Garmin GFC 700 Autopilot

Lightspeed Tango Headset

ByHank Gibson March 29, 2016June 2, 2016

I recently purchased the new, wireless, Lightspeed Tango headset.  I’m a little OCD, so when a headset wire is banging against my shoulder while I’m trying to tune a radio or point something out, it’s a little annoying. A headset without the wires caught my eye.

As I’ve stated before in a previous article, I really like Lightspeed headsets.  They are more comfortable than Bose, and a little bit more affordable too.  The noise canceling quality is very high in the different Lightspeed models.  I personally believe it got even better with the Lightspeed Tango.

Let’s talk about the obvious first.  Not having a wire connecting you to the headset jacks is really nice.  You’re not tethered to anything, so your head is free to move anywhere without getting yanked back in place. Lightspeed developed a new technology, called Lightspeed Link, which bypasses Bluetooth or Wifi and connects the Panel Interface to the headset wirelessly.

The Link technology works pretty well.  The only problem I have noticed is in certain airplanes, I occasionally lose one ear, but after I wiggle the input wires around, the deaf ear comes back up.  It may be a loose connector in the plane itself.

The really nice thing about the Lightspeed Tango is the fact that it doesn’t need AA batteries anymore. Lightspeed put rechargeable lithium ion batteries in both the Panel Interface and the headset.  You get 12 hours of battery life out of both, far surpassing any length of time you would want to be in an airplane.  If the battery dies, there is a handy aux cable that can connect the Panel Interface directly to the headset (the ion batteries recharge with the included wall charger and USB cables in 2 hours).

Though the Lightspeed Tango is slightly heavier than the Zulu 2 due to the Link hardware and the lithium ion battery, it is still extremely comfortable.  The ear cups actually fit better over my ears and give me a better seal with glasses on then the Zulu 2 did.  As with all Lightspeed products, there is no squeezing of my head and the cushions on top of the headset sit very comfortably on top of my head.

The Bluetooth is much simpler to use than the Zulu 2 and definitely simpler than the Bose A20.  Sound quality is very good for phone calls and music.  The volume control on the headset itself is set to make smaller adjustments so you don’t have to deal with wide swings in volume.

Overall, I’m a big fan of the Lightspeed Tango.  I am recommending them to all the pilots I talk to.  Rolling in at $400 cheaper than the Bose, you can’t go wrong.

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.

Inadvertent IMC Entry

ByHank Gibson June 25, 2015July 1, 2015

I ran across the story about the Korean Air flight that crashed in Guam in the late ’90s the other day.  It was a 747 that hit the side of hill about 3 miles short of the runway, killing most of the people on board.  The flight was at night (arrival time was about 1:30am) and the pilot’s lost sight of the runway on a visual approach due to inadvertent IMC entry.  They didn’t execute a missed approach soon enough, got too low, and crashed.

These were experienced pilots, mind you, who had flown into that airport a number of times. They were experienced enough to know when to execute a go around.  There were several other factors that led up to the crash, but, ultimately, they lost sight of the runway due to inadvertent IMC entry.

To all the VFR pilots out there, what do you do if you accidentally fly into a cloud?  It’s a lot easier to encounter inadvertent IMC at night, simply because you can’t see the clouds in front of you.  It is no less dangerous during the day, either.

So, we’re going back to the basics today.  What really is the best course of action for a VFR pilot when flying into a cloud?  One option (and in my opinion, the best option) is to turn around. Immediately start scanning your instruments, execute a shallow banked 180 degree turn while maintaining altitude, and fly out of the cloud you just flew into.  If you have an autopilot, turn it on immediately and let it do the turn.

What if you were descending or climbing when you encountered the inadvertent IMC?  In this case, just reverse whatever you were just doing.  If you were descending, climb.  If you were climbing, descend.  Caution is needed, though, as climbing or descending when flying on instruments for an inexperienced IFR pilot could lead to a greater chance of disorientation.

One thing that could assist in spotting those clouds at night is turning the cockpit lights down.  This will allow you to see outside a little bit better and start to notice when those ground lights are disappearing.

Most VFR pilots only do instrument flying on flight reviews.  That doesn’t lead to a very high level of proficiency, so go out and grab your instructor and tell him to put you under the hood once a month.  You’ll be a better pilot overall for it.

IFR pilots, taking a note from the Korean Air flight; if you lose sight of the runway on a visual approach, especially at night, go missed and ask for the instrument approach procedure.  Don’t try and duck down below the clouds as there may be a hill or a mountain directly below you.

Make The Upgrade to Pressurization

ByHank Gibson August 23, 2018August 24, 2018

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.

The Piper Saratoga Turbo

ByHank Gibson June 20, 2014June 20, 2014

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.

Upgrading Avionics

ByHank Gibson October 6, 2014

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.