|

MMOPA Safety Stand Down Rescheduled for Online

April 18th, 2020 was supposed to mark the MMOPA Spring Safety Stand Down, an event held around the country for PA46 owners which counted toward the Master Aviator program. Sadly, due to the COVID-19 repercussions, the in person event had to be canceled.

Thankfully, due to modern technology, the event has been rescheduled to a nationwide webcast. The date for the Online MMOPA Safety Standdown in Saturday, August 8th. Joe Casey and Travis Holland will be hosting the MMOPA Safety Standdown.

The cost is free. To register, please click here.

Similar Posts

  • Thanks For Flying With Us!

    From our family to yours, thank you for flying with Texas Top Aviation in 2014.  We wish everyone a Happy New Year and a great 2015!

    Texas Top Aviation Family

  • Contact Approaches

    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.

    For more reading on Contact Approaches and another good scenario, check out Bold Method’s article on Contact Approaches.

  • PIREP: Austin Bergstrom Recovering After Flood Damage

    The massive storms that rolled through the Austin Bergstrom and San Antonio areas last Friday not only put a dent in the landscape, they put a dent in the skies too.

    The Austin Bergstrom (KAUS) control tower suffered significant flood damage Friday.  6 inches of rainfall in an hour caused water to come pouring into the first floor of the tower, flooding the radar room and knocking out the power.  This led to transmission outages for the tower, ground control, clearance delivery and the ATIS.  Similar to the Chicago Center fire last year (though this was a much smaller section of airspace), the area normally controlled by Austin Approach was replaced by a big, gaping radar hole.

    By 8:45am on Friday morning, the Austin Bergstrom airport actually closed.  One runway eventually opened back up Friday afternoon, but massive delays and cancellations had already taken place.  All the ILS approaches were down and Houston Center had taken over the airspace normally occupied by Austin Approach control.

    Austin Temprorary Tower

    A temporary, emergency tower vehicle was brought in by the FAA (it’s essentially an RV with communications and a giant window) by the end of the weekend.  All arrivals and departures were restricted to 17L and 35R.

    Due to the radar outage, I heard there was as much as a 4 hour delay even for planes coming into Austin Bergstrom from Dallas, and that was in VMC conditions on Sunday and Monday.  Tuesday and Wednesday brought IMC conditions which only enhanced the delays.

    The latest news is that Austin Approach will be opening back up, but in a satellite base in San Antonio.  The Austin controllers will be using the SAT radar room and will be receiving their radar picture via satellite.  The approach frequencies should be up and running today or tomorrow.  The Austin Bergstrom tower is up and running and most of the ILS approaches are operational at this point.

    In the meantime, expect delays going in and out of Austin.  If you don’t have to get to AUS, EDC, or GTU, you’re better off delaying a day or two until Austin Approach is back up and running.

  • Circle to Land Approaches

    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.

  • Cirrus Braking Systems: A Hot Topic

    You just bought your Cirrus SR22. You do some flying, and soon find yourself with a brake temp sticker that isn’t white anymore. You remember from your transition training that any color other than white is a no go. You now ponder…. I don’t remember getting on the brakes hard, or riding the brakes while taxiing, but sure enough they aren’t white anymore. You now start thinking that all the horrible rumors of Cirrus brakes are true. They overheat so fast!

    I would like to share some little-known facts about the Cirrus factory equipped braking system. Following the procedures below can help make the brakes last a little longer. There is also a very popular STC that allows upgraded brakes to be installed on all SR series aircraft. More to come on that.

    Notice the Top Yellow sticker is far darker than the Bottom. The Yellow temperature indicator turns at 300 Degrees, while the bottom Blue indicator turns at 330 Degrees. This is an indication to the pilot that if the bottom sticker has turned colors, that the braking system has exceeded 330 degrees and is in need of servicing.

    Above is a photograph of an SR22 G1 braking system with turned brake temp stickers. The first things you may notice is that there are in fact two brake temperature stickers. We can only see the bottom blue sticker from the inspection port on the wheel pants. The other is higher on the caliper; in order to see it, the wheel pant must be removed. This isn’t common knowledge because there is no mention of this additional indicator in the POH.

    Now you may be asking yourself, what can I do to extend the service life of my factory equipped Cirrus brakes? Here are some tips. First, always taxi at 1000 RPM and use the rudder as much as you can while only tapping the brakes. This is not fool proof, since sometimes, depending on the grade, you will have no choice but to utilize brake tapping to keep the aircraft going straight. Taxiing is not typically where the brakes get overheated, though, but this is still a good practice to follow.

    What we tend to see is that the Cleveland brakes are generally overheated on landing. We always recommend to make sure your final approach speed is not excessive, land in the first 1/3 of the runway, and let the aircraft rollout to a smooth stop. What tends to happen is that the aircraft is too fast, and the pilot tries to exit at a certain taxi way, or brakes hard and continues to ride the brakes after landing during taxi. If you do your best to avoid these habits, it will serve you well.

    This braking system remained unchanged all the way until the 2016 G5 Cirrus SR series. Starting in 2016, the factory equipped G5 and G6 Cirrus SR series all now come standard with a single piston hydraulic braking system from Beringer. The Cirrus Beringer brakes far exceed the braking power and durability of the old system. The new system is more robust, withstands heat better, and is is very well built. There is also an option for an upgraded dual caliper system to increase durability and stopping power. A braking system STC for the older Cirrus G1 through early G5 models was created to upgrade those airplanes to the better stopping power and cooling of the Cirrus Beringer brakes.

    Seen above is a page from a Beringer catalog highlighting the Cirrus SR series STC kits. Your local Cirrus service center will be able to quote prices for the kits. We have over 1000Hrs spent behind Beringer equipped Cirrus aircraft and the difference is quite apparent. The pilot has better control of the aircraft, no spongy pedal, and the confidence to get the plane stopped without possibly overheating the braking system. This, in our opinion, is one of the best upgrades you can do to your Cirrus.
    Above is what an STC upgraded braking kit from Beringer looks like, as well as the new temperature indicator for the pre/post flight inspection. Notice the black spot on the left hand picture. These brakes have been overheated.

    One other difference for a pilot to note is that once upgraded to the Cirrus Beringer brakes, there is only one temperature indicator and it changes color at a whopping 450 Degrees Fahrenheit! Needless to say, it can handle some heat! The new temperature indicator is now Orange in color and turns grey/black when overheated.

    On the left are the original Cirrus factory brakes. On the right is the caliper to the new Beringer brakes for a Cirrus.
    Dual Caliper Cirrus Beringer Brakes

    The Cirrus Beringer brakes upgrade is quite a step up in the world of slowing down. However, this doesn’t mean that they are completely issue free. There is one little-known problem with Beringer brakes that is not that big of a deal and can be fixed with relative ease.

    The rotor on the Beringer braking systems is “free floating,” meaning it is not necessarily “fixed” in position when secured down to the spindle. It is “keyed” into the wheel rim with the male and female side interlocking.

    The brakes occasionally will get noisy, causing a “knocking” noise when brakes are applied. This noise is caused by the small metal tabs that tighten up the space between the wheel and the brake rotor. This is so the small tabs wear with use instead of the aluminum rim that they are fixed to. So, if your Beringers are making a knocking noise when brakes applied, this is most likely your culprit.

    These gaps above are the “keyed” position where the rotor finds home in the rim. Without these tabs that wear with use, we would be replacing the rim more often than the much cheaper replaceable tabs.

    It is highly recommended to upgrade your original Cirrus factory brakes to the new Beringer braking system. You will deal with less maintenance, less chance of a brake overheat, and less confusion on whether or not your brakes are airworthy. For more info, you can check out the Cirrus website for the single or dual caliper Beringer brakes.


    Zach Anderson is a Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilot (CSIP) for Texas Top Aviation. Zach comes from a auto mechanic background and is very familiar with the ins and outs of maintenance. He started working for Texas Top Aviation in December 2020.

  • AOPA’s Emergency In Person Seminar

    Courtesy AOPA.org

    We spend time training for them, but real-world emergencies are rare enough that it’s easy to get complacent. They don’t always happen to “other pilots,” though, and preparation can make a big difference when things don’t go as planned:
    • What if you lose 500 rpm during takeoff, but the engine is running smoothly?
    • What if the ammeter drops to zero during a flight in IMC?
    • What if your left aileron develops a strong vibration in flight?
    Our new seminar is full of expert tips on handling those “up here, but wishing you were down there” scenarios. We focus on how to keep abnormal situations from becoming full-blown emergencies, offer advice on keeping critical problems under control, and give our best advice on off-airport landings.

    Find an AOPA Emergency Seminar near you!

    • Monday January 11, 2016-The Woodlands Waterway, 7pm-9pm
      • 1601 Lake Robbins Drive, The Woodlands, TX 77380
    • Tuesday January 12, 2016-Wyndham Houston West, 7pm-9pm
      • 14703 Park Row Blvd., Houston, TX 77079
    • Wednesday January 13, 2016, Holiday Inn San Antonio Airport, 7pm-9pm
      • 77 NE Loop 410, San Antonio, TX 78216
    • Thursday January 14, 2016, Omni Austin Hotel at Southwark, 7pm-9pm
      • 4140 Governor’s Row, Austin, TX 78744

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *