Shock Cooling in a PA46

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.

Angelina County Airfest

ByHank Gibson September 11, 2015September 10, 2015

The Angelina County Airport in Lufkin, TX (KLFK) will be hosting the Angelina County Airfest on Saturday, October 10th.  The airport will open up at 9am.

Prepare for a day of food, fun, and some great performances.  There will be warbirds and many other classic airplanes on display, not too mention a number of aerobatic performances as the day goes on.

To learn more about the Airfest, visit the Angelina County Airfest website.  Tickets start at $10 for adults.

The Importance of Transition Training

ByHank Gibson October 15, 2016October 19, 2016

In September, the FAASTeam at the San Antonio FSDO put a special emphasis on transition training (AOPA put out a free course last year covering general transition training topics).  A lot of pilots don’t understand the need for transition training or what it even entails.

Transition training deals mainly with piston engine aircraft, regardless of whether the airplane is a single or twin.  The FAA doesn’t have any special requirements for changing from one piston engine airplane to another, as long as the pilot has the appropriate endorsements (high performance, complex, high altitude, etc.) and is rated in that category and class.

Transition training is promoted mostly by insurance companies. An insurance company looks at a pilots experience when deciding to insure him or her in a new airplane.  If the pilot has only flown Cherokees and Comanches and is now upgrading to a Malibu, then the insurance company is going to require some transition training with a knowledgable instructor.

What is transition training?  It is when an appropriate rated pilot needs to learn how to fly a different airplane.  These are referred to commonly as checkouts, but with more complicated airplanes, the training is actually very in depth.

Using the example above, Pilot A just sold his Comanche 260 and bought a 1987 Malibu.  Pilot A says, “A Malibu is a complex, high performance, single engine piston, which is what I had in my Comanche.  I can fly that, no problem.”  In reality, a Malibu has a lot of differences.

First, there are more systems in a Malibu.  You have pressurization, air conditioning, emergency oxygen, turbo charging, and possibly radar.  Not to mention you are dealing with a Continental engine instead of a Lycoming.  And, is it a factory TSIO 520 or a converted 550?  2, 3, or 4 blade prop?  Glass panel or steam gauges?  What kind of autopilot?  Plus, it’s a much heavier airplane so it’s going to fly different, have different rotation and landing speeds and handle differently in stalls.  What’s the sight picture supposed to be on final approach?  What are the emergency procedures?

Overwhelmed yet?

An experienced, insurance approved instructor and training program is a necessity when getting into new airplanes.  It makes for safe pilots and safer skies.

Texas Top Aviation offers Cirrus Transition Training as well as Bonanza Transition Training and Columbia/Corvalis Transition Training.  We are working on an insurance approved Piper PA 46 piston transition course as well (Malibu and Mirage) and will have the course approved by the end of 2016.  Contact us today to schedule your transition training.

An Innovative ADS-B Solution from uAvionix

ByHank Gibson November 30, 2017

The closer we get to 2020, the more innovative companies are getting with ADS-B out solutions.  There are a myriad of transponders out there that have been released in to meet the ADS-B out requirement and to offer ADS-B in options.  L3 has the Lynx transponder line (and hardware to upgrade an already installed GTX 327 or GTX 330), Garmin has the GTX 345 and offers upgrades to the GTX 330, Appareo has it’s Stratus ESGi ADS-B out transponder, and Avidyne offers it’s AXP340 transponder, among others.

Most of the ADS-B solutions require some kind of panel work, whether it’s pulling out the Garmin GTX 330 to send off, or making panel modifications to fit the L3 Lynx in.  Very few are actual slide in replacements, so there is some labor involved in swapping transponders.

Want a simpler and more innovative solution?  uAvionix, a Montana based company that makes the recently released Scout portable ADS-B In solution, has a product for you.  Meet the SkyBeacon.

What is it?  The uAvionix SkyBeacon is simply a navigation light replacement that bolts on your wing with a fin that hangs down.  All the ADS-B out transmitting equipment is placed behind the nav light on the device.  It has an integrated WAAS GPS unit, can work with any Mode C or Mode S transponder wirelessly, and it mounts directly in to where the original nav light was, same screws and everything.  No additional hardware needed.  uAvionix claims installation should take 10 minutes.

Configuration is super easy too, as it is all done on a smart phone on the uAvionix app.

Right now, the uAvionix SkyBeacon is only approved for experimental aircraft, but, according to their website, uAvionix expects FAA certification in early spring.  With a price tag of only $1,500 and a strobe light to be added as well, this is your simplest and easiest ADS-B compliance solution.

The Aunt Betty Directive: PFD Failures

ByCharles McDougal April 8, 2015April 15, 2015

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.