Are you a Cirrus pilot with a Garmin Perspective? Still can’t figure out the use of the go around button? Read on!
When it comes to flying an instrument approach, we as pilots are assuming we are going to land. Most of the time, we won’t even take off if the ceilings or visibilities are below the minimums for an approach. 95% of the time, we do land.
There is the other 5% of the time when something unexpected happens, whether we get a full scale deflection, or we don’t see the runway at the published minimums, and we have to perform a missed approach.
When instructing, missed approach procedures are actually what I see the most deficiency in when instructing an instrument rated pilot. It’s not necessarily configuring the airplane for a missed approach procedure, it’s the button pushing involved in setting up the GPS properly. When a pilot isn’t proficient in the button pushing, that button pushing distracts the pilot from actually flying the airplane, which can lead to a dangerous situation.
I am going to spend a few articles on flying a missed approach with different GPS and different autopilot configurations. Today, I will be addressing the Garmin Perspective with a GFC 700 Autopilot, which is what all Cirrus Aircraft after 2009 are equipped with.
The Garmin Perspective Missed Approach Procedure
Once the decision to execute a missed approach has been made, here is the step by step procedure:
Full Mixture and Full Throttle
Simultaneously push the Go Around button on the underside of the throttle. This does the following:
Sets the Garmin Perspective Flight Director to Go Around Mode (7.5 degrees pitch up and wings level)
Takes the Garmin Perspective GPS out of Suspend Mode
Switches the CDI back to GPS mode if it is in a different mode
Garmin Perspective with GFC 700 Autopilot stays on
Flaps up
Confirm airplane is climbing
Set altitude bug for missed approach altitude (assuming it isn’t there already)
Set NAV mode and IAS mode on the Garmin Perspective GFC 700 Autopilot
That’s it. When Garmin and Cirrus got together to create the Garmin Perspective with the GFC 700 Autopilot, they tried to make as simple but robust system as possible. Once you have the procedure down for the right buttons to press, then the procedure is relatively straight forward.
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.
The Garmin G500
The Aspen EFD 2500
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.
I took a Piper Malibu to Cabo San Lucas a few weeks back. This was my second trip flying to Mexico, but the first where I arranged everything. Cabo is a beautiful place and the MMSL airport is a fabulous facility. For those who haven’t been fying to Mexico before, MMSL is the place to go. The folks there are extremely helpful and do most of the paperwork for you. You just have to pass along your information to them.
Flying to Mexico and back out is different than flying in the US. First of all, don’t forget your passport. The authorities on both sides frown upon that. You’ll probably get sent back to the US (or sent back to Mexico if you are on your return trip). Your aircraft also needs, Mexican insurance (talk to your US insurance agent) a radio license, and a customs decal.
Second, you’ll have to file an ICAO specific flight plan for flying to Mexico. This is available on Foreflight now, but I really like Fltplan.com’s way of doing it. I don’t fly internationally enough to remember what everything means, but Fltplan.com does a great job of walking pilots through the the different classifications. It’s almost impossible to get confused.
Third, you have to fill out an eAPIS form. This has to be done at least 24 hours prior to departure from the US, but it can be done as far in advance as you’d like. If your departure time changes or your passengers change, you can edit the eAPIS form to bring it current.
Flying to Mexico IFR is a lot simpler than flying VFR. I have only flown IFR and it is very easy. I’m already on a flight plan, already squawking a discreet code, and already on radar, so there really isn’t any way I can mess up the ADIZ penetration. I really recommend going in and out of Mexico IFR instead of VFR.
Once you land in Mexico, you have to close your IFR flight plan. The tower doesn’t do this for you. After clearing customs, you’ll have to pay a landing fee and sign your flight plan confirming you have arrived and closing it out.
When departing, you have to file another eAPIS 24 hours in advance. Wherever you plan on clearing Customs in the US, you’ll need to call the Customs office no less than 1 hour, but not more than 23 hours before arrival. It’s called an Advanced Notice of Arrival.
You’ll need to fill out a paper flight plan before departing, clear customs again to leave, then away you go.
There are a lot of really fun getaways in Mexico and flying there doesn’t have to be difficult. When you have the right information, flying to Mexico can be a breeze!
Type Clubs Lead By Example with Standard Operating Practices
This article appeared in the May 2019 edition of EAA’s Sport Aviation Magazine. It is used with permission. For other articles by Charlie Precourt, please visit EAA.org and join for a full subscription.
Imagine a year when there are no fatal accidents in general aviation. Does that seem impossible? The airlines achieved that many years ago, and so can we if we focus on the right things in our safety pro- grams. In fact, the overall trend in GA accident rates over the last few years is very encouraging. AOPA’s Air Safety Institute published its annual GA Accident Scorecard recently (see www.EAA.org/ extras), revealing fatal accidents from 2008 to 2017 are down more than 30 percent. Nevertheless, there were 185 fatal accidents in 2017, so we still have a long way to go. But, there are many developments in safety programs across GA that can keep the trend going.
One such development that I’ve advocated through a couple of type clubs is establishing standard operating practices (SOP). When I flew for both the U.S. Air Force and NASA, we had what we called standard operating procedures. They were the law for our flying. That is, we had to follow them procedurally because the folks that paid our salaries said so. The objective was to ensure we all used the same playbook, minimizing the risk that one of us might develop a bad in-flight habit that increased risk to the organization.
One way to think about SOPs is to recognize the difference between procedure and technique. For example, you have to follow the manufacturer’s pilot’s operating handbook (procedure)where it says to lower the landing gear before landing. If you don’t, you are in for a bad day. However, it does not tell you exactly when to lower the gear; that’s left to technique.
In the middle, between procedure and technique, is a best practice. In this example, lowering the gear just before the final approach fix is a “standard practice.” It is the generally accepted “best” place to lower the gear. In GA, however, aircraft owners don’t generally answer to a boss, so I prefer the term practices instead of procedures.
However, whether or not someone is paying us to fly, following best practices just makes sense. If you have a good set of practices, they enable you to do things the same way every time, leaving lots of brain cells to manage the unusual, the things that might go wrong. The safest approach to accomplishing a flight task is one that leverages consistency. On the other hand, if you are inconsistent, doing flight tasks differently each time, you’ll always be struggling to keep up. So, in my involvement with the safety committees for both the Malibu Mirage Owners and Pilots Association and the Citation Jet Pilots Association, there has been broad acceptance of recently developed standard operating practices.
The good news in this development is that a culture of safety is growing broadly across most sectors of GA through these type club initiatives. Perhaps more importantly, there is much to learn from each other about the effectiveness of these various initiatives. EAA has seen a four-year drop of 47 percent in fatal accidents among homebuilts! So, there must be something right going on there — a major focus on appropriate transition training before flying a new homebuilt (as a standard operating practice) is paying off.
So, what is covered in the SOPs these type clubs have developed? The following outlines the kinds of standard practices other type clubs have set up and represent SOPs you could establish for yourself regardless of the type of aircraft you fly. You just have to fill in the blanks for your particular type and commit to sticking to them in your flying. These are notional and are practices (not mandatory procedures). They don’t tell you how to fly your aircraft; they give you things to think about when you do. If you take a bit of time to set your own SOPs and then stick with them, you’ll be a far safer pilot. Here are some ideas:
Duty Day
Set the maximum number of hours of flight time during a calendar day and rest hours off between flying days. One example is a maximum of eight hours in the air and a minimum of 10 hours off until flying again.
Cargo
Establish best practices for what you will carry as cargo. One example is no lithium batteries in the baggage compartment.
Flight Planning and Preparation
What are your limitations for the types of flight you’ll take on? Consider SOPs such as designating a suitable alternate airport for all flights. Another might be for first flights after significant maintenance, such as no flight at night or in IMC until a day-VMC functional check flight has been done.
Runway Field Length Guidelines
Establish an appropriate minimum field length for your aircraft and commit to not going into shorter fields. Consider sea level operations and high-altitude airports as well.
Surface Operations
What should be your maximum wind conditions for taxi, takeoff, or landing? Maximum acceptable crosswinds on landing? Set them in your SOP and stick to them.
En Route
Consider establishing practices like no non-operationally necessary conversation below 10,000 feet MSL, during any segment of an approach procedure, or during the last 1,000 feet before leveloff during climb or descent. Also consider declaring “minimum fuel” when the fuel state becomes less than fuel to destination plus 45 minutes at current burn, even if flying day VFR.
Approach and Landing
Consider establishing personal minimums in your SOPs for things like visual approaches. Perhaps use a 1,500-foot ceiling and 3 miles’ visibility for day and 5 miles for night, even though these exceed the FAA’s requirements.
Pilot Limitations, Training, & Currency
FAR Part 91 rules allow us to fly with pretty marginal levels of currency. Consider setting your own SOP to something more appropriate for the kind of aircraft you fly and the kind of flying you do in it. For example, consider these ideas as SOPs:
If you have less than 100 hours of time-in-type or have not flown at least 15 hours as pilot in command in the last 90 days, use a minimum planned fuel reserve of one hour.
Also, if flying IFR in this situation, use a minimum visibility for takeoff of 1 mile.
On instrument approaches, increase the published minimums by one- half mile visibility and add 200 feet to the decision altitude or minimum descent altitude.
Perform landings at a weight that allows a full stop in 60 percent of available runway length.
Consider an SOP that establishes you will fly with a CFI on a refresher flight before flying as pilot in command if you have not logged at least an hour of flight time and one takeoff and landing in an aircraft of the same type within the preceding 45 days.
Maneuver Standards
Wherever there are “techniques” associated with things like takeoffs and climbs, cruise, use of autopilot, power settings, and approaches and landings, you can write down your preferred technique as your own SOP. Describe each maneuver in enough detail (speeds, altitudes, power settings, configurations, etc.) to define a routine you will use each time. This ensures you fly consistently each flight and leverage the power of the standard operating practice, that is, to give you the bandwidth you need should you encounter an unexpected event or an emergency.
SOPs are among the exciting concepts underway to make safety programs work for us. Hats off to type clubs like MMOPA and CJP and many others that are taking the initiative. But even if you’re not in this kind of group, you can still set up your own SOPs. Let’s all look forward to our first year in GA without a fatal accident — and let’s make it soon! Fly safe!
Charlie Precourt is a former NASA chief astronaut, space shuttle commander, and Air Force test pilot. He built a VariEze, owns a Piper JetPROP, and is a member of the EAA board of directors.
The 2020 Texas Top Aviation Santa Fe Golf Fly In has been re-scheduled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine. The new date is September 3rd-5th at the Santa Fe Buffalo Thunder Resort and Towa Golf Club.
For more information on the event and to register, please click here.
For a VFR or an IFR pilot, an unusual attitude can be one of the most dangerous situations to get into. That is one reason so many new autopilots are being developed with a level button. The concept behind the level button is if the pilot gets into a disorienting situation, press the level button and the autopilot comes on, holding the airplane in a straight and level pitch attitude.
What about all those planes without autopilots that have a level button? That’s who this article is for.
First off, what is an unusual attitude? The Airplane Flying Handbook on page 4-17 gives the following definition: “An unusual attitude is commonly referenced as an unintended or unexpected attitude in instrument flight.” The AFH also goes on to say that an unusual attitude in training has no defined bank and pitch parameters, but “for training purposes an instructor could place the airplane in a 30 degree bank with a nose up pitch attitude of 15 degrees and ask the student to recover and that would be considered an unusual attitude….”
We now have a basis from the FAA. VFR Pilots are now saying, “Oh, instrument flight, that doesn’t apply to us.” Not so fast. The Private Pilot ACS (and before it, the PTS) has a requirement for Basic Attitude Instrument Flying, including unusual attitude recoveries. Why? Because VFR pilots still inadvertently fly into IMC conditions and can get into an unusual attitude. Plus, a private, non-instrument rated pilot has a higher chance of not recovering from an unusual attitude since he isn’t used to relying on his instruments.
At each training event I do, whether it be private pilot training, a flight review, IFR training, transition training, or pretty much any kind of recurrent training, I like to do unusual attitude recoveries with my customers. It’s one of those things that the recovery procedure wanes over time since it isn’t routinely practiced solo (for good reason!).
I see people have the most trouble with the nose high unusual attitude recoveries. Let’s start with the recovery procedure, then I’ll discuss the common errors (notice that the nose high unusual attitude recovery procedure mirrors a stall recovery). Remember, this is in IFR conditions:
Breathe
Pitch Down to a level pitch attitude on the Attitude Indicator (or lower if the stall warning horn continues to go off)
Simultaneously add full power
Roll wings level
Flaps up and recover to a level pitch attitude if not there already
The order is important, especially the breathing part. What happens if a pilot goes straight into a recovery and doesn’t pause for a second or two to absorb what’s going on is the recovery isn’t executed properly.
Our brains see the wings banked and set off all kinds of alarms to roll the wings level first before doing anything else. Adding any kind of aileron input with the nose close to the critical angle of attack is a bad idea. You are adding adverse yaw (since you probably won’t be coordinated) and load factor which increases the stall speed. Then we all know that Stall + Yaw = Spin. That’s something that is best avoided in IMC.
We have to teach our brains to ignore the bank angle until the pitch and power come in. Once the airplane is far away from the critical angle of attack, then the bank can be rolled to neutral.
Let’s look at the nose low unusual attitude recovery. The order is still important on this one too:
Breathe
Power Reduce (to idle if necessary)
Roll Wings Level
Pitch up to a level pitch attitude
Add Power back to cruise
The theory with the nose low unusual attitude is your speed is accelerating. By reducing the power first, that helps reduce the load factor experienced when the pitch is increased. Same with rolling the wings level. Neutral bank is a lower load factor than some kind of a bank angle. We are trying to prevent overspeeding the airplane. The lower the load factor, the less of a chance we have to rip the wings off.
The most important step in either recovery procedure is to breathe first, allowing the brain to process exactly what is happening. That way, the proper recovery can be executed.
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.
