Just south of the equator in the mountains of Papua, Indonesia on the island of New Guinea, pilots spend their days carrying food, building supplies, doctors, pigs, and passengers into some of the most remote and extreme airstrips on the planet. That’s where I fly.
Each morning I load my Cessna Grand Caravan with 2,600 lbs of (insert strange cargo here) and depart my home base of Wamena just after the sun sends its first rays of light across the waking skies above. I spend my day winding through narrow valleys and crossing high altitude mountain passes with building clouds and poor communication, only to land on short, narrow airstrips with steep slopes and little room for error. Most of these one-way in, one-way out runways require me to commit to landing well before touchdown due to terrain that is too close to allow for a safe go-around. Everything better be right when I cross that decision point or I could be in for some excitement.
The need to keep wide margins of safety might seem obvious in environments like mine, but that doesn’t make them any less important where you fly. You may be a new pilot or an old timer, but keeping your margin should always be on the top of your priority list.
Let’s unpack this further. Margin is not just maintaining the regulatory requirements for cloud clearances or minimum altitudes. It’s more than planning for an alternate airport or carrying the required fuel reserve. Margin is breathing room. It is that extra maneuvering room, the Plan C, the well thought out options that provide you multiple “outs” in any given situation. Margin is what gets you home when things take a turn for the worse.
Margin comes in all shapes and sizes. For myself it includes maintaining double my required turn radius in narrow valleys or choosing not to land when my groundspeed is just 1 knot too high at a short and slippery airstrip. For you, it could be determining a ceiling or visibility minimum requirement that is more conservative than the legal ones or setting a wind limitation that you know is reasonable. When it comes down to it, keeping your margin means you don’t push to the ragged edge of your skill or the aircraft’s capability.
Margin can also refer to your mental or emotional capacity. Are you mentally prepared to divert and miss that important event because the weather is getting bad? Are you ready to handle the disappointment of passengers when you arrive over your airstrip and choose not to land due to approaching rain or a factor that is difficult for a non-pilot to understand? Are you willing to cancel a flight on an important client because you are coming down with a cold or didn’t get adequate sleep? As the PIC of your flying machine, you alone are responsible for the safety of the aircraft and the people on board and those are the tough calls that only you can make.
Fatigue, overconfidence, and complacency are the biggest obstacles to keeping your margin. They are all very subtle dangers and you may be experiencing them without even recognizing it. Fatigue can slow down your thought process leaving you behind the plane and backed into a corner before you know it. Overconfidence might cause you to push weather or commit to a course of action that has no favorable alternatives. Complacency will lead you to believe that, because you have 2000 hours in a particular make and model, you don’t need to do a thorough preflight or complete the pre-landing checklist.
Regardless of experience level, operating environment, fancy avionics, and level of proficiency, margin is something that we all need plenty of. So as you go about your upcoming flights, be asking yourself what you can do to build in more margin. It just might be what gets you home.
Pete Greenwald is a transplant to Atlanta, Georgia who has fallen in love with all things Southern, including his wife, Ashley. As a pilot and A&P with Mission Aviation Fellowship, he flies the Cessna Grand Caravan in Papua, Indonesia serving people who live in isolation. In his spare time he is on the hunt for the best burger around.
The FAA defines personal minimums “as an individual pilot’s set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines for deciding whether and under what conditions to operate (or continue operating) in the National Airspace System.” Have you actually given thought as to why we choose the personal minimums we do? From the beginning of initial pilot training, weather minimums were established for day-to-day training and during solo flight. I didn’t realize it at first, but I later learned these limits were not just an insurance mandate, but these minimums were set at the time to safely operate an aircraft based on my “then” current experience.
So here’s the question: what are your personal minimums and WHY do YOU have them? Do you ever lower or raise your minimums? Are your minimums based solely on your overall experience level or do they take into account other variables such as advanced avionics? For pilots that fly multiple aircraft like I do, can and do your minimums change in regard to category or type of aircraft you are flying? It’s a judgment decision on how you chose your minimums. However, it’s important that time is taken before you strap into the cockpit for each flight to critically think about the different risk factors and variables which may affect your decision for the minimums you choose.
To guide us, let’s try briefly apply the FAA’s Personal Minimums Checklist to see how risk factors might shape what personal minimums or decisions we make for the day. Remember, just because you have been flying with a certain set of minimums one day, doesn’t mean you can’t adjust your minimums to a higher value given an ever-changing situation.
The acronym most pilots have heard is PAVE:
Pilot– We all should be familiar with the acronym IMSAFE associated with this. It addresses variables such as Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, and Emotion. But how do you adjust your personal minimums using this guideline? Have you ever thought about raising your minimums for a training flight if you only got 4-6 hours of sleep, instead of 8? Or if you anticipate a hard IFR flight with a long day, maybe taking a safety pilot to mitigate the chance of a mistake if you’re forecasting having to shoot an approach to your weather planning minimums.
Aircraft– Personally, this is a really important factor for me when deciding what minimums to apply. I often spend a large majority of my time asking myself; is this aircraft properly equipped for the flight? This question goes beyond just looking at the logbook for a properly equipped and legal aircraft. A professional pilot should think further. Am I flying a traditional 6-pack “steam gauge” layout, non-slaved compass card, with a separate OBS gauge for course guidance? What if the aircraft doesn’t have an auto-pilot? What if I’m flying an aircraft equipped with a dual auto-pilot, dual GPS with an integrated glass cockpit? I can comfortably say my personal minimums change depending on the equipment I have available.
A pilot should also look at his/her recency with the aircraft. For example, if you are qualified to fly both airplanes and helicopters, maybe you should choose to have higher personal minimums in one particular airframe or if you haven’t flown that airframe within 30, 60 or 90 days. This is a very important factor for the owner/pilot.
EnVironment– Most of the time, when we think of environment, we ask ourselves, is the weather legal for me to take off and, more importantly, can I conduct this flight safely? Basic flight planning should have taught us to take into consideration crosswind limits, day versus night, and the type of airspace the flight is conducted in. Thought should also be given to how you set your personal minimums in regards to the particular type of environment you might rarely encounter. Flying an approach to your minimums in the flat plains of Texas during the day is one thing, but how would you adjust your weather minimums flying to a new airport, at night, with no moon illumination, in the mountains of Colorado? Could you reduce the risk and adjust your minimums in this scenario with two pilots?
External Pressures – What external pressures are affecting your flight? Passengers, the owner, “get-there-it is”, the desire to impress someone? Although external pressures should never be a factor when conducting a flight, they almost always play a role in your decision whether to conduct the flight or not. For example, a professional pilot gets hired to do a flight and the weather is below their personal minimums. The pilot could be tempted to lower their minimums by 100 feet to take the flight for a paying customer. This scenario plays out every day across the country whether it’s a professional pilot or owner/pilot. It would be foolish not to consider this type of pressure. Always make sure you have a plan if and when you encounter this situation. Planning your flight and having a plan to deal with these potential scenarios ahead of time ensures you stick to your minimums. It can be as simple as telling your passengers, or the owner, well ahead of your flight what your personal minimums are to accept the flight, and to ensure they, or you, have a back-up plan!
Most pilots will never break a hard limitation such as an airframe cross wind limitation, or engine limit, but the chances of breaking a personal minimum are realistic. Think about the last time you went on a diet and broke your plan because you were tempted by your friends or family during an outing. Self-imposed personal minimums can be hard to enforce and we need to acknowledge this as humans. Here are a few techniques that you can use to assist in making a decision using personal minimums and help reduce the influence of external pressures.
Step 1: Sit down with your CFI/CFII and fill out a personal minimums worksheet. Filling one out by yourself is a good start but having an outside objective view will help in making sure your personal minimums are realistic. Remember, it is easy to convince ourselves that we can do something even though we have set personal minimums. Talk with other pilots to see if you have set realistic expectations.
Step 2: Preflight planning must start a few days in advanced. It can be as easy as checking what the forecast might be and looking at the projected route, near-by alternate airports, and various approaches. This can be done quickly and will give you a heads up on whether the flight can be safely conducted or not. By alerting the passengers or owner early enough, alternate plans can be developed. An extra pilot can be added, the passengers can fly commercial, bring along a CFI, or cancel the trip altogether and seek alternate transportation. The main point is the decision was made well ahead of the flight when conditions didn’t look favorable. This helps in removing external pressures and ensures you don’t go below your personal minimums.
Step 3: Never be afraid to ask for a second opinion. Part 135 operators have set procedures for conducting flights which assist the pilots in making decisions. These set procedures help remove external pressures by allowing the pilot to say, “The rules don’t allow for this, or this is how we will conduct the flight!” However, under Part 91, the pilot has to take ownership for all phases of the flight. This is where talking it out with another pilot helps with mitigating external factors and the environment. Ideally, this person should have more experience and be able to talk through the situation. For instance, if I’m flying to a new destination, I often seek the advice from another pilot who’s familiar with the area. They may have key insights into weather patterns, preferred approaches, or hazards to avoid. In certain situations, asking for another pilot’s opinion might be what influences your go/no-go decision! You’ll be amazed how much you can learn just from talking to other pilots.
Step 4: Continue to build your experience and knowledge base. Building experience requires us to push our abilities, and sometimes this may be to the limit. However, this can be done in a controlled training environment or just going out and experiencing it. Get a new license, fly regularly with a CFI/CFII, and always try and take advantage of training opportunities. For example on your next flight from point A to point B, practice hand flying an approach, do a short field landing, a quick steep turn, etc. Quality flight time is always better than quantity. Continue to challenge yourself and try not to become complacent.
Personal minimums are a tool to assist in every pilot’s aeronautical decision making process. Use your personal minimums to guide your final go/no-go decision and remember to stick to the plan. I encourage you to review the FAA’s Risk Management Handbook (FAA-H-8083-2). Appendix B has Sample Risk Management Scenarios and reviewing them will give a better understanding how to apply the techniques discussed to your everyday flying.
Pedro Vargas-Lebron is a King Air 200 and uH-60 Blackhawk Instructor pilot with the Texas Army National Guard. Pedro is a CFI/CFII/MEI both in airplanes and helicopters with over 4000 hours of flight time, half as an instructor pilot.
Almost all IFR pilots are familiar with visual approaches and what the requirements are in order to fly a visual approach. As a refresher, the Instrument Procedures Handbook defines a Visual Approach as “an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an [Instrument Approach Procedure]” (page 4-56).
For ATC to issue a Visual Approach, the pilot must have the airport or the traffic to follow in sight. Once the pilot reports the airport or the traffic in sight, ATC can clear the aircraft for a visual approach.
A limiting factor for a visual approach is ATC’s Minimum Vectoring Altitude. “This altitude, based on terrain and obstruction clearance, provides controllers with minimum altitudes to vector aircraft in and around a particular location” (Instrument Procedures Handbook page 1-42). ATC has to restrict aircraft to these MVAs, which can sometimes be quite high due to terrain or obstacles in the vicinity of the airport.
Every pilot has been in a situation with a high MVA that ATC can’t get them below, but it’s solidly MVFR or VFR at the destination airport. The MVA keeps the pilot in the clouds, so a visual approach isn’t possible since the pilot can’t see the airport or the traffic to follow. This can lead to extra time to go out and fly an approach.
Enter a Contact Approach. A Contact Approach is different then a Visual Approach. “The main differences between a visual approach and a contact approach are: a pilot must request a contact approach, while a visual approach may be assigned by ATC or requested by the pilot; and a contact approach may be approved with 1sm visibility if the flight can remain clear of clouds, while a visual approach requires the pilot to have the airport in sight, or a preceding aircraft to be followed, and the ceiling must be at least 1,000 feet AGL with at least 3sm visibility” [Instrument Procedures Handbook page 4-57].
Here’s the simplified explanation: A pilot does not have to have the airport in sight to request a contact approach. All that is required is for the airport to be reporting at least 1sm visibility and for the pilot to remain clear of clouds.
When would this be helpful for an IFR pilot? Good question. Here’s a scenario.
Pilot Smalls is about 20 minutes from his destination, which is an uncontrolled airport with only one approach to runway 17. He is approaching from the south and the initial approach fix for the approach to 17 is about 15 miles north of the airport. The airport is under Center control. When he has arrived at this destination in the past, Center usually could only vector him down to 4,000 AGL. He is very familiar with this airport and the surrounding area as he comes to this destination at least 2-3 times a month for business.
Pilot Smalls listens to the AWOS, which is reporting a 2500 foot scattered layer and 10 miles visibility. He knows it is right traffic for 17 since there is a 2,000 foot antenna on the east side of the field. There is some hilly terrain around, but all the terrain is well below pattern altitude and doesn’t cause a safety issue.
Looking out at the clouds, Pilot Smalls observes that the cloud layer is scattered to broken, but more scattered on the west side of the airport, with several large openings that he can see the ground through. Center asks for his approach request and Pilot Smalls requests a visual approach. Center gives him a descent to 4,000 AGL, their MVA for the area. They tell him to report the airport in sight for the visual approach.
At 4,000 AGL, Pilot Smalls is going through the scattered layer of clouds, but can see the ground in between the clouds and deems he has room to maneuver safely between the clouds and stay clear of them. He can’t see the airport, so a visual approach seems unlikely. He can’t cancel IFR because then he would have to keep the VFR cloud clearance and visibility requirements in Class E airspace (1,000 feet above, 500 below and 2sm horizontally), which isn’t possible in this case.
5 miles from the airport, ATC states, “N12345, I’m going to have to send you out for the approach since you don’t have the airport in sight.” Pilot Smalls then requests a Contact Approach. ATC clears him for the Contact Approach to his destination, so Pilot Smalls descends through a break in the clouds, remaining clear of clouds, until he gets below the base of the ceiling. He maneuvers onto the right downwind, lands and cancels IFR.
Contact approaches can be useful at controlled and uncontrolled airports. The first time you request one, do so with a higher ceiling and some room to maneuver to keep your safety margins. After you’ve done a few, you can determine what your personal minimums are for a Contact Approach.
I would not recommend doing a Contact Approach at an airport you are unfamiliar with. It’s vital to know what obstacles are around since on a Contact Approach, the pilot is now responsible for traffic avoidance and terrain avoidance, whereas on a visual approach, ATC resumes that responsibility.
Earlier this month, Cirrus announced the new Cirrus G6 SR20 and SR22. To the naked eye, they look like incredible airplanes. There is new lighting and the updated Cirrus Perspective+ avionics in both models, plus the SR20 is now a Lycoming powered airplane.
The Perspective+ in the Cirrus G6 is based on Garmin’s G1000 NXi platform. The keypad is updated to a QWERTY keypad, allowing for quicker inputting of data since our fingers are already used to the setup. A home button was added to the center stack to get back to the map page without having to hold down the CLR key. The bug knobs were moved down to the autopilot, while the display of the GFC 700 was altered slightly to match the Vision Jet setup.
The Perspective+ also boasts a 10-fold increase in processor speed, allowing the system to move quicker than the standard Perspective. The ability to wirelessly update databases has also been included.
The exterior of the Cirrus G6 SR22 and SR20 models has changed as well. Cirrus has added the Spectra wing tip lighting system to the Cirrus G6. It incorporates an entire light panel that runs the length of the wing tip. The LED dual strobe setup helps with aircraft visibility and ramp appeal.
The SR20 engine has been changed to the Lycoming IO-390, 215 HP engine. The Continental IO-360-ES 6 cylinder engine comes out of the SR20 and the 4 cylinder Lycoming goes in. 2 less cylinders will help with useful load and the extra 15 HP will help with takeoff and climb performance.
The new Cirrus G6 is available for order and delivery immediately. To read all the details and specs on the Cirrus G6, you can check out Cirrus’ website.
I’ve noticed that a lot of general aviation pilots tend to ignore the flight director on the attitude indicator. A lot of pilots don’t even know what it’s there for or how to use it. Talk to any airline pilot, though, and he or she will tell you how important the flight director actually is.
In most high performance airplanes, the flight director comes on when the autopilot comes on. Essentially, the autopilot is following the flight director, which tells the autopilot where to go. The flight director can also be used with the autopilot off, when hand flying an approach, for example. By turning the flight director on, it will show you where you need to fly to stay on course and on glide slope.
The flight director is most often controlled by the autopilot controller. The same buttons you use to put the autopilot in heading mode also tells the flight director to follow the heading bug when the autopilot is off. When you move the heading bug (or change course on the GPS, depending on which mode you have selected), the flight director will show you when you need to turn and when you need to stop turning. It directs your flight attitude, hence the name.
I recently discovered it’s a great backup when you have some instruments on the fritz. I went on a long flight in a steam gauge Piper Malibu and the attitude indicator started reading erratically. While flying straight and level, it would randomly indicate that I was in a 10 degree bank to the right, swing back and show wings level, then show a 3 degree turn left. This went on for a while. We were in VMC conditions, so legality wasn’t a problem, but it was kind of disorienting.
After a little while of this, the autopilot started acting up. It would start oscillating the pitch up and down, making it seem like we were going through a moguls course in the air. I ended up turning the autopilot off and hand flying the airplane.
This led to a conundrum, since my attitude indicator was unreliable. I could definitely look outside, since it was VMC, seeing when I was level and when I wasn’t. That would create a higher workload for me, which on a long flight like I was on, would lead to an increase in fatigue. The solution? The flight director!
I turned the autopilot off, but I left the flight director up. It wasn’t referencing the bank angle that the attitude indicator was showing since the KFC 150 goes off of the turn coordinator. So, if I just followed the attitude indicator, I could just keep scanning the instruments and relieve a little bit of my workload.
It actually worked really well. By just following the flight director, I was able to stay on course and on altitude with only minor attitude adjustments whenever we hit turbulence.
So, if you’re attitude indicator and autopilot decide to stop working on you, then bring up the flight director, push the same buttons you would if you were using the autopilot, and it works as a great backup.
You have plans to fly to an airport 218 miles north for a business meeting. Your window is tight; you have an early morning meeting at your office you can’t miss prior to leaving for the airport. The colleagues you are flying to meet must catch another flight within two hours of your target arrival time.
You’re comfortable flying in the current weather conditions, but a small southward-moving storm north of your destination might threaten your approach. Additionally, given the time of day, you can expect ATC delays due to vectors and know you’ll have to adjust on the fly.
Are you confident you can make the meeting in time?
If the answer isn’t immediately clear, you’re not alone. Good aeronautical decision making is of utmost importance in the air. External pressures, unexpected challenges, and your level of instrument proficiency are among the many factors to consider when considering an IFR flight.
While we can’t remove the external pressures or control the weather, we CAN help with instrument proficiency!
Introducing … The Aviator’s Academy – advanced online pilot training.
During my time training hundreds of capable and competent pilots at Texas Top Aviation, my most common observation with seasoned and rookie pilots alike is that the pilot is often aware of knowledge gaps with the airplane’s avionics after initial flight training or after upgrading to a more advanced airplane, but aren’t sure where to get answers. Simply put – expert glass panel flight training is hard to find.
They know enough to have earned their license, but still feel uneasy anticipating unexpected challenges. This leaves them feeling at best, uncomfortable, or worse, on edge and unsafe. When you’re not as proficient as you could be, an easy flight can become stressful quickly in unexpected scenarios, and things spiral from there. It doesn’t have to be this way.
That’s why The Aviator’s Academy offers online courses with real-life scenarios using glass panel avionics. You’ll gain more confidence in the air and be equipped with better aeronautical decision-making skills after learning from the best in the business.
We understand the pressures you face in the air. We get it because we have been providing expert, personalized, owner/pilot instruction since 2014 at Texas Top Aviation. With over 8000 hours of instruction given in Technically Advanced Aircraft and over 13,000 hours in total flight time, The Aviator’s Academy instructors are qualified to fly and instruct most single-engine aircraft to a level that far exceeds what a flight school can provide. Nowhere else can you get expert glass panel online instruction for Technically Advanced Aircraft.
If you’re in need of an instrument proficiency check and fly a technically advanced aircraft with glass panel instruments, this is the place to get your ground school training. Conveniently online. Expertly taught.
Mastering your glass panel avionics isn’t impossible. You just need a guide. Enroll in the course you need to take your skill to the next level. You’ll receive expert, specialized online training. Then you’ll fly with confidence.
LAUNCHING AT OSHKOSH! Visit www.aviatorsacademy.com and leave us your email to be notified when our first course drops. Come visit us at booth 3004 at Osh Kosh, July 25th-July 31st, 2022.
When the Epic E1000 was finally certified in the spring of 2020, there was much celebrating across the aviation world. Epic Aircraft expended a lot of time and energy getting the E1000 certified and into production (more information on that journey here and in Flying Magazine here).
The airplane is amazing. In the single engine, 6 seat turboprop market, it easily blows away the competition. With it’s 1,200 SHP PT6-67A, it has double the horsepower of the M600 (600 SHP), and 350 more horsepower than the TBM 940 (850 SHP). It’s 60 KTAS faster than the M600 and, even though the TBM can keep up (both airplanes have equal top cruise speeds of 330 KTAS), the Epic E1000 can carry a payload of 1,024 pounds with full fuel, while the 940 can only carry 584 pounds with full fuel. The TBM carries about 15 minutes more of fuel, but to me, that’s pretty negligible.
Did I mention climb rates? The E1000 climbs at an average of 1500 FPM at Vy (it’s capable of 4,000 FPM), making it to 25,000 feet in 10 minutes. The TBM climbs at 1000 FPM, taking 13 minutes to climb to the same altitude, while the M600 settles in at about 800 FPM, reaching FL250 in 21 minutes.
If you expand the comparison to include the Pilatus PC-12, the two airplanes have 1,200 SHP, but the Epic is 50 KTAS faster and they both have about the same weight carrying ability.
In the most important arena, price, the E1000 is around a million dollars cheaper than the TBM 940.
The one drawback to the Epic E1000 that immediately was noticeable was the autopilot. Epic originally installed the STEC 2100 autopilot to pair with the G1000 (and later the G1000 NXi). Epic decided to stick with the STEC 2100 through certification for the plane since that autopilot was on all of the E1000s paperwork going through all the levels of FAA approval. To change to the GFC 700 during the certification process would have been a massive undertaking that probably would have delayed certification.
The STEC 2100 is a good autopilot, but, as any G1000 pilot can tell you, the lack of integration between any STEC autopilot and Garmin panel leaves some to be desired. Not all the bugs talk, which often requires dual data entry, which can lead to forgetting to do both the bug and the autopilot when things get busy. Hello, altitude deviation.
The goal for Epic was never to leave the STEC autopilot in the airplane. The first E1000s were rolled off the line with the STEC, but Epic didn’t take long to change the autopilot to the much more integrated Garmin GFC 700. That took place this winter (2020), and the E1000 received it’s first upgrade, with Epic dubbing the airplane the Epic E1000 GX.
I expect the innovators in Bend, OR, where Epic is based and where tons of innovation in aviation happens (Lancair/Columbia started in Bend while RDD is based there as well), to quickly come out with more avionics upgrades for the airplane. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a G3000 version at some point, complete with auto throttles and the new Garmin Autoland. Epic would be smart to follow in the steps of Daher and offer two models, one with the G1000 and one with the G3000 (the TBM 910 has the G1000 NXi while the TBM 940 has the G3000).
I have yet to fly in an Epic E1000, but I would certainly jump at the chance to do so. Someone asked me yesterday what airplane I would buy if I had a blank check. With the GFC 700 now in the Epic, it would absolutely be the E1000 GX.
One Comment