MODAERO NextGen Aviation Festival

Simplified Instrument Approach Briefing

ByHank Gibson August 27, 2016September 12, 2016

In instrument flying, I am all about keeping things simple.  There is a ton of detail that an instrument pilot can get bogged down in.  When an instrument pilot gets bogged down, he gets distracted from flying the airplane.  When he gets distracted from flying the airplane, dangerous circumstances can happen.

I like to keep things simple.  When I first started instructing, I developed a very simple instrument approach briefing that captures everything that is necessary on an approach plate, but prevents getting bogged down in the details.

I call it the BBC instrument approach briefing.  Here it is:

Brief

First things first.  The first step of an instrument approach briefing is to brief the approach plate.  There are a bunch of acronyms out there that instructors tell their students to memorize that only cause confusion instead of helping get the plate briefed.  To keep it simple, just work your way across the plate and you’ll get all the information you need.

Start in the top left hand corner of the plate, with the approach course, then work your way right and down, as follows:

• Approach Course (or Nav frequency if flying a VOR/ILS/LOC)
• Runway information
• Notes (these are good to brief the night before as a lot are irrelevant to GA pilots
• Missed approach
• Frequencies
• Planview and MSA
• Profile View and Minimums

Simple enough, right?

Build

Now that you know what you are planning on doing, you can now take the second step in the instrument approach briefing and build the approach in your GPS.  You know your approach type, you know your transition, and you know what your minimums are.  Taking all that information, you can now build it in to your system.

Checklists

Once everything else is done, don’t forget the checklists.  The descent and before landing checklists still need to be done as part of an approach.  The best time to do these is before joining the approach so that you don’t have to worry about flying the approach and looking at a checklist at the same time.  Even better, memorize the checklist and you don’t have to look at anything!

Most importantly, you want to be configured properly for the approach by the final approach fix.  Gear, flaps set, power set, so all you have to worry about at that point is following the needles and trusting your instruments.

Flying the Piper Malibu

ByHank Gibson November 21, 2014

Looking for an airplane with more seats, more useful load, and good speed?  Look no further than the PA-46-310P Piper Malibu.  It feels like a corporate airplane, but this turbo charged piston single is good owner/pilot airplane for taking the family on vacation or using on business trips.

The original Piper Malibu, which was manufactured between 1984-1988, is a great next step airplane for Cirrus owners, Saratoga or Lance owners, and Mooney owners looking to move up to a pressurized, 6 seat piston.  The pressurization has got to be one of the best parts of the Piper Malibu.  The ability to climb up to the low flight levels (the service ceiling is FL250, but the airplane performs great between 16,000 and FL190) to catch better winds and get a better true airspeed (the airplane gains about 2.5 KTAS for every thousand feet) without having to wear oxygen makes the ride much more enjoyable.

Equipped with six seats and a 4,100 pound gross weight, the Piper Malibu allows for a lot more carrying ability than a Cirrus or even a Saratoga.  Now, like most piston airplanes, you can’t take 6 average adults, bags, and full fuel, but here’s the great part:  the Continental TSIO 320 only burns 16.5 GPH in cruise at 75% power.  The plane will still fly 200 KTAS at 16.5 GPH.  With 120 gallon capacity, even taking half tanks still allows for a 2.5 hour range with an hour reserve.  At 200 KTAS, that’s 450 miles.  And, you gain an extra 360 pounds useful load at half tanks.  That’s not too shabby.

The Piper Malibu was designed to be comfortable, fast, and be able to carry some baggage.  There are two baggage compartments, one in the nose behind the firewall and one in the rear behind the rear seats.  The nose baggage is wide enough to fit golf clubs in, while the back baggage is large enough to fit rolling suitcases in (the front baggage has no problem with roller bags either).  Lots of weight in bags?  Again, no big deal.  Just plan on taking less fuel and still flying for 2.5 hours.

From a pilot’s standpoint, the Piper Malibu is a pretty straightforward airplane to fly, though it does require some specialty training.  A lot of PA-46s on the market right now have upgraded glass panels and digital engine monitors, making piloting the airplane that much more streamlined.  Most Piper Malibus are equipped with the KFC 150 autopilot.  Some have a yaw damper installed, others don’t.  Some have the vertical speed and altitude capture installed, others don’t.  It just depends on that specific airplane.  They aren’t like a Cirrus where they are all made the same.

Looking to upgrade to something with more seats, a higher service ceiling, but not a significant increase in fuel costs?  Look into the Piper Malibu.  You can get one in good shape from about $300,000.

 

Make The Upgrade to Pressurization

ByHank Gibson August 23, 2018August 24, 2018

Are oxygen cannulas rubbing your nostrils raw?

Is turbulence giving you back problems?

Would you like to be above the bumps, breathing without tubes stuck up your nose or a mask on?  Would you like a quiet ride?

Sounds like you need pressurization.  Need more convincing?

What’s that you say?  You don’t have a multi-engine rating?  You don’t want to spend the money on a turbo prop?

Have no fear, there are options galore for you to choose from in the single engine piston marketplace, both certified aircraft and experimental.

A word of caution, though; once you go pressurized, you don’t go back….

Here is my review of the certified, pressurized single engine piston options.

Piper PA46 Malibu/Mirage/M350

In 1983, Piper shocked the world with an amazing airplane.  The pressurized, Continental TSIO-520 (310 HP) powered PA46 Malibu hit the market in the fall of that year taking the piston world by storm.  A six seat, cabin class, pressurized single engine piston that easily cruised at 190-200 knots while only burning 16-17 GPH. It was awesome.  It even had an air stair door that felt like getting on a private jet.

I love the original Continental powered Malibu, specifically the ’86-’88 models.  Piper initially had hydraulic flaps, which were clunky and had several issues (most notably, the hydraulic system would randomly kick offline while the flaps were in motion at very in-opportune moments).  Piper switched to the electric flaps in ’86, making the ’86-’88 year models very desirable.

Unfortunately for Piper, the Continental TSIO-520 was not the engine manufacturer’s best product.  There were several Malibu crankshaft problems and engine failures, so much so that Piper decided to go with the Lycoming TIO-540 engine in 1989, creating the Malibu Mirage (all the current Malibu’s operating the -520 engine have been overhauled many times over, so there are no safety concerns with the -520 engine).  The Lycoming powered Mirage (350 HP), cruises a little bit faster than the Continental powered Malibu, but burns about 5 more GPH.  Piper still makes the Mirage, now dubbed the M350, complete with the Garmin G1000 NXi panel.

The 4 seat, cabin class back seat is very roomy (unlike a Bonanza or Saratoga).  There is plenty of rooms for bags, both behind the back seat and in the handy nose compartment, which is wide enough to fit golf clubs, minus the driver.  The 1600 pound useful load (880 pound payload with full fuel), allows for a lot of people and gear to be loaded on board.  The airplane is a little stingy on CG, though.  You do not want to have a CG that is out of the rear limits.

The airplane is fun to fly.  It has a heavy elevator, similar to a Bonanza, which requires a lot of trim on landing.  It’s very long wings cause it to float a bit on landing if the pilot comes in too fast.  It’s very docile in stalls and extremely comfortable for cross country flying.  The air conditioning system works very well, though it is still hot on the front seats when sitting on the ramp on a Texas July afternoon.

Many of the airplanes have upgraded to glass panels.  Most are still equipped with the King KFC 150 autopilot, some with a Yaw Damper, some not.  The KFC 150 is a good autopilot, but when Garmin certifies their GFC 600 for the PA46, that will be a popular retrofit.

If I had my pick, I would buy an ’86-’88 Malibu with an upgraded Continental TSIO-550 engine.  Climbs a bit better and does a bit better in cruise than the original -520 engine.  See why here.

I would rate the PA46 line as the best pressurized single engine piston option out there.

Cessna P210 Centurion

The P210 was introduced by Cessna in 1978.  It also came with the Continental TSIO-520 engine that the Malibu was certified with.  Climbing at about 700-800 fpm (equal to the Malibu), the P210 cruises at around 190 KTAS as well, burning around 17-18 GPH.  Like the Malibu, the P210 had a Continental TSIO-520 power plant, but, unlike the Malibu, the P210 makes the pilot work to keep the CHTs cool.  With smaller cowl openings and a tighter cowl, cooling isn’t as good as the Malibu.

Even though the P210 has six seats, the forward facing, Cessna style 3 rows aren’t quite as comfortable as the Malibu.  The single door on the pilot’s side makes loading and unloading a bit of a chore (especially compared to the air stair door in the Malibu).  The third row of seats isn’t extremely useful, as the ceiling is lower and the proximity of the second row of seats decreases the amount of leg room, making it uncomfortable for a full size adult.  Most operators remove the pilot’s side second row seat to add an aisle to get to the back row for people and bags.  It also has a smaller cabin then the Malibu.

There is less baggage in the P210, with the singular baggage compartment accessed through a baggage door behind the cabin.  The Air conditioning system is also not as good as the Malibu.

It’s hard to get the P210 out of CG and overloaded.  A useful load of 1500 pounds (with 90 gallons of fuel, it drops to only 960 pounds) allows the airplane to be loaded to the gills without being overweight.

There are some engine upgrades out there for the P210 (the Silver Eagle conversion puts a Rolls Royce turboprop on it).  The best piston conversion is the Vitatoe Conversion that swaps the engine out for a Continental Turbo-Normalized IO-550, which is a much better engine than the -520.  You still have to monitor the CHTs, but cooling is less of an issue.  These are much higher priced on the market, though.

Because of the size of the cabin and the true reputation the P210 has of being a maintenance hog, I would rate it below the PA46 line.

Extra EA-400

There are 3 pressurized, single engine piston airplanes out there today: the Piper PA46, the Cessna P210, and the Extra EA-400.  Extra is the famous German aerobatic aircraft manufacturer that created the Extra 300 and 330.  In the early 2000s, Extra tried it’s hand at the pressurized single market with the EA-400 (Extra also tried to get into the single engine turbo-prop market with the EA-500, but the project fizzled before much progress was made).  Sadly, only 27 EA-400s were built before the company ran into financial trouble.

The concept sounds cool.  A fully composite, pressurized, liquid cooled, cabin class piston.  The engine was the Continental TSIOL-550, liquid cooled power plant.  Liquid cooling means no concern about hot CHTs while you are climbing.  The problem with the engine is that there are so few liquid cooled Continental engines out there, finding a mechanic familiar with one could be an issue.

I have never flown an Extra 400, but there are several floating around out there.  Most have steam gauges and the STEC-55x autopilot.  The price on the only one on Controller right now is comparable to the P210N but above the Continental powered Malibu.

If you are in the market, an Extra 400 might be fun to test fly and who knows, you might fall in love with it!

Experimental Options

There are a handful of experimental pressurized singles out there.  I have not flown any of them, so I can’t be a good resource on recommending them.  Here is the list, however.

Lancair Evolution Piston

Lancair IV-P

Lancair ES-P

Lancair LX7

As far as availability on the market goes, there are 8 Malibus on Controller (1 1986 model) ranging from $315,000 and down, 24 Mirages ranging from $705,000 (equipped with the Garmin G1000) and down, 25 P210s ranging from $405,000 and down, and 2 Extra EA 400s, priced at $369,000 and down.  Check out the available Experimental Lancair options here.

Have you decided to upgrade, but don’t know what to buy or how to buy it?  Check out Texas Top Aviation’s Acquisition Services.  We’ll get you the best airplane for you, your mission, and your budget.  Contact Us today to find out more information.

FltPlan Go

ByHank Gibson August 10, 2016August 27, 2016

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.

New Houston Airspace Procedures

ByHank Gibson May 29, 2014

If you are based in Houston, or heading into or out of the Houston airspace under IFR, have you updated your charts?  If not, you may hear a clearance stating: “N67889, cleared to Amarillo via the BORRN 1 Departure, CRGER Transition, Direct.  Climb via the departure, expect 8000 in 10 minutes.  Departure frequency 123.8, Squawk 3365.”  You manage to get the clearance written down, but have completely messed up the spelling of both BORRN and CRGER, so you have no idea where the intersections are.  After stumbling through a readback, you ask ground to spell the fixes for you.

Then, more bad news.  You haven’t updated your GPS cards yet, so the departure isn’t in your 430.  It’s an RNAV only departure, so you can’t fly it based on the NAV Radio.  You were planning on updating your iPad when you got to Amarillo, so you don’t have the departure on there, either.

This has probably already happened to a few people today already.

Houston airspace got a major overhaul today.  There are 20 new DPs and 29 new STARs guiding IFR traffic into and out of Houston airspace (including one named the DOOBI 1 Arrival, named after the Dooby Brothers band).

The FAA’s goal in all these changes, according to AOPA, is to “bring fuel efficiencies, time efficiencies, and reduce carbon emissions” (from Benet J. Wilson’s May 15th article on AOPA.com).  The FAA issued a NOTAM today valid until June 6th describing what routes for pilots to file.  The NOTAM also contains contingency plans for pilots flying without updated charts (like our example above).

Pilots should expect these wide scale procedure additions and changes to start showing up in other Class B airspace across the country.  As always, make sure those charts are updated, GPS databases are current, and you do some studying of your route before you file your flight plan.

Landing Light Replacement

ByAndrew Robinson November 2, 2015November 5, 2015

One evening this summer, my wife and I were flying down the southern shore of Long Island in my father’s E33 Bonanza. We enjoyed the sunset as we flew westbound and our plan was to fly the New York Hudson corridor, where we would arrive just after dark. As we approached New York’s airspace, two voices in my head started having a debate.

The first voice said: “You should turn on your landing light when you get to New York to make the airplane more visible.”

The other voice said: “That’s true, but I bet you’ll burn the landing light out”

Well, as it turned out, both voices were right. My landing light fired right up when I needed it to fly the Hudson, but when it came time to land back home I had no such luck. Unfortunately, this was not the first time that I had been given the chance to practice my blackout landings. This Bonanza model has only one landing/ taxi light which is mounted in the lower cowling behind the propeller. This location is less than ideal because the filament in the bulb is fragile and can be damaged by engine vibration.

We landed uneventfully and after putting the airplane away, I decided it was time to look into upgrading the lighting to something a little more modern. I was unsure of my options, but seeing as the airplane needed a replacement bulb regardless, it seemed like a good opportunity to make a change.

After doing a little reading, I learned that HID or LED landing lights would be the best solution to my problem. I was familiar with LED aircraft lights, but had never heard of HID before.

Here is what I learned:

HID Landing Lights

HID, or High Intensity Discharge landing lights, create light by arcing electricity through a sealed gas capsule. They are brighter than LED and traditional incandescent, and the light created more closely resembles the look and feel of sunlight. HID installations require a ballast to carefully regulate the flow of electricity to the gas capsule and also require a “warm up” period after being turned on in order to reach their full brightness.

Fitting an aircraft with HID landing lights tends to be more expensive and time consuming than installing an LED light and would likely require involvement by an A&P/ IA. However, if you want the brightest light available, HID is probably the best bet.

Pros

• Brighter, more natural looking light
• Draws less power than standard bulbs
• Long bulb life
• Does not generate much heat

Cons

• More expensive than other lighting options
• Lights must “warm up” after being turned on
• Cannot be pulsed easily
• Cost/complexity of installations

LED Landing Lights

LED, or Light Emitting Diode landing lights, have no filament and work by moving electricity through diodes which are connected into a circuit. These lights have become very popular for many uses due to their simplicity, low cost, and brightness.

While not as bright as HID light, the LED lights require no “warm up period” and can be easily pulsed. LED lights draw much less power from the aircraft’s electrical system than traditional bulbs and boast incredible life length. LED bulb installation is very simple and can often serve as a direct replacement for the original lights.

Pros

• Instant light (no warm up)
• Incredible life length (>5,000 hours)
• Low Cost
• Simplicity of installation
• Can be pulsed easily
• Low power draw

Cons

• Not as bright as HID lighting

 

After weighing the options, I decided to replace the incandescent bulb in the Bonanza with an LED bulb. I read the reviews online and talked to some of my friends who work in aviation and eventually decided on the Lycoming Alphabeam. The Alphabeam is FAA/PMA approved and is available through Aircraft Spruce and other aviation parts vendors. The bulb cost around 250-300 dollars and I was able to install it as a direct replacement for our old light. All I had to do was take the old one out, put the new one in, and make a logbook entry.

Below are some pictures of the installation:

Last weekend I finally had an opportunity to take the airplane out after dark and see how the new light compared to the old one. I am pleased to say that it did a wonderful job and exceeded my expectations.

If you are interested in seeing a side by side comparison of the different lighting options, a quick Google search should provide what you are looking for. In my own experience, I would say that the LED light was brighter than the old light and did a very good job illuminating the taxiway and runway. It was extremely nice not to be concerned that my light wouldn’t work as I was setting up for landing at an unfamiliar field after dark. I also enjoyed feeling that I had the option to leave it on during climb and cruise in order to increase my visibility to other aircraft.

Many models of aircraft have multiple landing/ taxi lights installed which greatly reduces the likelihood of having to land without one. In our case, spending the extra money to upgrade to the LED bulb made sense because of the desire for increased reliability. If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive way to upgrade your airplane, LED or HID lighting may be something to consider.

Andrew Robinson is a 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania.  He flies Pilatus PC-12s and instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.