FltPlan Go

AOPA Rusty Pilot Seminar in San Marcos

ByHank Gibson June 21, 2016July 7, 2016

“AOPA Rusty Pilot presented by AOPA Ambassador Pat Brown at Tempus Training Solutions”
Topic: A Rusty Pilots Seminar
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 09:00 Central Daylight Time
Location:
Tempus Training Solutions
2080 Airport Dr.

San Marcos, TX 78666

Select Number:
EA2769634

Description:

Life may have gotten in the way, but the dream of flight can be yours again. Returning to the skies is not as difficult as most rusty pilot think. We’re inviting you back in the cockpit and will help you get there. Come and participate in a FREE Rusty Pilot program with fellow lapsed pilots. We will help you understand what’s changed in aviation since you’ve last took the controls and brush up on your aviation knowledge. The Rusty Pilot program is developed by AOPA in partnership with local flight training providers in order to create the best environment for getting you back in the air and a part of the general aviation community.

It is easier than most people think:

• No FAA checkride or test
• Medical may not be required

As a Bonus, by attending, you get two to three hours of free ground instruction towards your flight review!

Register Now!

https://ww2.eventrebels.com/er/Registration/StepRegInfo.jsp?ActivityID=16910&StepNumber=1

To view further details and registration information for this seminar, click here.

The Aunt Betty Directive: PFD Failures

ByCharles McDougal April 8, 2015April 15, 2015

Glass panel displays, ballistic parachute aircraft recovery systems, portable tablet computers enabling paperless cockpits, and widely available three axis autopilot systems have changed the way we fly, the way we train, and the way we are expected to perform on check rides. Our training and testing paradigms have tried to stay in synch, yet always seem to be catching up to the latest levels of technology.

This is very apparent when we instructors are preparing a student for an FAA practical test. When training aircraft had no autopilots, no GPS, and certainly no parachutes, the general philosophy was that during training, the student should have the lowest level of technology available. This was also the expectation on the check ride. This theory has changed over the years and now the Practical Test Standards require that an applicant integrate all available technology while demonstrating mastery of his or her aircraft. This raises numerous questions from instructors and students about what technology will be available for each task.

One example of this dilemma is found when contemplating an instrument airplane practical test in a Cirrus SR20/SR22. The test requires the task “Instrument Approach without Primary Flight Display”, which has taken the place of what was the partial panel approach, accomplished without use of gyroscopic heading and attitude indicators. In the Cirrus, the standby attitude indicator, standby airspeed, and standby altimeter are available, as is the Multi-Function Display. Guidance from the FAA has us shooting a GPS approach using the moving map display on the MFD after disabling the PFD. Those of us who trained and tested in steam gauge aircraft think that this task should be fairly easy. With a fully functional Attitude Indicator and a nice big moving map display showing our course, a reasonably competent instrument pilot should have little trouble adapting to this setup and flying a good approach.

But, in the Cirrus specifically, and perhaps in other aircraft as well, another question comes up. Can the applicant use the autopilot (which still works just fine after a display failure) during the approach without the PFD? A rather famous DPE who writes for a national magazine says “yes”, opining that not to allow its use would be introducing simultaneous multiple systems failures, which is strictly forbidden in the minds of some. If we follow this logic, we would not test simulated engine failure emergencies in these aircraft either, because to do so would imply failure of not only the engine, but the CAPS parachute system as well. In my former role as a pilot examiner, I always said no, that the approach should be hand flown. Here is my logic.

I was amazed that flight instructors and examiners would accept the substitution of autopilot technology for the skill required to fly an approach without the PFD. I would argue that the intent and the well described emphasis of the PTS is that the applicant must demonstrate the ability to control the airplane after a loss of the primary flight display, not observe and monitor the autopilot controlling the airplane! This argument was generally unpersuasive, so I approached from a different point of view, that of a concerned family member.

“Aunt Betty” represents a future passenger flying with the soon to be rated instrument pilot. Here is the question posed to Aunt Betty: “When we train and test pilots for instrument proficiency, we require them to demonstrate the ability to safely and skillfully fly the airplane without their primary instruments. Now, Betty, in this airplane, we can test this task in one of two ways. We would like your input on which way you would prefer, seeing as you will be a frequent passenger with your nephew. We can either have the pilot (might be your son, brother, husband, or nephew) demonstrate that he can fly the airplane by hand without the PFD, which does require a little more skill and a slightly different technique, or, we can require the pilot to perform this task using the autopilot so that the pilot basically monitors the airplane flying itself on the approach.

“Now, Aunt Betty, a pilot allowed to use the autopilot system on this approach may not have the skill or technique to fly the approach by hand in the clouds should the autopilot shut down due to turbulence or mechanical failure. Should this happen to a pilot without the skill and practice normally required, the odds of a fatal accident occurring would be quite high.

“So what do you think, Aunt Betty? Would you feel more comfortable flying with this fellow if he has demonstrated mastery of the aircraft (sans PFD) without the autopilot or only with its assistance?”

This leads us to a larger discussion about the use of other technology, iPad, GPS moving map, and more. If technology is used as a replacement for pilot proficiency during training and testing, we end up with less skillful, less competent and ultimately less safe pilots. But, if we require that our students demonstrate mastery with the lowest available level of automation and technology (which, by the way, implies excellent fundamental aircraft control skills) then, when technology is added into the equation, we have a safer pilot.

Technology can be a value added safety multiplier, or it can be a crutch needed to make up for lack of fundamental and advanced skills. Crutch or Safety Multiplier, which one will you choose? I know which one Aunt Betty prefers.

Charles McDougal is a flight instructor, corporate pilot, and former DPE ‎who offers basic and advanced flight instruction in the San Antonio area.  To find out more information about Charles or to contact him, visit his website, www.flighttrainingcoalition.com.

Airspace Alert: Houston Executive Tower Opens

ByHank Gibson October 13, 2014

For those of you who frequent the Houston area, make sure to check your NOTAMs.  The Houston Executive Airport (KTME) in Katy recently opened a control tower.  The Houston Executive tower information won’t show up on the sectional chart till the new chart comes out in the spring.  The only way to get the information about the tower and the airspace will be via NOTAMs or when the new Airport/Facilities Directory comes out on November 3rd.  The tower opened October 1st.

According to AOPA, the airspace will remain Class G around the airport, even though there is a control tower in place.  Since the Houston Executive tower is there, it will be mandatory to contact the tower when passing through the airspace.  KTME’s airspace stretches up to 2,000 feet MSL and goes out to a 4 sm radius around the airport.  It is a VFR Only tower, so the controllers do not have radar.

The tower is open from 6am-10pm, local time, 7 days a week.

Frequency Information

Houston Executive Tower:  126.975

Houston Executive Ground Control/Clearance Delivery:  132.075

Houston Executive ATIS:  119.525

 

Determining Pattern Altitude

ByHank Gibson October 23, 2015October 23, 2015

Figuring out the pattern altitude at an airport should be pretty simple, right?  But, in this day of helpful technology, most pilots actually get it wrong.  How can you always get it right?  Well, it just takes about an extra 15 seconds.  Here’s how.

As outlined in the Aeronautical Information Manual, section 4-3-3, “traffic pattern altitudes for propeller-driven aircraft generally extend from 600 feet to as high as 1,500 feet above the ground.”  Further, in the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge on page 13-10, it states:  “1,000 AGL is recommended pattern altitude unless established otherwise.”

Okay, so for piston driver’s, we’ve got it narrowed down to 1,000 AGL (Above Ground Level for those who don’t like acronyms).  But wait!  There’s that very important phrase at the end of the last quote:  “unless established otherwise.”  That means not all airports have traffic pattern altitudes of 1,000 AGL, or else they wouldn’t put that line in there!

How do you find out what the TPA (Traffic Pattern Altitude) is for a certain airport if it’s not 1,000 AGL?  Great question!  Your first guess is probably to look on Foreflight.  Though this is a good start, it is not the full answer.

Let’s use an example.  Look up KAQO, the Llano Airport on Foreflight.  At the top of the page, the airport elevation is stated as 1,101′ MSL and the pattern altitude is stated as 1,902′ MSL.  From what we just learned, 1,902′ MSL is not 1,000 AGL, so is 1,902′ MSL otherwise established?

On the Airports page with KAQO pulled up, tap the A/FD tab, second to last on the left.  Scroll down to Llano Muni.  Read the whole entry.  Does it state in the entry that pattern altitude is different than 1,000 AGL?  It sure doesn’t.  So, because it is not otherwise established, pattern altitude at KAQO is 2,102′ MSL not 1,902′ MSL.

Where did Foreflight get that?  I have no idea.  Too often, though, pilots look at the Foreflight pattern altitude and don’t actually check the Airport Facilities Directory (A/FD).  Then, they get the pattern altitude wrong.

What does it look like when pattern altitude is otherwise established?  Look up KSGR, Sugar Land Regional, on your Foreflight app.  Foreflight states the elevation as 82′ MSL and the Pattern Altitude as 1,000′ MSL.  Is this correct?  Well, tap that A/FD button again and let’s find out.

On the second line of the A/FD entry, it says TPA-See Remarks.  Down in the remarks section, we find the following:

TPA-1000 (918) single engine piston acft, TPA-1500 (1418) for twin and turbojet acft, TPA-500 (418) for helicopters within 2NM.

Foreflight got it right this time for single engine pistons, but if you are in a twin, the pattern altitude is different.  What’s the lesson here?  Always check the A/FD and don’t always go by what Foreflight says.  The A/FD is always right and usually has a little more detail to help set you straight.

One last thing.  Both the AIM and the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, when talking about pattern altitude, state, “When operating at an airport, traffic pattern altitudes should be maintained unless otherwise required by the applicable distance from cloud criteria in…section 91.155.”  91.155 defines basic VFR weather minimums.  So, to fully interpret what the AIM is saying, we have to take into account the type of airspace we are in to determine if we can safely and legally operate at pattern altitude at a particular airport.

For example, let’s say we are at KCVB, the Castroville Airport.  Pattern altitude there is 1,602 feet, which is 829 AGL.  CVB is Class G airspace up to 700 AGL, then Class E above that.  Let’s say there is a 700 AGL broken cloud layer.  Pattern altitude is 829 AGL, so you won’t be able to get up that high with a broken ceiling.  What altitude can you do pattern work at to stay legal?

Class G VFR weather minimums during the day below 1,200 AGL is 1 SM visibility and clear of clouds.  So, legally, you could fly at 699 AGL (which at CVB would be 1,472 MSL) while in the pattern and be legal.  Safe?  Maybe, but probably not if you are skimming the base of the clouds.  Is 1300 MSL a safer pattern altitude in this example?  Well, that is 527 AGL, so probably not, since towers tend to stick up that high sometimes.

Let’s go back to KSGR and put a 1,000 AGL overcast ceiling there.  SGR is Class D airspace and we already determined pattern altitude there was 1,000 MSL for piston singles.  VFR visibility and cloud clearance requirements in Class D airspace are 1,000 feet above clouds, 500 feet below clouds, and 2,000 feet horizontally from the clouds with 3 SM visibility.  In order to stay 500 feet below the clouds, you would be flying a 582 MSL pattern.  Safe?  Probably not, though it is legal.

To summarize, don’t take Foreflight’s word for pattern altitude.  Cross reference the A/FD (it only takes 15 seconds at the most) to verify.  If it’s cloudy, it’s really best to stay on the ground, but if you want to find out your legal pattern altitude with a cloud deck, cross reference 91.155.  I don’t recommend flying below pattern altitude because it is there for a reason.

GAMI Gains STC for G100UL, Unleaded Avgas

ByHank Gibson August 1, 2021August 30, 2021

For years, there has been clamoring for airplanes to get rid of lead in piston engine Avgas. In the early 2000s, Thielert created a Jet A burning piston engine for Diamond Aircraft that gained some traction, but Thielert had internal issues and ended up declaring bankruptcy. Several other Jet A piston engines have come down the line since then to some success (Diamond is currently using 2 Austro manufactured Jet A piston engines on it’s DA62 and a Continental manufactured Jet piston on the new DA50).

The problem with a Jet A burning piston engine, though, is that those engines would be very expensive to put on existing airplanes, not to mention the cost of the STC alone.

Insert GAMI (General Aviation Modifications, Inc.), the famed Ada, Oklahoma company that championed turbo normalization, balanced injectors, and lean of peak operations. For those that have been to GAMI’s engine class, you know that these guys are at the very top of their game in engine knowledge.

In 2010, GAMI started the process of creating an Unleaded form of Avgas, terming it G100UL (the irony of traditional Avgas, 100LL, is the LL starts for low lead, but the lead levels in 100LL are actually quite high. UL stands for UnLeaded). Just before Osh Kosh in 2021, GAMI revealed that it’s work has come to fruition, gaining an STC for G100UL for Lycoming powered Cessna 172s.

The amazing thing about GAMI’s product is that it is able to mix with 100LL and not cause any issues. This means fuel trucks, fuel lines, fuel pumps, and aircraft fuel tanks don’t have to have any modifications to them to use G100UL. Plus, pilots will see longer engine life using G100UL because of the simple elimination of the lead. In tests, combustion chambers in cylinders burned cleaner, so theoretically, cylinders and engines will last a lot longer.

According to the company, GAMI has a few more tests to run and, assuming those go well, G100UL will be available for a whole lot more airplanes. An STC will still be required for the use of G100UL in a specific airplane, but the hope is, eventually, 100LL will be completely replaced by G100UL. The only downside is that G100UL is expected to cost about $1/gallon more than 100LL.

GAMI has partnered with Avfuel, so expect to see 100UL showing up at all Avfuel FBOs in the next year or two.

To read more, check out the press release on AOPA’s website.

Medical Reforms Get Passed

ByHank Gibson July 17, 2016July 22, 2016

On July 15th, the medical reforms that AOPA and many other aviation advocacy organizations had pushed so hard for were passed into law.  President Obama signed the medical reforms law on the 15th, but, before practical application of the law takes place, the FAA has to translate the law into regulations.

What do the new medical reforms mean for medical certificates and flying?  First, you still have to get a medical examination at some point in your flying career.  Student pilots will still need an initial medical examination. Initially, for pilots who have held a medical certificate at some point over the previous 10 years, a new medical examination may not be needed (this still has to be regulated by the FAA so exact details aren’t known yet).

So, if you’re medical certificate has expired but you have had one in the past 10 years, you qualify.  But, if you have had your medical certificate revoked, suspended, withdrawn or denied, you don’t qualify.

Once that student pilot receives the initial medical certificate (or the experienced pilot decides to start flying again), all that needs be accomplished is to take a free, online course on aeromedical factors every two years and meet with a physician at least once every four years.

There are some operating limitations that will be put into place for folks operating without a third class medical.  Pilot’s can operate aircraft with no more than 6 seats that weigh less than 6,000 pounds, can carry 5 passengers, and are able to operate in day or night VFR or IFR conditions.  Pilot’s may not operate for hire, nor climb above 18,000 feet or fly faster than 250 knots.

It will take some time for the FAA to put the regulations in place, but the process has begun.