L-3 has jumped into the ADS-B transponder game with their Lynx line of products. Aircraft owners have a myriad of options with the Lynx line, from simply becoming ADS-B compliant with the NGT-1000 ($2,100, with ADS-B out that works with the GTX 327 and GTX 330), or going all in with the NGT-9000 touch screen transponder complete with ADS-B In, a traffic screen and NEXRAD ($6,800).
The NGT 1000/2000/2500 line works with the existing transponder in the airplane (as long as it’s a Garmin GTX 327 or 330). The 2000 gives ADS-B In capability, allowing the pilot to access NEXRAD and traffic, plus has a Wifi source to broadcast all the information to an iPad. The 2500 includes all of that, plus gives the pilot MFD capability as well. An optional control panel is available if the airplane is not equipped with one of the aforementioned Garmin transponders.
The L-3 Lynx NGT-9000 is an actual transponder replacement. It is a touch screen device that has a multitude of ADS-B features that, quite frankly, are really cool on a transponder. The ADS-B traffic is displayed on the unit itself and can also be sent, via the optional Wifi connection, to an iPad on the WingXPro or SkyRadar apps. The optional L-3 NextGen Active Traffic can also be installed to receive traffic callouts (this does not include resolution advisories). Already have SkyWatch? The L-3 Lynx can use the equipment.
The L-3 Lynx NGT-9000 is also capable of displaying NEXRAD as well as METARs, TAFs, NOTAMs, and TFRs and a myriad of other weather products, all on it’s moving map. It seems that L-3 has taken the transponder and turned it into something awesome.
To read more about the L-3 Lynx line of transponders, you can visit their website.
Sadly, in January, a pretty great airplane was put out to pasture. Textron (the conglomerate that now owns Cessna, Beechcraft, Hawker, and Lycoming) announced it was ceasing production of the Cessna TTx. With the end of the Cessna TTx production, an airplane that was the main “competitor” to Cirrus (if you can call it competition; Cirrus consistently outsold the Cessna TTx by a wide margin each year), it leaves the SR series to stand alone atop the High Performance piston single market.
I got to go through Cessna’s FITS Accepted Instructor (CFAI) course back in 2012 and have flown in the Cessna 350 and 400 (which is what they were known as at the time; the Cessna TTx name came around in 2011) for about 120 hours. I really like the airplanes. I’m partial to the Cirrus, but the Cessna 350 & 400 are fast airplanes and great for 1-2 people. I flew a 350 (the non-turbo charged version) from New York to San Antonio last fall and routinely saw 170 knots at 12 GPH.
Columbia started out making the 350 & 400 (the turbo-charged version) in the early 2000s, but went bankrupt in 2007. Lancair started Columbia to make a certified version of their popular kit planes. If you see a Lancair ES floating around, you would swear it’s a Columbia with only 1 door. Cessna bought the design from Columbia in 2007 to begin manufacturing the airplanes themselves.
Cessna then made a huge mistake as they moved the production facility from Bend, Oregon to Mexico. Production completely halted in 2009 as the planes coming out of Mexico were found to have defective composite work. The sales never really recovered, even though Cessna put the Garmin G2000 panel in the Cessna TTx, complete with a touchscreen key pad. A FIKI system was added as an option in 2012.
A prospective buyer can still get a great value on a used 350, 400, or TTx, as they are valued a little lower than a Cirrus. The 350, 400 or TTx all make excellent single pilot or two person speedsters with very comfortable amenities.
In January, Cirrus announced the Generation 2 SF50 Vision Jet. After getting the Generation 1 Vision Jet certified in late 2016, Cirrus didn’t waste any time in starting in on improvements.
The improvements are pretty sweet, making the G2 Vision Jet even easier to fly and step into for Cirrus’ target market, SR22 owners.
Here are the improvements on the G2 Vision Jet.
RVSM Approval
The G2 Vision Jet has received RVSM approval, allowing the airplane to fly at 31,000 feet. RVSM stands for Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (read more about RVSM here). RVSM airspace starts at 28,000 feet, the G1 Vision Jet’s ceiling. Now that the G2 Vision Jet is RVSM certified, it can fly at 31,000 feet.
For piston pilots, you are left scratching your head as to the advantage of this. In a jet, the higher you go, the thinner the air, so the faster you go, and the less fuel you burn since the thin air needs less fuel to mix with. This caps out at a certain altitude and the speed begins dropping and you start losing efficiency (even though the fuel burn is quite low).
According to Cirrus, at 31,000 feet, the G2 Vision Jet cruises over 300 KTAS and gets a range boost to almost 1,200 nm.
Garmin Perspective Touch+
Cirrus & Garmin have taken the new NXi interface and paired it with the Garmin Perspective Touch to create the Touch+. You can read about the improvements on the NXi here, all of which are included in the Touch+ in the G2 Vision Jet.
The big improvement that is included in the Touch+ is Autothrottle capability. An Autothrottle is integrated with the autopilot. It automatically adjusts power settings and speeds based on the phase of flight without the pilot having to touch the throttle. Pretty cool.
New Cabin
The G2 Vision Jet has a redesigned cabin as well, making it an extremely passenger friendly airplane. The second row has been redesigned and equipped with a center console. There is also a drop down TV screen that allows passengers to connect their mobile devices to it to watch movies or videos while traveling (no internet on board, yet. That’ll probably be the G3 Vision Jet!).
Cirrus also put in more noise reduction in the cabin, creating a quieter ride for passengers. Cirrus also allows for multiple different seating configurations, depending on the needs of the owner.
As always, Cirrus is on the leading edge of airplane technology, creating airplanes that are easy as well as fun to fly. I’m excited to see how they continue to improve the design to both the SR22 and the Vision Jet.
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.
For a long time, I was happy if an FBO had a radio where I could tune the ATIS or automated weather before getting into the plane. This would allow me to skip listening to the weather in the airplane with the engine running, giving me a quicker exit from the ramp while burning a little less fuel. I would also be able to brief my taxi route from the ramp since I would know which runway was in use before getting in the plane.
As we progress forward in technology, I’m constantly amazed at how much more planning I can do from the palm of my hand. Now, I can call a phone number and get the ATIS, AWOS, or ASOS, depending on the size of the airport; if you prefer reading a text version…well, there’s an app for that.
With this technology, it’s very important for pilots to be aware of what service they are utilizing when calling these numbers. Usually only a Class B or larger Class C airport will have a phone number specifically for ATIS as well as one for AWOS/ASOS. These are listed in the Airport/Facility Directory (AFD), as well as all flight planning apps (Foreflight, Garmin Pilot, Stratus Insight). More then one pilot has called the AWOS/ASOS number for an airport thinking they would receive the ATIS (because towered airports that have ATIS phone numbers often also have AWOS/ASOS phone numbers that are different). Since the pilot didn’t hear a code on the phone, that led to the false thinking that either the tower was closed or the pilot did not have the code (ie. Information Bravo) to give to ground control when calling for taxi instructions. The minute weather can be very useful for flight planning, but the ATIS must be received before contacting ATC at a towered airport.
Notice the red box just past halfway down the page. There is a phone number for the ASOS at KSAT and a separate phone number for the ATIS next to the frequency.
Sometimes, you may get a busy tone if someone else is on the line. Usually, waiting a few minutes and trying again will lead to success. Just like old school phone lines, only one call can go through at at time! If it’s a particularly stormy day, you may be fighting a number of pilots to get on the line. In this case, an app where you can read the ATIS may be particularly helpful (Yes, there actually is a dedicated ATIS App!).
The ATIS app allows us lowly pilots without an Aircraft Communicating and Reporting System (ACARS) to access the Digital ATIS (D-ATIS ) at airports where ATIS is available. Only 76 airports in the US have D-ATIS, most of which are either Class B or busier Class C airports. Foreflight also provides D-ATIS textually at the same 76 airports, though it is only accessible depending on which subscription level you have with Foreflight (since I’m not a Garmin Pilot or Stratus Insight user, I’m not sure if either of them give D-ATIS reports).
ATIS App Symbol
With Foreflight’s D-ATIS, it does not get updated over ADS-B, only when your iPad or phone have an internet signal. When inbound to an airport with D-ATIS, the pilot has to listen to the radio frequency to get the current ATIS. Foreflight will display the last D-ATIS it received, but typically, it’s old. Check the time in the upper right hand corner.
On the Airports page on Foreflight, tap Info, then tap Weather & Advisory and the phone numbers will display along with the ATIS frequency
On the Airports page, tab Weather, then tap D-ATIS, and the last received D-ATIS will display. Note the age of the D-ATIS in the upper right hand corner
Foreflight now offers Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC) at those same 76 airports. With either a pre-registered tail number or a Foreflight call sign (starting in FFL), once a pilot files an IFR flight plan, the D-ATIS and the IFR clearance in it’s entirety are texted to the phone number the pilot filed with. All that is left to do is call ground, state “I have information Romeo and my clearance, ready to taxi,” then away you go. Skipping listening to the ATIS and talking to Clearance Delivery saves a good 5-10 minutes at times, depending on how busy the airport is.
These days, there are many different avenues to get the current weather (and IFR clearances!). When calling on the phone, the key is to be aware, know which number you are calling and, if you are expecting to hear an ATIS message but instead hear the AWOS/ASOS, verify the Chart Supplement Guide and Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) to check tower hours of operation before flying into the airspace.
I am an iPad user, but I have an Android phone. I had been using a junky aviation weather app that just gave meters and TAFs, but seemed to have been programmed in a foreign language (un-decoded TAFs notwithstanding). I wanted something more robust, but didn’t see the need to pay for a Garmin Pilot subscription since Foreflight on my iPad was my main EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) I use in the airplane.
When I upgraded my phone, I decided I had to find something better. I have a WIFI only iPad, so I utilize my phone to take quick glances at weather reports or when I want to see the radar without having to tether my iPad to my phone. The app I had wasn’t cutting it.
That’s when I found FltPlan Go. We are all familiar with FltPlan.com. It’s what a lot of corporate pilots use to file flight plans. I’ve used it some, but there is a large amount of data it needs to set up an airplane. Since I already have all the airplanes I need in Foreflight, I don’t use it that much since I didn’t want to do the setup. It is rather handy as it spits out flight logs and has a lot of pre-loaded performance numbers for different makes and models.
FltPlan Go is FltPlan.com‘s app. It is very user friendly, easy to use, and, most importantly, free! You can get METARs, TAFs, NOTAMs, Airport Diagrams, approach plates, full weather reports for airports including radar, maps, and a whole lot more. As far as I can tell, it is a full fledged EFB. I haven’t really scratched the surface on all the features in using mine, but it is quite robust from the little bit of poking around I’ve done.
I’m still a Foreflight guy, but if you want something else or you have an Android phone and don’t want to pay for Garmin Pilot or WingXPro, check out FltPlan Go. It’s a winner.
11 years ago, in April of 2009, the Avidyne Corporation unveiled the much bally-hooed Release 9, or R9 as it is commonly known, as a hardware replacement for the Avidyne EX5000 Entegra system in Cirrus Aircraft. The Entegra system was way outdated by that point. Even though Avidyne was the first company to put together a glass PFD in a single engine piston airplane, the company had quickly fallen behind Garmin in keeping up with the ever changing technology landscape.
Rewind to 2008. Cirrus had been going strong with the Avidyne Entegra since the SR20 and SR22 went to full glass in 2003 (a PFD and an MFD; prior to that, Cirrus aircraft only had an MFD with steam gauges and a Sandel Electronic HSI). Cessna, on the other hand, vaulted past the Avidyne Entegra and went straight to the Garmin G1000 in it’s aircraft, starting in 2004 with the 182 G1000 and 2005 with the 172 G1000. Beechcraft and Columbia went to the G1000 (Columbia started with the Avidyne as well) in 2005.
Garmin’s technology in 2007 was so much better than Avidyne’s technology that Cirrus decided to switch. I’m sure there were many promises made by Avidyne to Cirrus about what Avidyne was working on (the R9), but the G1000 was out there, available, and being used in a lot of different airplanes with very good results.
So, in 2008, Cirrus made the switch from the Avidyne Entegra to the Garmin G1000, dubbing it the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin avionics package. Avidyne finally got the R9 to market in 2009, but by that time, Piper was the only airplane manufacturer left putting factory Avidyne panels in their airplanes, and they switched to G1000 later that year.
The R9 is a fabulous product. It’s fully integrated, has great graphics, has fully redundant displays, a QWERTY keypad (which, by the way, Garmin didn’t do for another 8 years), and a lot of other neat features. There’s a bit of a learning curve, but it’s a really good product for what it is.
Avidyne, though, was late to the game with their technology. By the time it debuted in 2009, all the GA aircraft manufacturers had long since switched to the Garmin G1000 and weren’t looking back. That left Avidyne with the retrofit market for the many different Avidyne Entegra Cirrus aircraft out there. The only problem was, the retrofit was $80,000 ($95,000 if you wanted to throw in the DFC 100 Autopilot, which is a must have) and not many owners were up for paying that much money, then or now.
To sum up our brief history lesson, Avidyne knew the Entegra needed to go, but couldn’t get the R9 out quickly enough to convince anyone to stick with Avidyne products. The retrofit market didn’t amount to many sales, so Avidyne doesn’t even make the R9 anymore.
As a side note, I really, really like the Avidyne R9 and am sad that it didn’t make it into more airplanes.
So, when the Avidyne Entegra starts to have issues, what’s an owner to do? Keep reading!
There is Hope
There are thousands of Cirrus aircraft out there flying with the Avidyne Entegra instrumentation, which is basically 20 year old technology (I’ve had a computer engineer tell me the programming in an Entegra is Windows 98 tech). These things are going to start having problems at some point (many already have), but what solution do owners have that is cost effective and get’s them new technology?
Remember that little company named Garmin? Well, they have come through again. Announced this summer, the Garmin G500 TXi is now certified as a replacement in the Cirrus Avidyne Entegra equipped aircraft. This means pulling out both the PFD and MFD and replacing them with the G500 TXi on both sides. Engine data is also displayed on the G500TXi MFD, including the percent power and TIT indications, if equipped.
Cirrus SR22 Equipped with Dual G500 TXi Screens and Dual Garmin GTN 650Xi GPS Units
The cost for the panel? Two 10.6″ G500 TXi’s run about $16,000 apiece for the units, not including labor. $32,000 for a brand new panel isn’t terrible. Plus, the G500 TXi’s work with the DFC90 autopilot if the Cirrus is already equipped with it. If not, the Garmin GFC 500 autopilot is now approved for the Cirrus at a relatively low price of $7,000, including the servos.
Still have the original Garmin 430s in your Cirrus? Upgraded to the Avidyne IFD 540/440 stack? Put in dual GTN 650Xi’s? Put in a GTN 750Xi? All are compatible with the G500 TXi panel.
Want to upgrade everything? It does get kind of pricey at that point, but for just equipment, the cost for a complete panel conversion is somewhere in the area of $65,000 plus labor, still below what the R9 cost, but not cheap either. That would include 2 G500 TXi’s, 2 GTN 650Xi’s, a GFC 500 Autopilot, and all the engine monitoring equipment that the G500 TXi would need.
Cirrus SR22 Equipped with Dual G500 TXi Screens, a GTN 750Xi, and a GTN 650Xi
Thankfully, some new technology has finally come to the Generation 1-3 Cirrus. Oh, and by the way, your steam gauge Cirrus is fully upgradable as well.
