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.
Most of us who have been through instrument training are familiar with the traditional view limiting devices. There is the original hood, which does a decent job of blocking a pilot’s view of outside, but there are still gaps that allow “peeking”, though that peeking doesn’t really help a pilot fly an approach. It does help them figure out which way is up, so it’s not a true simulation.
The other problem with a hood is the process of putting it on to begin simulating IFR conditions, then taking it off when it’s time to land. This process takes time and the instructor has to take the controls (or the autopilot flies), losing some of the realism of the simulation.
Overall, an IFR hood is relatively comfortable. The elastic band sits under your headset, doesn’t squeeze your heard, and doesn’t press underneath your ear cups of the headset, giving you a headache. Hoods are large and somewhat unwieldy.
Foggles are another way to simulate IFR conditions for training. Most of the time, these are safety glasses that have most of the lens blacked out or fogged out, leaving little slits at the bottom for the pilot’s eyes to see the instruments.
Foggles aren’t quite as good as an IFR hood at blocking the outside. Due to their shape, there are often cracks that allow more “peeking” then a hood. The process of beginning to simulate IFR conditions and ending the simulated IFR conditions is easier though, since all the pilot has to do is put the foggles on or slip them off, which can often be done one handed (putting them on can be more difficult one handed since they have to fit underneath your headset). Wearing them for a long period of time can get painful as your headset is probably going to start crushing them against the side of your head.
The best comfort and view limiting combination I have found, so far, is called the ViBAN. It’s very comfortable and does a really good job of simulating IFR by blocking a view of the outside.
What’s the whole goal behind a view limiting device? When a pilot starts instrument training, ideally, all the training would take place in the clouds, since that is why someone get’s an instrument rating. As we all know, this isn’t possible, hence the need to simulate IFR conditions. The problem with simulating IFR is, it’s not true IFR. True IFR conditions are different then what a hood or a set of foggles can simulate. This can lead to spatial disorientation if a fresh instrument pilot enters the clouds for the first time, having done all his training in simulated conditions.
I’ve even heard a story of a pilot who did all his IFR training with a hood, passed his check ride, went into the clouds the first time, and put the hood on because he was getting disoriented since he hadn’t ever experienced true IFR.
What about full motion simulators? How I wish every airport had a full motion simulator for instrument training. Full motion sims are truly the best way to simulate IFR conditions. A pilot can easily get spatially disoriented in a sim if he or she isn’t careful. It’s a great way to simulate IFR conditions, but, alas, this just isn’t possible.
Are we doomed to just do an okay job of training instrument pilots in simulated IFR conditions with a hood or foggles?
Nope, at least not anymore.
Enter the ICARUS Device. The ICARUS Device, which stands for Instrument Conditions Awareness Recognition and Understanding System, is an amazing piece of equipment which truly simulates IFR conditions in the training environment. The ICARUS is a plastic shield that uses a Polymer Dispersed Liquid Crystal film that allows the degradation of a pilot’s visibility. It clips on to a baseball cap and is attached to a battery. That battery is then bluetoothed to an iPad or iPhone App that allows the instructor to put the pilot into and take him out of simulated IFR conditions.
Originally designed for helicopter training, it’s an excellent tool for fixed wing IFR training too. I’ve been using it for the last month and a half and I am hooked. The customer’s that I have used it with truly say that they cannot see a thing outside. Because the plastic shield turns white, it really does give the view that the pilot is in the clouds. The inner ear certainly believes it. The curve of it fits the glare shield in most planes nicely (there is some custom cutting that would have to take place for specifically rounded glare shields, but it fits Cirrus and Piper Saratogas nicely, the two planes I have used it in), and it sits away from the pilot’s face, blocking out all windows, which is what clouds do.
The greatest thing from an instructor’s standpoint is the ICARUS Device app. The pilot puts the device on before taxi and I set the app to VMC. This completely clears the ICARUS Device so the pilot can see just fine for taxi and takeoff. Then, at about 400 AGL, I tap the <1/2 VIS button on the app, and boom, the pilot is in the clouds. I even have a time delay to slowly make the ICARUS Device opaque to simulate slowly entering the clouds. I do the same thing on an approach, except in the reverse order, simulating we are slowly exiting the clouds.
The ICARUS Device is a game changer for IFR training. It’s comfortable, easy to use, the battery lasts for a long time (though bring a standard USB charging cord with you in the plane because the battery failure mode makes the ICARUS Device opaque instead of transparent. You don’t want that to happen at 200 AGL!), and, most important, it truly simulates IFR conditions.
After using it, I believe all flight schools and CFII should get one of these, both in the fixed wing and helicopter world. It’s the best option for simulating IFR conditions.
Texas Top Aviation, LLC was given an ICARUS Device by the ICARUS Device company to test. Texas Top Aviation, LLC was not paid for our above opinion on the ICARUS Device (trust me, if it was terrible, I would have told you!).
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.
Recently, I assisted with the delivery of a 2007 Piper Saratoga Turbo from San Antonio to New York City. It was a very nicely equipped airplane, complete with a Garmin G1000 panel, an STEC 55x autopilot, and air conditioning. The owner joined me on the flight back to get trained in the airplane, getting him comfortable in it over our 2 day excursion back to NYC. Total flight time was 12 hours, though that did include several stops along the way and landing practice at the airports we stopped at.
The 6 seat Turbo Saratoga is a very comfortable, very capable flying machine. It is made for hauling, with a gross weight of 3,600 pounds, but that’s not to say it isn’t lacking in comfort, either. The rear cabin has 4 seats, 2 facing forward and 2 facing rear. It would be a little tight for 4 full size adults in the back seat. To avoid knee knocking, the plane is an excellent 4 person and bags aircraft (or 4 adults and 2 kids).
The really nice part about the Piper Saratoga is the baggage door. Unlike the Bonanza, the Piper Saratoga has a baggage door that opens to the baggage compartment, creating a much easier way to load and unload baggage. The nose baggage compartment, which holds an additional 100 pounds, is a very nice feature, allowing the bag load to be spread out.
We typically saw cruise speeds of 155-165 KTAS depending on altitude. The highest we went was only about 9,000 feet, so we didn’t get up real high to see what the single turbo could do. Even though the Lycoming TIO-540 engine burns about 20 gallons an hour, with 102 gallons of gas on board, the fuel consistently outlasted our desire to continue flying.
Being equipped with the G1000 was a very nice feature of this particular Piper Saratoga. The screens are nice and big, larger than the displays on a high wing Cessna or a Corvalis. That allows for easier viewing of approach plates, NEXRAD, and the engine gauges.
There are always downsides to an airplane, and the Saratoga is no exception. The STEC Autopilot leaves some to be desired as I felt it hampered the capability of the G1000 when shooting approaches because the 12 knot crosswind limitation on the autopilot. You can still use the autopilot on an approach with higher than 12 knot crosswinds, but the autopilot tends to search around for the final approach course.
The air conditioning works very nicely, though it did have a tendency to freeze up at altitude. We discovered that quickly and just decided to turn it off and leave the blower on, since it was cool enough up high anyway.
Overall, the Turbo Saratoga is a very nice airplane. The speed leaves a little to be desired (you can get 10 KTAS more out of a Bonanza with a Continental engine, about 20 knots more if it is a Turbo Bonanza), but it is very high on comfort. The Piper Saratoga makes for a good family airplane or as a hauler. I liked the airplane a lot and thoroughly enjoyed my time in it.
Texas Top Aviation is proud to announce that we now offer Piper PA46 Training in the Malibu and Mirage. Our Piper PA46 training is provided with the same excellent & professional approach that has become our hallmark.
The four-day format of this course allows time to answer all of your questions about your new airplane. The Texas Top Aviation Piper PA46 training course leaves you with a confidence and understanding that will help you enjoy your Malibu or Mirage even more.
New avionics have you scratching your head in confusion? No problem. Texas Top Aviation is well versed in the latest Garmin and glass panel instrumentation.
If you are in need of recurrent training in your PA-46, Texas Top Aviation would be proud to help with that as well. Consider us your one stop shop for Piper PA-46 training.
For more information, check out our Piper Malibu/Mirage Training page.
I was speaking with a pilot a few months back who was not instrument rated. He was telling me of his flying experience while continually speaking fondly of scud running. He told me several stories, most of the time with a smile on his face, about scud running to his destination while staying clear of clouds. While he was talking, my mind was cycling through the numerous accident reports I’ve seen where a scud running VFR pilot has crashed into terrain or an obstacle. Needless to say, scud running is not a very good idea.
This pilot’s stories got me to thinking, how common is the practice of scud running amongst VFR only pilots? As an instructor, I always teach my private students about personal minimums and making that no-go decision when clouds are below those personal minimums. The act of scud running falls under several of those dangerous pilot mindsets, get-there-itis, invincibility, and macho-ism, to name a few.
To bring everyone on the same page, let’s define scud running. Wikipedia has a very good definition:
Scud running is a practice in which pilots lower their altitude to avoid clouds or instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The goal of scud running is to stay clear of weather to continue flying with visual, rather than instrument, references. This practice is widely accepted to be dangerous, and has led to death in many cases from pilots flying into radio towers and high tension wires; however, even instrument-rated pilots sometimes elect to take the risk to avoid icing or embedded thunderstorms in cloud, or in situations where the minimum instrument altitudes are too high for their aircraft.
To put some numbers with that definition, a scud running VFR pilot would takeoff with a 1200-1500 foot ceiling and stay 700-1000 feet above the ground, right in the area where towers, hills, and rapidly rising terrain reside.
How do we change this mindset? Well, if someone has been scud running for years without incident, the practice becomes normal, like the pilot I mentioned above. The mindset of invincibility sets in and the practice continues. This particular pilot can also lead other pilots to adopt the same practice, encouraging them that nothing will happen to them, since we all know that our pilot peers know better than our flight instructors (insert heavy sarcasm here).
In order to change this mindset, instructors need to emphasize personal minimums from day one. This includes ceilings, visibility, and winds. For a seasoned pilot, a review of accident statistics might help the process.
Scud running is not a safe practice. If you’re a scud runner, you need to rethink your attitude. Is getting there really worth it?
Texas Top Aviation was at the AOPA Regional Fly-In at the San Marcos Regional Airport (KHYI). If you weren’t there, you certainly missed out spending time with 2,500 other airplane and flying enthusiasts!
The day began somewhat gloomy and windy with the threat of rain. Organizers feared that weather would keep a lot of people from coming. Boy, were they wrong!
There were many classic airplanes, many modern and pretty nicely equipped airplanes, and everything in between. There were aviation celebrities, Rod Machado and the Kings of King Schools fame, to name a few. Not to mention the fabulous BBQ!
Texas Top Aviation had several drawings for free training and 3 lucky winners. We also had a Lancair Super ES for sale, N132BB (which made the San Marcos Record newspaper!). It definitely stood out with it’s unique paint job. The flames on the tail drew many oohs and aahs.
Departing the San Marcos Airport after the fly in was like battling traffic in Austin at rush hour (though, Austin doesn’t have any air traffic controllers). The San Marcos controllers probably hadn’t seen that much traffic since the airport was an Army Air Base back during WWII. It was quite a sight to see all the exhibitor’s airplanes lined up ready to head skyward.
Thanks to all of you who stopped by the Texas Top Aviation booth! It was a pleasure meeting all of you and we look forward to working with you in the future!
Hank Gibson and Russell Moore of Texas Top Aviation
