Garmin GFC 700 Autopilot

ByHank Gibson

The Garmin GFC 700 Autopilot is an amazing machine.  Fully digital and fully integrated with the Garmin G1000 glass panel, it makes a pilot’s workload a lot easier, especially in busy airspace.

I train a lot of pilots in airplanes that have the Garmin GFC 700 autopilot.  The Cirrus SR22, the Columbia 350 & 400, the G36 Bonanza, and the Piper Mirage and M350 to name a few.  The most common problem I see for pilots transitioning into the Garmin GFC 700 equipped aircraft is that it doesn’t act like other autopilots.

STECs and DFC 90 Autopilots function like this:  you push the button for the mode you want on the autopilot controller and that turns the autopilot on.

Not so on the Garmin GFC 700.  If you push the button for the mode on the GFC 700, then the flight director engages, but not the autopilot.  This confuses folks a lot who move up from different autopilots because their autopilot primacy side of their brain is telling them the autopilot is on whenever they push one of the buttons on the GFC 700 controller.

Here’s an example:  A pilot has just departed and is ready to turn on course.  In his old airplane with an STEC 55x autopilot, the pilot pushes the direct to key to go to his first waypoint, then pushes NAV on the autopilot controller and the STEC 55x comes on and starts flying on course.  Then he presses VS and ALT to initiate a climb.

With the same scenario and a Garmin GFC 700 autopilot, the same pilot (who is used to a 55x), pushes the direct to key, then pushes NAV on the autopilot controller and pushes IAS or FLC to initiate the climb.  He lets go of the flight controls thinking the autopilot is engaged.  The airplane starts nosing over and he starts panicking.

Why did this happen?  The pilot in the second scenario never pushed the AP button on the Garmin GFC 700 so the autopilot never engaged.  All he did by pressing the NAV button and IAS button was to turn the flight director on.

How to remedy this?  Get in the habit of checking your scoreboard.  On the top of the G1000 or Garmin Perspective PFD, there is an autopilot annunciation strip (or scoreboard as I like to call it).  In the very middle of the scoreboard is an area to show if the autopilot or flight director is engaged.  AP means the autopilot is on; FD means the flight director is engaged but the autopilot is not.

I teach pilots to be in the habit of checking your scoreboard each time you get done pressing buttons on the autopilot controller to ensure the Garmin GFC 700 is in the proper mode.  This saves some of those panic moments when it is supposed the AP is engaged, but it’s only the FD.

Similar Posts

  • The Do’s and Don’ts of Drones

    ByAndrew Robinson
    This is the second part in a series on drones and Unmammed Aerial Systems (UAS). To read Part 1, Drones: A Brief History, please click here.

    I’m surprised how often I’ve been asked about drones by concerned passengers as they load up for a charter flight. Most commonly I’m asked how many drones I’ve seen while I’m flying, or how many drones I’ve hit/ almost hit. Sadly, the media has made this drone crisis into something that it isn’t. I’ve never seen a drone while I was operating a full scale aircraft, and I’ve certainly never been put into a situation where I felt that a drone was a threat to my safety or the safety of the flight. In fact, I only personally know one pilot who has reportedly seen one around an airport and that was an isolated incident (and a non-event).

    The reality is that while Unmanned Aerial Vehicles can be a real danger to full scale aircraft, incidents aren’t actually all that common and detailed information is often lacking or missing altogether. It is likely that some of the reported drone incidents were actually a case of a pilot confusing a loose balloon or a bird for a drone. This, combined with the media’s sensationalizing of every “close” encounter nationwide has led the public to believe that the problem is much bigger than it actually is.

    In actuality, when the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics, the USA’s governing body for model aircraft) analyzed the data from the FAA’s 764 recorded Drone sightings, only 27 of them (3.5%) were actually recorded as “near misses” or “near collisions.” Additionally, only 10 of the records (1.3%) indicate that pilot was required to take evasive action.

    The records also include reports of drone sightings at altitudes which would be impossible for civilian models to attain (19,000-24,000′). Finally, some of the sightings took place in areas which are specifically set aside for model aircraft and drones to operate.   In those cases, the person flying the drone when it was reported was actually doing so in a safe and legal manner in an area designated for that specific purpose. If you’re interested, the whole article is available here and has a lot of great information.

    As pilots, it is important that we do our part in helping reduce the risk of drone strikes. The biggest thing that we can do to help is to report any activity that we see so that it can be investigated and hopefully the drone operator can be found and dealt with. Try to get as much detail as possible about the incident, such as the size, color, location, direction and altitude of any sighted UAVs and report it to the closest tower or controlling agency.

    Recently, the people in Washington have come up with a bunch of new rules to regulate the operation of model aircraft. As of this year, every unmanned aerial vehicle between 0.5 and 55 lbs must be registered with the FAA and have an FAA issued registration number located on the model itself. The logic here is that if someone crashes a drone where it shouldn’t have been operated, the officials will be able to identify the owner of the model and take action.

    Model manufacturers and vendors have also agreed to start providing information about a program called “Know Before You Fly” (KBYF) in the packaging of the drones.  This program seeks to help educate new hobbyists to the rules and responsibilities associated with model aviation. For more information on KBYF, here is a link to their website.

    In the end, the sad reality is that it’s a combination of many factors: new technology making models cheaper and easier to fly, GPS navigation and automation, the media blowing the incidents out of proportion, and inexperienced and foolish operators which have caused the growing concern and required the FAA’s action. I think that it is important to understand that thousands of people have been flying radio controlled models for many years responsibly and this has never been a problem. The AMA has rules (which are the same ones now adopted by the FAA) regarding flying location, altitudes, speeds, and more which have kept both the modelers on the ground and the pilots in the air safe until now. Its a classic case of a few foolish individuals who have caused all modelers to be cast in a bad light.

    Birds and Airplanes

    There is no reason to fly in fear, though. A pilot should always be watching for hazards as he or she is flying, regardless of the variety. In fact, according to the FAA’s website, there were 142,000 wild life STRIKES with civil aircraft in the USA between 1990 and 2013. That seems like a much bigger concern to me than the 764 reported drone SIGHTINGS. As with any new technology, drones are suffering from growing pains. As the rules fall into place and new operators become better experienced, hopefully we will hear about fewer incidents on the evening news. Anyway, I’ll stop “droning” on. Fly safe.

    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.

  • PIREP: Austin Bergstrom Recovering After Flood Damage

    ByHank Gibson

    The massive storms that rolled through the Austin Bergstrom and San Antonio areas last Friday not only put a dent in the landscape, they put a dent in the skies too.

    The Austin Bergstrom (KAUS) control tower suffered significant flood damage Friday.  6 inches of rainfall in an hour caused water to come pouring into the first floor of the tower, flooding the radar room and knocking out the power.  This led to transmission outages for the tower, ground control, clearance delivery and the ATIS.  Similar to the Chicago Center fire last year (though this was a much smaller section of airspace), the area normally controlled by Austin Approach was replaced by a big, gaping radar hole.

    By 8:45am on Friday morning, the Austin Bergstrom airport actually closed.  One runway eventually opened back up Friday afternoon, but massive delays and cancellations had already taken place.  All the ILS approaches were down and Houston Center had taken over the airspace normally occupied by Austin Approach control.

    Austin Temprorary Tower

    A temporary, emergency tower vehicle was brought in by the FAA (it’s essentially an RV with communications and a giant window) by the end of the weekend.  All arrivals and departures were restricted to 17L and 35R.

    Due to the radar outage, I heard there was as much as a 4 hour delay even for planes coming into Austin Bergstrom from Dallas, and that was in VMC conditions on Sunday and Monday.  Tuesday and Wednesday brought IMC conditions which only enhanced the delays.

    The latest news is that Austin Approach will be opening back up, but in a satellite base in San Antonio.  The Austin controllers will be using the SAT radar room and will be receiving their radar picture via satellite.  The approach frequencies should be up and running today or tomorrow.  The Austin Bergstrom tower is up and running and most of the ILS approaches are operational at this point.

    In the meantime, expect delays going in and out of Austin.  If you don’t have to get to AUS, EDC, or GTU, you’re better off delaying a day or two until Austin Approach is back up and running.

  • 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

  • 3 Tips to Better Landings

    ByHank Gibson

    In my 3,000+ hours of flight training, I have developed some tips and tricks to help people fly better.  With teaching landings, I have 3 specific tips that will make smoother landings every time, guaranteed.

    A Good Pattern

    A wise flight instructor whom I would love to give credit to (but don’t know who it is!) once said that a good landing starts off with a good traffic pattern.  So true!  A good landing all begins with the setup.  This is true for a VFR rectangular traffic pattern or an IFR instrument approach.  Flying the proper speeds and being at the proper AGL altitudes helps immensely in making a good landing. Being at 600 feet AGL on a 1/2 mile final (or the alternative of 60 feet off the ground on a mile final!) makes it hard to make a good landing.

    Proper Use & Understanding of Pitch and Power

    Once flaps are used in the pattern, the plane is now on the back side of the power curve (or in the region of reverse command).  Power is now being used to control the plane’s rate of descent while pitch is being used to control airspeed.  The key is, both pitch and power work together, so if the pilot changes the power, he’ll also need to change the pitch and vice versa.

    The common mistake I see here is when the airplane gets low on final, the pilot tends to (quite naturally) pitch up.  All this does is bleed off airspeed and cause the airplane to sink faster.  The proper input would be to add power, then adjust the pitch for airspeed.

    Look Down the Runway

    Now that we have gotten to the point of the round-out and touchdown, it’s the most important part.  The best thing the pilot can do to make the best landing possible, is to look at the trees at the end of the runway.  When I worked with college students, I told them to find the owl in the trees at the end of the runway.

    The tendency is to stare at the pavement (or concrete) the whole way down to the landing.  When a pilot’s eyes are fixated on the ground, this destroys his depth perception and causes a level off too low to the runway, resulting in a 3 point landing and/or a bounce.

    By looking at the trees at the end of the runway, this gives the pilot much better depth perception and allows him to properly judge where to level off the airplane.

    The question now is when should the pilot start looking at the trees?  My recommendation is crossing the threshold of the runway.  For some, it works better to start looking at the trees when turning final.  Others, right before the level off.  Regardless, find that owl!

  • The Avidyne Equipped Cirrus Upgrade

    ByHank Gibson

    A History Lesson

    11 years ago, in April of 2009, the Avidyne Corporation unveiled the much bally-hooed Release 9, or R9 as it is commonly known, as a hardware replacement for the Avidyne EX5000 Entegra system in Cirrus Aircraft. The Entegra system was way outdated by that point. Even though Avidyne was the first company to put together a glass PFD in a single engine piston airplane, the company had quickly fallen behind Garmin in keeping up with the ever changing technology landscape.

    Rewind to 2008. Cirrus had been going strong with the Avidyne Entegra since the SR20 and SR22 went to full glass in 2003 (a PFD and an MFD; prior to that, Cirrus aircraft only had an MFD with steam gauges and a Sandel Electronic HSI). Cessna, on the other hand, vaulted past the Avidyne Entegra and went straight to the Garmin G1000 in it’s aircraft, starting in 2004 with the 182 G1000 and 2005 with the 172 G1000. Beechcraft and Columbia went to the G1000 (Columbia started with the Avidyne as well) in 2005.

    Garmin’s technology in 2007 was so much better than Avidyne’s technology that Cirrus decided to switch. I’m sure there were many promises made by Avidyne to Cirrus about what Avidyne was working on (the R9), but the G1000 was out there, available, and being used in a lot of different airplanes with very good results.

    So, in 2008, Cirrus made the switch from the Avidyne Entegra to the Garmin G1000, dubbing it the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin avionics package. Avidyne finally got the R9 to market in 2009, but by that time, Piper was the only airplane manufacturer left putting factory Avidyne panels in their airplanes, and they switched to G1000 later that year.

    The R9 is a fabulous product. It’s fully integrated, has great graphics, has fully redundant displays, a QWERTY keypad (which, by the way, Garmin didn’t do for another 8 years), and a lot of other neat features. There’s a bit of a learning curve, but it’s a really good product for what it is.

    Avidyne, though, was late to the game with their technology. By the time it debuted in 2009, all the GA aircraft manufacturers had long since switched to the Garmin G1000 and weren’t looking back. That left Avidyne with the retrofit market for the many different Avidyne Entegra Cirrus aircraft out there. The only problem was, the retrofit was $80,000 ($95,000 if you wanted to throw in the DFC 100 Autopilot, which is a must have) and not many owners were up for paying that much money, then or now.

    To sum up our brief history lesson, Avidyne knew the Entegra needed to go, but couldn’t get the R9 out quickly enough to convince anyone to stick with Avidyne products. The retrofit market didn’t amount to many sales, so Avidyne doesn’t even make the R9 anymore.

    As a side note, I really, really like the Avidyne R9 and am sad that it didn’t make it into more airplanes.

    So, when the Avidyne Entegra starts to have issues, what’s an owner to do? Keep reading!

    There is Hope

    There are thousands of Cirrus aircraft out there flying with the Avidyne Entegra instrumentation, which is basically 20 year old technology (I’ve had a computer engineer tell me the programming in an Entegra is Windows 98 tech). These things are going to start having problems at some point (many already have), but what solution do owners have that is cost effective and get’s them new technology?

    Remember that little company named Garmin? Well, they have come through again. Announced this summer, the Garmin G500 TXi is now certified as a replacement in the Cirrus Avidyne Entegra equipped aircraft. This means pulling out both the PFD and MFD and replacing them with the G500 TXi on both sides. Engine data is also displayed on the G500TXi MFD, including the percent power and TIT indications, if equipped.

    Cirrus SR22 Equipped with Dual G500 TXi Screens and Dual Garmin GTN 650Xi GPS Units

    The cost for the panel? Two 10.6″ G500 TXi’s run about $16,000 apiece for the units, not including labor. $32,000 for a brand new panel isn’t terrible. Plus, the G500 TXi’s work with the DFC90 autopilot if the Cirrus is already equipped with it. If not, the Garmin GFC 500 autopilot is now approved for the Cirrus at a relatively low price of $7,000, including the servos.

    Still have the original Garmin 430s in your Cirrus? Upgraded to the Avidyne IFD 540/440 stack? Put in dual GTN 650Xi’s? Put in a GTN 750Xi? All are compatible with the G500 TXi panel.

    Want to upgrade everything? It does get kind of pricey at that point, but for just equipment, the cost for a complete panel conversion is somewhere in the area of $65,000 plus labor, still below what the R9 cost, but not cheap either. That would include 2 G500 TXi’s, 2 GTN 650Xi’s, a GFC 500 Autopilot, and all the engine monitoring equipment that the G500 TXi would need.

    Cirrus SR22 Equipped with Dual G500 TXi Screens, a GTN 750Xi, and a GTN 650Xi

    Thankfully, some new technology has finally come to the Generation 1-3 Cirrus. Oh, and by the way, your steam gauge Cirrus is fully upgradable as well.

    Want to read more? Check out Garmin’s website.

  • 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.

Leave a Reply

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