Is The Approach Active? Flying Garmin Instrument Approaches Seminar

Flying the RDD LX7

ByHank Gibson October 10, 2022October 10, 2022

I get to fly a lot of different airplanes in my chosen career. There aren’t many airplanes that I take off in, then say “Wow,” and have a big smile on my face. The RDD LX7 was definitely one of those.

I wrote about the RDD LX7 in the past, bragging about everything I read about it. The blogs all advertised 250 KTAS and 17 GPH and FL250, all of which are eye popping numbers.

Lo and behold, those numbers are true.

I got to go up to RDD’s Redmond, Oregon facility in April 2021 to get my initial training in the RDD LX7 and I couldn’t wipe the smile off my face. The 3 screen G3X Touch layout is very impressive and not crowded like I thought it would be. Being familiar with the G500TXi, there are some G3X specifics that take a little getting used to, but overall, it’s a good system. The main GPS and number 1 radio is a GTN 750Xi.

We took off from RDM and proceeded to climb at 140 KIAS, which equated to 2,000 FPM. We only had half tanks (which is still 90 gallons of fuel!), but it climbed with no problem. It’s extremely responsive as I learned while doing the basic flight maneuvers. The stall speed of the airplane (the biggest problem with the Lancair 4P, the airframe that the RDD LX7 is derived from, was the terrible wing design and extremely high stall speed), was in the low 60s or high 50s, with the stall being extremely docile.

The airplane handled very similarly to a Columbia 400, but seemed even more responsive. The glide ratio isn’t as good as some, but it’s still better than a Cirrus (plus it still has a BRS system to boot).

The big test was the flight to San Antonio from Redmond to bring the plane home. The new owner and I departed RDM with the tanks full of Avgas (180 gallons), then got up to a cruise altitude of FL210. After setting power and leaning, the numbers came out true to spec: 252 KTAS, 17.5 GPH.

The greatest part? We stopped in Santa Fe to stretch our legs and we didn’t need fuel. We still had 100 gallons left! That left us plenty to get to San Antonio with 40-50 gallons left over. Another RDD LX7 owner flew his piston direct from Redmond, OR to Jacksonville, FL, non-stop. It was over 9 hours. That’s impressive.

You can’t beat the purchase price, either. A new Cirrus SR22T runs a little north of $1.2m. A piston engine LX7, that is pressurized, 70 KTAS faster with a much longer range, and still has a BRS, is between $850,000-$900,000. An LX7 starts to make a whole lot of sense when you weigh all that. There is also a PT6 option with several different sizes and horsepowers to choose from, which costs more, but you see 300 KTAS.

To learn more about the RDD LX7, check out the company’s website: RDD LX7.

Cirrus CAPS Pull in Arkansas

ByHank Gibson December 9, 2015December 21, 2015

Cirrus CAPS pull #55 took place at the beginning of November over Fayatteville, AR.  From initial reports, it appears a clamp broke on the oil cooler, causing a loss of oil pressure.  It does not appear that the engine immediately quit, but an annunciator alerted the pilot that the engine was losing oil pressure.  At this point, it appears the pilot elected to do an emergency descent to an airport below him, but ended up not timing it right, missing the airport and pulling the parachute.

As an experienced Cirrus flight instructor, there appears to be some suspect decision making in handling this operation.  I teach in a Cirrus that if an oil light comes on, given that a pilot has some altitude to work with, it is a better option to physically shut the engine down, leaving control of the situation in the pilot’s hands.  This way, the pilot knows when the engine is stopping and is prepared for it, instead of the engine acting erratically and causing problems on the descent.

After checking the engine gauges and shutting the engine down, a pilot should establish best glide first, not nose down and descend at a high rate trying to make an airport.  Best glide gives the pilot many more options and a lot more altitude to work with, further allowing him/her to plan how to make an airport directly underneath the airplane.

To pontificate, it seems that if the pilot had adjusted the plane to best glide, instead of performing an emergency descent, there is the possibility that Drake Field would have been reachable, the chute would not have been needed, and the driver of the truck would not have had to visit the hospital.  Hindsight is 20-20, but this may be an overall training and decision making issue that may need further emphasis.

The initial NTSB report as well as a link to the CBS story is below.

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/pilot-forced-to-deploy-emergency-parachute-in-arkansas/

NTSB Identification: CEN16LA026
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, November 03, 2015 in Fayetteville, AR
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22T, registration: N857SW
Injuries: 3 Minor, 1 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On November 3, 2015, at 0950 central standard time, a Cirrus SR22T airplane, N857SW, descended under the canopy of the cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and landed on a road in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The pilot, pilot rated passenger and one person on the ground received minor injuries. One passenger in the back right seat was uninjured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to WG Aviation LLC, Rogers, Arkansas, and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed. The flight departed from the Bentonville Municipal Airport (VBT), Bentonville, Arkansas, at 0934 and was en route to the Waco Regional Airport (ACT), Waco, Texas.

According to the pilot, after departure from ACT he leveled off around 10,000 ft mean sea level (MSL) and was in “VFR on top” conditions. The pilot noticed that the crew alerting system (CAS) flashed a yellow caution light for oil pressure; the engine was still producing power. The pilot notified air traffic control (ATC) of the issue and received vectors to the nearest airport, Drake Field Airport (FYV), Fayetteville, Arkansas. The pilot descended and maneuvered toward FYV as the CAS indicated a red warning light for oil pressure, which had dropped below 10 psi. The engine was producing inconsistent power as the airplane descended to 3,300 ft and FYV was still not in sight due to cloud coverage. The pilot was unable to maintain altitude and the airplane’s stall warning horned sounded. The pilot deployed the Cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and descended to the ground. During the landing the airplane collided with a truck and then came to rest on a four lane road.

At 0953, the weather observation at FYV reported wind from 190 at 9 knots, gusting to 17 knots, 10 miles visibility, clear sky, temperature 61° F, dew point 57° F, and altimeter setting 30.11 inches of mercury.

An initial postaccident examination was conducted on November 4, 2015, in Fayetteville. Engine oil was observed on the underside of the fuselage. The oil cooler cross fitting was broken and oil was observed in the engine compartment.

The airplane’s recoverable data module and three data cards were removed and sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory for download.

The airplane has been retained for further examination.

Circle to Land Approaches

ByHank Gibson November 20, 2015November 21, 2015

When I was doing my instrument and multi-engine training, we did a lot of circle to land approaches.  As a student, I could never figure out why these types of approaches would ever be practical when you could an approach straight in to another runway.  But, as a good student, I never asked my instructors the purpose of them, I just did them to the best of my ability.

Now, having been flying in the IFR system for almost a decade, I’m finally beginning to fully understand the practical purpose of a circle to land approach.  I have actually elected to do an approach where I had to circle to land on several occasions in actual IMC conditions.

One important note to remember on circle to land approaches is that the minimum descent altitude (MDA) is always higher than on a straight in approach.  The reason for this is that you are basically joining the pattern for a different runway and you have to be able to visually keep yourself clear of towers and other obstacles.  So, you need a higher visibility and a higher ceiling than if you were just lining up to come straight in.

Here are a couple of practical circumstances where it would make sense to do a circle to land approach.

Airports with only 1 straight in approach

This one is easy.  There are a number of airports scattered around the US that have only 1 straight in instrument approach published for it.  Around my part of Texas, the first one that pops into my mind is the RNAV 31 at T85 in Yoakum, TX.  Most of the year, the prevailing wind is out of the south, so 13 is the favored runway at T85.  During the winter is when most of the IMC weather happens in South Texas, so that is why the approach is for 31.

Of course, especially this year during the summer, there are some IMC days where an approach to T85 would be necessary.  When there is a strong wind out of the south, landing on 31 is impractical, so a pilot would fly the approach to 31, then circle to land on 13.

Approaching from the opposite direction

Take a look at the RNAV 19 at KBMQ, Burnet, TX.  The two initial approach fixes (IAF) are IXANY and JIBAJ.  If a flight is approaching BMQ from the west or north, this is an easy approach to join.  If a flight is coming from Austin (directly the the east and a little south) or San Antonio (almost directly south), it would be a bit of extra flying to get configured properly for the approach.  Especially coming from Austin, because the degree of turn to join at JIBAJ wouldn’t make the approach practical.

Well, how about vectors?  Unfortunately, Houston Center doesn’t have this approach depicted so vectors aren’t a possibility.  Center can give you vectors north to make the angle a little easier to join at JIBAJ, but they can’t vector you onto the approach.

Direct DLORA to join is another option, but again, if you are approaching from the southeast, the angle is wrong.

Insert the RNAV 01 approach with a circle to land.  AMUSE is right on V163, so it’s really easy to join the approach there coming from the south.  Coming from Austin, joining the approach at SUBIE works out great. Fly down to the MDA, join the left downwind for 19, and everyone is happy.

VOR Circle to Land Approaches

Every instrument pilot has had an instructor “force” them to do a VOR A or VOR B approach and no one enjoys them.  I personally think they are good practice.  With the number of RNAV systems and RNAV approaches out there, though, VOR approaches are becoming a bit archaic.

They do have a place in this discussion, though.  A VOR approach is given an A or B designation when the angle of the final approach course is greater than 30 degrees to the runway (VOR A KLZZ), or the final approach course is lined up with the runway, but the MDA is too high to practically descend and land (VOR A KGRK or the VOR/DME C KASE).

So, there are practical uses for a Circle to Land approach.  The next time you do some IMC work with an instructor, ask him/her if you can include one.

GAMI Gains STC for G100UL, Unleaded Avgas

ByHank Gibson August 1, 2021August 30, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, Deer (Part 3)

ByAndrew Robinson March 21, 2017April 13, 2017

Read Part 1 & Part 2

Throughout the whole event, I learned quite a few things both about flying and about myself. Here are some of the lessons which I have taken away from the accident:

1. No flight is routine: When I took off that morning I was about as relaxed as I could have been while going to fly. I was flying an airplane that I knew well, in beautiful weather, to familiar airports and even carrying passengers which I had taken on this exact trip more than a dozen times. The accident brought into startling clarity that anything can happen at any time. I had done everything right that morning (preflight, weather briefing, planning, etc) , and none of that did anything to stop the deer from jumping out onto the runway. All we can do is ensure the items we do have control over are covered and try to be prepared to deal with anything else that arises. This ties directly into my next point:
2. Making sure everything is correct: When you do go fly, make sure that you have all your paperwork and personal details taken care of. I can think of a few times over the course of my flying career where something wasn’t quite right with the paperwork, or perhaps I had forgotten my wallet and I was tempted to go fly anyway. “It’s 8pm on Sunday, I’m not going to get ramp checked.” Well, I can assure you that the paperwork and questionnaires which were required to be submitted to the FAA, NTSB, and Insurance companies would have uncovered any discrepancies in my logbooks, currency, or legality. It isn’t worth the risk of flying without having everything in place just in case something happens. It isn’t just a random ramp check which can get a pilot into trouble.
3. Ask for help: The story of my collision with a deer would have had a very different outcome if it weren’t for the help that I received from countless the people on the ground. If you’re ever in a situation where you could use a hand, don’t be afraid to ask for help. If I had simply turned around and landed back at Wings, I wouldn’t even have had any idea that my landing gear was missing! The people in the control tower, the maintenance guys, the approach controllers in Philly, the emergency responders, and many more people all played their part in orchestrating a successful outcome.

   

4. Dealing with the Paperwork: I have had dealings with the FAA before, but never for an accident. I was afraid that the investigation would be a witch hunt and I would have to defend myself while someone poured over all my planning and paperwork looking for potential errors. But, my fears were totally unfounded. Although I did have to answer many phone calls, write many reports, and fill out much paperwork, the FAA, NTSB, and Insurance companies were very patient in waiting for my responses and even complimentary in how the situation played out. I really enjoyed working with all of them and appreciated their encouragement and help.
5. Emotional Response: After the dust had settled and the smoke had cleared, I was left standing on the side of the runway with the passengers and my boss. I offered to fly them back to Philadelphia or continue to Pittsburgh and assured our Chief Pilot that I was feeling fine and ready to fly again. Fortunately, there wasn’t a need. Over the next week or two, I noticed a change in myself. I wasn’t fine. I have never had headaches, but shortly after I landed I developed a headache that didn’t go away for days. I had trouble focusing on anything and I had trouble finding motivation to do much but sit and stare at a wall. I wasn’t sharp and I caught myself making silly mistakes in my normally routine activities. I wasn’t depressed, or sad, it was just an unwanted mental and physiological response to the stress and shock of what happened that morning in the Baron. I didn’t feel like myself for quite some time and I even found myself a little on edge whenever I lined up for takeoff on subsequent charters for while afterward. Eventually I started to feel normal again, but it was a slow process.
6. Feather the Props: I can’t tell you what a difference it makes when those props go from wind milling to feathered. It became clear to me that feathering a prop could make a huge difference in deciding the outcome of an emergency situation.
7. Good training and checklists usage: This one is pretty straight forward, but it’s worth mentioning. Good training and proficiency make all the difference when the odds are against you. Make sure that you use all your resources when your back is against the wall, and that includes the checklists. Under the stress of the flight I had forgotten to close the cowl flaps and would likely have landed with them open without the aid of the Emergency Procedures Checklist. This would have resulted in unnecessary damage to the airframe.
8. No need to rush: There is no denying that I had things stacked in my favor that day. I had nice weather, extra gas, daylight hours, and even the luxury of landing at my home airport. But, regardless of all those variables, there is no need to rush into anything. Ask questions, find answers and come up with a plan. Obviously not all emergencies present the pilot with the luxury of time, but use all time and resources you have to your advantage.
9. Polish up those procedures: The deer accident really made me want to go out and brush up on all the emergency procedures which I hadn’t performed since my last checkride. The realization that I could need any of them at any time was really hit home after I hit that deer. Additionally, make sure you know who to call if something ever does happen.
10. Know the systems: Familiarity with the systems on the airplane makes it easier to troubleshoot and solve issues on the fly and makes it easier to spot a problem in the first place. Knowing how systems work and what their normal indications should be helps make decisions regarding when to divert and where to land easier.

The irony isn’t lost on me that the last article that I wrote for this newsletter dealt with how to avoid making gear up landings and the high cost required to repair one. I never would have imagined when I wrote that article last fall that I would be writing one only a few months later detailing my own gear up landing.

The bottom line is that there is nothing a person can do to prepare for every situation which might arise throughout the course of a flight, and it’s also impossible to know which emergency you may have to deal with if a situation arises. All we can do is stack odds in our favor by making sure that we address the things within our control such as aircraft maintenance, careful flight planning, checking weather, and having personal minimums set in place to keep us from flying outside of our skill sets and comfort zones.

Additionally, ensuring that you are knowledgeable and proficient in your aircraft’s procedures will give you the best chance for success. When things start going wrong, keep calm, and ask for help. Work the problem instead of guessing or rushing into a less than desirable solution. No one wants to be caught in an emergency like a deer in a landing light!

Andrew Robinson is an airline pilot for Piedmont Airlines.  He is a former 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania.  He instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.

An Educational Runup

ByHank Gibson July 23, 2020July 17, 2020

When a pilot thinks of an engine runup in a single engine piston airplane, typically it is let’s find out if the engine is running rough or not, meaning a spark plug is fouled.  Believe it or not, there is a little more to learn from a runup than just checking the spark plugs.

A distinct advantage to having an engine monitor that monitors all EGTs and CHTs is you get a better idea of engine health.  When switching to one magneto or the other during the runup, all the EGTs should rise, showing that the temperature of the exhaust gas is going up from each cylinder.  This occurs because when running on only one magneto and one set of spark plugs in each cylinder, the mixture takes longer to burn, so, when the exhaust valve in the cylinder opens, the burn is still on going and this hits the EGT probe, causing a temperature rise.  An indication of a magneto failure in flight would be a rise in all the cylinders EGT without a change in mixture setting.

Now that we know what to look for when checking each magneto, what would one look for to show that there is a problem?  The basic that each student pilot is taught still applies.  The engine manufacturer puts a limit on RPM drop during the runup.  When checking one magneto or the other, watch for an excessive RPM drop.  If the RPM drops past the limit, this usually will be accompanied by engine roughness.

Why is that?  Let’s look at the cause for the excessive RPM drop.  For this, we need to go back to our EGT indicators.  Let’s say we have a 6 cylinder engine.  When the key is turned to the right magneto, the RPM drops 250 RPM and the engine gets very rough.  Look at the EGT gauge.  The cylinders where the spark plugs are firing normally will all show a temperature.  The cylinder (or cylinders) where there is no combustion, meaning a bad plug, will show no temperature.  This is because the mixture is just sitting in the cylinder and not igniting, therefore, no exhaust gases will be pushed out so there will be no EGT indication for that cylinder.  This is also how you tell a mechanic which cylinder to check for the bad plug.

It could also be a bad magneto.  If multiple cylinders EGT all drop, or the engine wants to quit entirely, you have a bad magneto or bad ignition harness.

What else can you learn during the runup?  Electrical system health is key, especially in all electric airplanes (meaning no vacuum system).  It’s a very good idea to turn on all the lights and pitot heat to ensure that a rise is indicated on the ammeter.  This means the alternator is carrying the load and working properly.

The next time you do your runup, keep an eye on your EGT to see the rise during a magneto check.