piston conversion is the Vitatoe Conversion that swaps the engine out for a Continental Turbo-Normalized IO-550, which is a much better engine than the -520.  You still have to monitor the CHTs, but cooling is less of an issue.  These are much higher priced on the market, though.

    Because of the size of the cabin and the true reputation the P210 has of being a maintenance hog, I would rate it below the PA46 line.

    Extra EA-400

    There are 3 pressurized, single engine piston airplanes out there today: the Piper PA46, the Cessna P210, and the Extra EA-400.  Extra is the famous German aerobatic aircraft manufacturer that created the Extra 300 and 330.  In the early 2000s, Extra tried it’s hand at the pressurized single market with the EA-400 (Extra also tried to get into the single engine turbo-prop market with the EA-500, but the project fizzled before much progress was made).  Sadly, only 27 EA-400s were built before the company ran into financial trouble.

    The concept sounds cool.  A fully composite, pressurized, liquid cooled, cabin class piston.  The engine was the Continental TSIOL-550, liquid cooled power plant.  Liquid cooling means no concern about hot CHTs while you are climbing.  The problem with the engine is that there are so few liquid cooled Continental engines out there, finding a mechanic familiar with one could be an issue.

    I have never flown an Extra 400, but there are several floating around out there.  Most have steam gauges and the STEC-55x autopilot.  The price on the only one on Controller right now is comparable to the P210N but above the Continental powered Malibu.

    If you are in the market, an Extra 400 might be fun to test fly and who knows, you might fall in love with it!

    Experimental Options

    There are a handful of experimental pressurized singles out there.  I have not flown any of them, so I can’t be a good resource on recommending them.  Here is the list, however.

    Lancair Evolution Piston

    Lancair IV-P

    Lancair ES-P

    Lancair LX7

    As far as availability on the market goes, there are 8 Malibus on Controller (1 1986 model) ranging from $315,000 and down, 24 Mirages ranging from $705,000 (equipped with the Garmin G1000) and down, 25 P210s ranging from $405,000 and down, and 2 Extra EA 400s, priced at $369,000 and down.  Check out the available Experimental Lancair options here.

    Have you decided to upgrade, but don’t know what to buy or how to buy it?  Check out Texas Top Aviation’s Acquisition Services.  We’ll get you the best airplane for you, your mission, and your budget.  Contact Us today to find out more information.

  • Utilizing Personal Minimums

    ByPedro Vargas-Lebron

    The FAA defines personal minimums “as an individual pilot’s set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines for deciding whether and under what conditions to operate (or continue operating) in the National Airspace System.” Have you actually given thought as to why we choose the personal minimums we do? From the beginning of initial pilot training, weather minimums were established for day-to-day training and during solo flight. I didn’t realize it at first, but I later learned these limits were not just an insurance mandate, but these minimums were set at the time to safely operate an aircraft based on my “then” current experience.

    So here’s the question: what are your personal minimums and WHY do YOU have them? Do you ever lower or raise your minimums? Are your minimums based solely on your overall experience level or do they take into account other variables such as advanced avionics? For pilots that fly multiple aircraft like I do, can and do your minimums change in regard to category or type of aircraft you are flying? It’s a judgment decision on how you chose your minimums. However, it’s important that time is taken before you strap into the cockpit for each flight to critically think about the different risk factors and variables which may affect your decision for the minimums you choose.

    To guide us, let’s try briefly apply the FAA’s Personal Minimums Checklist to see how risk factors might shape what personal minimums or decisions we make for the day. Remember, just because you have been flying with a certain set of minimums one day, doesn’t mean you can’t adjust your minimums to a higher value given an ever-changing situation.

    The acronym most pilots have heard is PAVE:

    Pilot– We all should be familiar with the acronym IMSAFE associated with this. It addresses variables such as Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, and Emotion. But how do you adjust your personal minimums using this guideline? Have you ever thought about raising your minimums for a training flight if you only got 4-6 hours of sleep, instead of 8? Or if you anticipate a hard IFR flight with a long day, maybe taking a safety pilot to mitigate the chance of a mistake if you’re forecasting having to shoot an approach to your weather planning minimums.

    Aircraft– Personally, this is a really important factor for me when deciding what minimums to apply. I often spend a large majority of my time asking myself; is this aircraft properly equipped for the flight? This question goes beyond just looking at the logbook for a properly equipped and legal aircraft. A professional pilot should think further. Am I flying a traditional 6-pack “steam gauge” layout, non-slaved compass card, with a separate OBS gauge for course guidance? What if the aircraft doesn’t have an auto-pilot? What if I’m flying an aircraft equipped with a dual auto-pilot, dual GPS with an integrated glass cockpit? I can comfortably say my personal minimums change depending on the equipment I have available.

    A pilot should also look at his/her recency with the aircraft. For example, if you are qualified to fly both airplanes and helicopters, maybe you should choose to have higher personal minimums in one particular airframe or if you haven’t flown that airframe within 30, 60 or 90 days. This is a very important factor for the owner/pilot.

    EnVironment– Most of the time, when we think of environment, we ask ourselves, is the weather legal for me to take off and, more importantly, can I conduct this flight safely? Basic flight planning should have taught us to take into consideration crosswind limits, day versus night, and the type of airspace the flight is conducted in. Thought should also be given to how you set your personal minimums in regards to the particular type of environment you might rarely encounter. Flying an approach to your minimums in the flat plains of Texas during the day is one thing, but how would you adjust your weather minimums flying to a new airport, at night, with no moon illumination, in the mountains of Colorado? Could you reduce the risk and adjust your minimums in this scenario with two pilots?

    External Pressures – What external pressures are affecting your flight? Passengers, the owner, “get-there-it is”, the desire to impress someone? Although external pressures should never be a factor when conducting a flight, they almost always play a role in your decision whether to conduct the flight or not. For example, a professional pilot gets hired to do a flight and the weather is below their personal minimums. The pilot could be tempted to lower their minimums by 100 feet to take the flight for a paying customer. This scenario plays out every day across the country whether it’s a professional pilot or owner/pilot. It would be foolish not to consider this type of pressure. Always make sure you have a plan if and when you encounter this situation. Planning your flight and having a plan to deal with these potential scenarios ahead of time ensures you stick to your minimums. It can be as simple as telling your passengers, or the owner, well ahead of your flight what your personal minimums are to accept the flight, and to ensure they, or you, have a back-up plan!

    Most pilots will never break a hard limitation such as an airframe cross wind limitation, or engine limit, but the chances of breaking a personal minimum are realistic. Think about the last time you went on a diet and broke your plan because you were tempted by your friends or family during an outing. Self-imposed personal minimums can be hard to enforce and we need to acknowledge this as humans. Here are a few techniques that you can use to assist in making a decision using personal minimums and help reduce the influence of external pressures.

    Step 1: Sit down with your CFI/CFII and fill out a personal minimums worksheet. Filling one out by yourself is a good start but having an outside objective view will help in making sure your personal minimums are realistic. Remember, it is easy to convince ourselves that we can do something even though we have set personal minimums. Talk with other pilots to see if you have set realistic expectations.

    Step 2: Preflight planning must start a few days in advanced. It can be as easy as checking what the forecast might be and looking at the projected route, near-by alternate airports, and various approaches. This can be done quickly and will give you a heads up on whether the flight can be safely conducted or not. By alerting the passengers or owner early enough, alternate plans can be developed. An extra pilot can be added, the passengers can fly commercial, bring along a CFI, or cancel the trip altogether and seek alternate transportation. The main point is the decision was made well ahead of the flight when conditions didn’t look favorable. This helps in removing external pressures and ensures you don’t go below your personal minimums.

    Step 3: Never be afraid to ask for a second opinion. Part 135 operators have set procedures for conducting flights which assist the pilots in making decisions. These set procedures help remove external pressures by allowing the pilot to say, “The rules don’t allow for this, or this is how we will conduct the flight!” However, under Part 91, the pilot has to take ownership for all phases of the flight. This is where talking it out with another pilot helps with mitigating external factors and the environment. Ideally, this person should have more experience and be able to talk through the situation. For instance, if I’m flying to a new destination, I often seek the advice from another pilot who’s familiar with the area. They may have key insights into weather patterns, preferred approaches, or hazards to avoid. In certain situations, asking for another pilot’s opinion might be what influences your go/no-go decision! You’ll be amazed how much you can learn just from talking to other pilots.

    Step 4: Continue to build your experience and knowledge base. Building experience requires us to push our abilities, and sometimes this may be to the limit. However, this can be done in a controlled training environment or just going out and experiencing it. Get a new license, fly regularly with a CFI/CFII, and always try and take advantage of training opportunities. For example on your next flight from point A to point B, practice hand flying an approach, do a short field landing, a quick steep turn, etc. Quality flight time is always better than quantity. Continue to challenge yourself and try not to become complacent.

    Personal minimums are a tool to assist in every pilot’s aeronautical decision making process. Use your personal minimums to guide your final go/no-go decision and remember to stick to the plan. I encourage you to review the FAA’s Risk Management Handbook (FAA-H-8083-2). Appendix B has Sample Risk Management Scenarios and reviewing them will give a better understanding how to apply the techniques discussed to your everyday flying.

    Pedro Vargas-Lebron is a King Air 200 and uH-60 Blackhawk Instructor pilot with the Texas Army National Guard. Pedro is a CFI/CFII/MEI both in airplanes and helicopters with over 4000 hours of flight time, half as an instructor pilot.

  • Cirrus Simulator Training

    ByHank Gibson

    Let’s face it: airplanes are not the best classrooms. The propeller is running, the engine is making lots of noise, the pilot is attempting to multi-task and the instructor is barking orders. That’s almost as much overstimulation as being a parent to 4 kids under 10 (I have experience in that arena!). That’s even before takeoff!

    At Texas Top Aviation, we have observed many situations where a simulator would be an excellent way to introduce different concepts and supplement training. Now, in our Austin Executive (KEDC) office, we finally have a really good simulator.

    Meet the Noble Flight Simulator, the next best thing to a Cirrus cockpit. With the Noble Flight Simulator, we can duplicate 6 different types of Cirrus aircraft (G3 SR22, G3 SR22T, G5 SR22, G5 SR22T, G6 SR22, and G6 SR22T). The Garmin Perspective panel easily swaps between the G3 and G5 configuration to the G6 configuration, so the buttons are all in the proper places.

    Having button pushing problems? The simulator is the place to practice.

    Want to experience actual emergencies? An engine failure is a lot less stressful in a simulator.

    Want to pull CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System)? The Noble Flight Simulator has a realistic CAPS handle with the same amount of pull pressure that the CAPS handle in the airplane has.

    Need an IPC or want to practice approaches? All approaches done on a Noble Flight Simulator are luggable, plus a full IPC can be accomplished.

    Want to save fuel? The Noble Flight Simulator is for you!

    To top it all off, the Noble Flight Simulator that Texas Top Aviation has is classified as an Advanced Aircraft Training Device. It is certified to the highest standards of non-motion simulators, allowing pilots working toward their private and instrument ratings to log a significant amount of time toward that certificate or rating. Up to 20 hours of IFR training is allowed to be logged in an AATD toward an instrument rating. That’s huge!

    Texas Top Aviation is also developing a CAPS specific course to expose Cirrus pilots to the many different scenarios where pulling CAPS would be necessary. This teaches Aeronautical Decision Making to Cirrus pilots who struggle with the decision of whether or not to pull CAPS. Look for CAPS course information under our Aircraft Training page later this summer.

    Interested in checking the simulator out? Contact us today!

Leave a Reply

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