The 2020 Texas Top Aviation Santa Fe Golf Fly In has been re-scheduled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine. The new date is September 3rd-5th at the Santa Fe Buffalo Thunder Resort and Towa Golf Club.
For more information on the event and to register, please click here.
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…
There are many different ways to upgrade an instrument panel. Putting in a 696 here, a JPI engine monitoring system there, even an Electronic HSI. But, if you want to swing for the fences and get a serious upgrade, you have to go for a complete glass instrument panel. For good measure, you might as well throw in a touch screen GPS while you are at it.
Which panel to go with? There are two mainstream options (Garmin and Aspen) and a handful of other companies that make glass panel replacements (Avidyne being one, King for a short period of time at the end of the last decade being another with the KFD 840). Around 2010, there were a lot of companies trying to get into the glass panel retrofit game, but many of the products didn’t gain a whole lot of popularity, leaving Garmin and Aspen at the top of the heap.
What about the touch screen GPS market? Garmin has this pretty much cornered as well, with Avidyne and King just getting into the game. The gap between Garmin’s GTN series and Avidyne and King is pretty wide.
The answer is pretty easy when it comes to the GPS (go with Garmin!), but not so easy when it comes to the panel. The G500 and the Aspen Evolution series are both excellent interfaces with strong reliability, so which one do you go with? Feature-wise, both have a lot of the same features: traffic, weather, terrain, synthetic vision, to name a few. The presentation for each feature is a little different between the two interfaces. It just depends on what you like better.
The nice thing about the Aspen system is you can go glass, but you have options on how much glass you want: 1 screen, 2 screens, or 3 screens? With the single screen PFD, you have all your instrumentation, traffic, weather, and optional synthetic vision. You don’t need the synthetic vision for the traffic and weather, as it shows up behind your HSI. It is an honest to goodness glass panel retrofit.
When you decide to upgrade to 2 screens, this is where Aspen has a leg up. The second screen is a completely redundant PFD and, if you get the 2 hour emergency backup battery installed, acts as the backup instrumentation to the main PFD. This means you can take out the old steam gauge standby instruments. This helps clean the panel up.
I personally don’t see the need for 3 screens, but maybe there is someone out there who needs it.
One selling point that Aspen has over Garmin is the wide variety of autopilots and GPS units that Aspen units are compatible with. The G500 is only compatible with King autopilots, it’s own GFC 700 autopilot (which would be a retrofit), some Collins autopilots, and the Century 21, 31, 41, and 2000. This does cover a wide array of autopilots, but it keeps some on the outside. Aspen, on the other hand, is compatible with most autopilots on the market.
Finally, let’s talk price. Going with an Aspen EFD 1000 PFD (this is the single screen Aspen) will run you somewhere in the area of $12,000. The price will vary based on the shop and the airplane. When you want to add a screen, it’s an additional $6,000. This is for the base, so if you want to add weather or synthetic vision, it’ll run you a little more.
The Garmin G500 comes in around $20,000, again depending on the shop and the airplane. The screens are bigger on the G500, which is kind of nice, and you are buying a Garmin product, which has a fabulous track record in the aviation industry.
Decisions, decisions. There really is no wrong answer here. Both are excellent products with very good track records. Both have really nice features and don’t hardly fail. Really, the choice comes down to what you want.
Need training on your upgraded GPS or glass panel retrofit? Contact Texas Top Aviation for thorough training on your new avionics today.
There are many different ways to upgrade an instrument panel. Putting in a 696 here, a JPI engine monitoring system there, even an Electronic HSI. But, if you want to swing for the fences and get a serious upgrade, you have to go for a complete glass instrument panel. For good measure, you might as…
When I was doing my instrument and multi-engine training, we did a lot of circle to land approaches. As a student, I could never figure out why these types of approaches would ever be practical when you could an approach straight in to another runway. But, as a good student, I never asked my instructors the purpose of them, I just did them to the best of my ability.
Now, having been flying in the IFR system for almost a decade, I’m finally beginning to fully understand the practical purpose of a circle to land approach. I have actually elected to do an approach where I had to circle to land on several occasions in actual IMC conditions.
One important note to remember on circle to land approaches is that the minimum descent altitude (MDA) is always higher than on a straight in approach. The reason for this is that you are basically joining the pattern for a different runway and you have to be able to visually keep yourself clear of towers and other obstacles. So, you need a higher visibility and a higher ceiling than if you were just lining up to come straight in.
Here are a couple of practical circumstances where it would make sense to do a circle to land approach.
This one is easy. There are a number of airports scattered around the US that have only 1 straight in instrument approach published for it. Around my part of Texas, the first one that pops into my mind is the RNAV 31 at T85 in Yoakum, TX. Most of the year, the prevailing wind is out of the south, so 13 is the favored runway at T85. During the winter is when most of the IMC weather happens in South Texas, so that is why the approach is for 31.
Of course, especially this year during the summer, there are some IMC days where an approach to T85 would be necessary. When there is a strong wind out of the south, landing on 31 is impractical, so a pilot would fly the approach to 31, then circle to land on 13.
Take a look at the RNAV 19 at KBMQ, Burnet, TX. The two initial approach fixes (IAF) are IXANY and JIBAJ. If a flight is approaching BMQ from the west or north, this is an easy approach to join. If a flight is coming from Austin (directly the the east and a little south) or San Antonio (almost directly south), it would be a bit of extra flying to get configured properly for the approach. Especially coming from Austin, because the degree of turn to join at JIBAJ wouldn’t make the approach practical.
Well, how about vectors? Unfortunately, Houston Center doesn’t have this approach depicted so vectors aren’t a possibility. Center can give you vectors north to make the angle a little easier to join at JIBAJ, but they can’t vector you onto the approach.
Direct DLORA to join is another option, but again, if you are approaching from the southeast, the angle is wrong.
Insert the RNAV 01 approach with a circle to land. AMUSE is right on V163, so it’s really easy to join the approach there coming from the south. Coming from Austin, joining the approach at SUBIE works out great. Fly down to the MDA, join the left downwind for 19, and everyone is happy.
Every instrument pilot has had an instructor “force” them to do a VOR A or VOR B approach and no one enjoys them. I personally think they are good practice. With the number of RNAV systems and RNAV approaches out there, though, VOR approaches are becoming a bit archaic.
They do have a place in this discussion, though. A VOR approach is given an A or B designation when the angle of the final approach course is greater than 30 degrees to the runway (VOR A KLZZ), or the final approach course is lined up with the runway, but the MDA is too high to practically descend and land (VOR A KGRK or the VOR/DME C KASE).
So, there are practical uses for a Circle to Land approach. The next time you do some IMC work with an instructor, ask him/her if you can include one.
When I was doing my instrument and multi-engine training, we did a lot of circle to land approaches. As a student, I could never figure out why these types of approaches would ever be practical when you could an approach straight in to another runway. But, as a good student, I never asked my instructors…
Last fall, the Malibu & M-Class Owner’s and Pilot’s Association (MMOPA) announced a new program to encourage and enhance safety, the Master Aviator Program.
The MMOPA Master Aviator Program was designed as a system to recognize those in the Piper PA46 community who strive to become the best pilots they can be. Each year, those who have achieved each of the levels in the program will be honored at the MMOPA Convention (the 2020 MMOPA Convention will be in Tucson in the spring of 2020) by getting Wings pinned on.
What is the heart behind the MMOPA Master Aviator Program, you ask? Here’s a quote from the MMOPA Website:
This program is the result of MMOPA having identified areas of flight operation that need improvement to increase safety. It provides a path forward for training for the PA46 pilot, honors those pilots that elect to participate in the MMOPA Master Aviator Program, and rewards those pilots that progress upwards to ultimately reach the highest level (MMOPA Master Aviator).
The main focus areas of the MMOPA Master Aviator Program are pilot flight experience (flying more during a year increases skills), stall/spin awareness, and operations in the runway environment (improper aircraft handling during takeoff, landing, and go around, with a particular emphasis on rudder control).
The MMOPA Master Aviator Program tackles these three areas in each of the different levels of achievement: Aviator, Senior Aviator, and Master Aviator.
To achieve the Aviator Wings, a PA46 pilot must do the following:
To achieve the Senior Aviator Wings, a PA46 pilot must have received their Aviator Wings and do the following:
To achieve the Master Aviator Wings, a PA46 pilot must have received their Senior Aviator Wings and do the following:
To incentive PA46 pilots, MMOPA offers a $400 voucher to program participants to accomplish the Aviator Mid Year Training, the Senior Aviator Upset/Recovery Training, and the Master Aviator Tailwheel Training. A PA46 pilot is only eligible for one voucher per year.
I received the Master Aviator Award at the MMOPA Convention this year. All told, there were close to 40 participants who received one of the three levels of achievement at the MMOPA Convention in Amelia Island, FL this year.
Interested in applying to be a part of the MMOPA Master Aviator Program? You can find out more information on MMOPA’s website.
Last fall, the Malibu & M-Class Owner’s and Pilot’s Association (MMOPA) announced a new program to encourage and enhance safety, the Master Aviator Program. The MMOPA Master Aviator Program was designed as a system to recognize those in the Piper PA46 community who strive to become the best pilots they can be. Each year, those…
It’s winter time, which means it’s time to use those Piper PA46 de-ice boots a little more often. Most of us know the winter flying rules, don’t stay in ice, get rid of frost, etc. However, most of us aren’t as familiar with how to maintain those Piper PA46 de-ice boots. The do need some TLC every couple of months to keep them in tip top shape.
Below is the recommendation from Goodrich (the maker of the boots) on what to use to clean and polish the boots and how often to do it.
Steps 1-3 below are your twice a year items to make your Piper PA46 de-ice boots last through the lifetime of the aircraft.
ShineMaster Prep strips all the dirt, grime, grease, oil, silicone products and old ShineMaster on the Piper PA46 de-ice boots to prep them for Step 2.
ShineMaster Prep can be found on Goodrich’s website.
AgeMaster is your second step the in the Piper PA46 de-ice boot preservation and protectant process. AgeMaster is a rubber preservative that protects against weathering, ozone, and ultraviolet rays.
Make the first application when your de-ice boots are 6 months old, then re-apply every 150 hours (or twice a year) after that.
AgeMaster #1 can be purchased on Goodrich’s website.
Step 3 in the Piper PA46 de-ice boot care is ShineMaster. As the name implies, ShineMaster shine’s the boots up after getting rid of all the old gunk & grime with ShineMaster Prep and after AgeMaster is applied. 2-3 coats should be sufficient.
ShineMaster can be purchased on Goodrich’s website.
During icing season, Goodrich recommends ICEX II. ICEX II is an ice inhibitor that should be applied every 50 hours during ice season. This will help prevent ice from sticking to the Piper PA46 de-ice boots. ICEX II can be found here.
Finally, for general cleaning of the boots after each flight, utilize Goodrich Aerospace Cleaner to debug, then follow up with Goodrich Aerospace Protectant. Goodrich claims their Protectant will resist dust, soiling, and staining. There may be less bugs to clean each time!
With just a few hours a couple times a year spent working on the Piper PA46 de-ice boots, owners will never have to worry about the hefty price tag of boot replacement!
It’s winter time, which means it’s time to use those Piper PA46 de-ice boots a little more often. Most of us know the winter flying rules, don’t stay in ice, get rid of frost, etc. However, most of us aren’t as familiar with how to maintain those Piper PA46 de-ice boots. The do need some…
The Angelina County Airport in Lufkin, TX (KLFK) will be hosting the Angelina County Airfest on Saturday, October 10th. The airport will open up at 9am.
Prepare for a day of food, fun, and some great performances. There will be warbirds and many other classic airplanes on display, not too mention a number of aerobatic performances as the day goes on.
To learn more about the Airfest, visit the Angelina County Airfest website. Tickets start at $10 for adults.
The Angelina County Airport in Lufkin, TX (KLFK) will be hosting the Angelina County Airfest on Saturday, October 10th. The airport will open up at 9am. Prepare for a day of food, fun, and some great performances. There will be warbirds and many other classic airplanes on display, not too mention a number of aerobatic…
