Texas Top Aviation has added a new member to our instructing team. Stephanie Mertz was hired in March 2019 and will be specializing in G1000 & Instrument instruction.
Stephanie graduated from LeTourneau University in Longview, Texas with a degree in Aeronautical Science, earning her commercial single and multi ratings while there. She began her aviation career in Ontario, California flying a Pilatus PC-12 for charter and medical trips. While operating the PC-12, she gained valuable experience flying all over the US and Mexico.
In 2013, Stephanie moved back to East Texas with her husband where she worked as a contract pilot flying a variety of Citations as well as a Falcon 10. A few years later, she became involved in her local Ninety-Nines chapter and joined their mentorship program.
After earning her CFI, CFII, and MEI, Stephanie returned to her alma mater to pass on her flying passions to college students through flight instructing. After a year of teaching at LeTourneau, she and her husband, with their first baby in tow, moved to the Austin area. Now she is instructing with Texas Top Aviation while acting as a mentor for other women working on achieving their flying dreams.
I get to fly a lot of different airplanes in my chosen career. There aren’t many airplanes that I take off in, then say “Wow,” and have a big smile on my face. The RDD LX7 was definitely one of those.
I wrote about the RDD LX7 in the past, bragging about everything I read about it. The blogs all advertised 250 KTAS and 17 GPH and FL250, all of which are eye popping numbers.
Lo and behold, those numbers are true.
I got to go up to RDD’s Redmond, Oregon facility in April 2021 to get my initial training in the RDD LX7 and I couldn’t wipe the smile off my face. The 3 screen G3X Touch layout is very impressive and not crowded like I thought it would be. Being familiar with the G500TXi, there are some G3X specifics that take a little getting used to, but overall, it’s a good system. The main GPS and number 1 radio is a GTN 750Xi.
We took off from RDM and proceeded to climb at 140 KIAS, which equated to 2,000 FPM. We only had half tanks (which is still 90 gallons of fuel!), but it climbed with no problem. It’s extremely responsive as I learned while doing the basic flight maneuvers. The stall speed of the airplane (the biggest problem with the Lancair 4P, the airframe that the RDD LX7 is derived from, was the terrible wing design and extremely high stall speed), was in the low 60s or high 50s, with the stall being extremely docile.
The airplane handled very similarly to a Columbia 400, but seemed even more responsive. The glide ratio isn’t as good as some, but it’s still better than a Cirrus (plus it still has a BRS system to boot).
The big test was the flight to San Antonio from Redmond to bring the plane home. The new owner and I departed RDM with the tanks full of Avgas (180 gallons), then got up to a cruise altitude of FL210. After setting power and leaning, the numbers came out true to spec: 252 KTAS, 17.5 GPH.
The greatest part? We stopped in Santa Fe to stretch our legs and we didn’t need fuel. We still had 100 gallons left! That left us plenty to get to San Antonio with 40-50 gallons left over. Another RDD LX7 owner flew his piston direct from Redmond, OR to Jacksonville, FL, non-stop. It was over 9 hours. That’s impressive.
You can’t beat the purchase price, either. A new Cirrus SR22T runs a little north of $1.2m. A piston engine LX7, that is pressurized, 70 KTAS faster with a much longer range, and still has a BRS, is between $850,000-$900,000. An LX7 starts to make a whole lot of sense when you weigh all that. There is also a PT6 option with several different sizes and horsepowers to choose from, which costs more, but you see 300 KTAS.
To learn more about the RDD LX7, check out the company’s website: RDD LX7.
I was speaking with a pilot a few months back who was not instrument rated. He was telling me of his flying experience while continually speaking fondly of scud running. He told me several stories, most of the time with a smile on his face, about scud running to his destination while staying clear of clouds. While he was talking, my mind was cycling through the numerous accident reports I’ve seen where a scud running VFR pilot has crashed into terrain or an obstacle. Needless to say, scud running is not a very good idea.
This pilot’s stories got me to thinking, how common is the practice of scud running amongst VFR only pilots? As an instructor, I always teach my private students about personal minimums and making that no-go decision when clouds are below those personal minimums. The act of scud running falls under several of those dangerous pilot mindsets, get-there-itis, invincibility, and macho-ism, to name a few.
To bring everyone on the same page, let’s define scud running. Wikipedia has a very good definition:
Scud running is a practice in which pilots lower their altitude to avoid clouds or instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The goal of scud running is to stay clear of weather to continue flying with visual, rather than instrument, references. This practice is widely accepted to be dangerous, and has led to death in many cases from pilots flying into radio towers and high tension wires; however, even instrument-rated pilots sometimes elect to take the risk to avoid icing or embedded thunderstorms in cloud, or in situations where the minimum instrument altitudes are too high for their aircraft.
To put some numbers with that definition, a scud running VFR pilot would takeoff with a 1200-1500 foot ceiling and stay 700-1000 feet above the ground, right in the area where towers, hills, and rapidly rising terrain reside.
How do we change this mindset? Well, if someone has been scud running for years without incident, the practice becomes normal, like the pilot I mentioned above. The mindset of invincibility sets in and the practice continues. This particular pilot can also lead other pilots to adopt the same practice, encouraging them that nothing will happen to them, since we all know that our pilot peers know better than our flight instructors (insert heavy sarcasm here).
In order to change this mindset, instructors need to emphasize personal minimums from day one. This includes ceilings, visibility, and winds. For a seasoned pilot, a review of accident statistics might help the process.
Scud running is not a safe practice. If you’re a scud runner, you need to rethink your attitude. Is getting there really worth it?
I got the privilege of going to the EAA AirVenture at Osh Kosh this year. It was my first Osh Kosh experience. I’ll be the first to tell you, walking in the gate on the first day is mildly overwhelming. There are people and stuff everywhere. Airplanes, tents selling everything from airplane parts to mattresses (I wasn’t really sure how mattresses tied to flying), vendors, colleges, and loads of people.
Photo Courtesy of William Day, copyright 2018, All Rights Reserved
After I gathered myself from my initial shock, I set out to explore all that I could. I spent most of the first morning walking around the different manufacturer’s tents, getting a gauge on all the new airplanes I could never afford and only hope to ever fly.
The short of it is, the Cessna/Textron Denali is going to be stellar once it gets completed. The Epic E1000 (if it ever gets certified) might take a large market share from TBM, though they will have an uphill climb. The Cirrus Vision Jet is very cool and should be a relatively simple step up for SR22T owners. The Pilatus Jet is huge. Finally, the Diamond DA62 would be my below 12,500 airplane and the Piper M350 would be my pressurized plane. Money being no factor, of course.
Photo Courtesy of William Day, copyright 2018, All Rights Reserved
I decided to take in the entire airshow on Day 1, all 4 hours of it. Upon realizing I would be very stiff necked if I did that each day for the three days I was there, I decided on Day 2 to check out some seminars and learn something. I took a seaplane ground school course on Day 2, then listened to a NASA presentation on electric airplanes and low boom sonic jet technology (how to make supersonic passenger flight quieter).
The end of Day 2 at Osh Kosh had to be the highlight. I got to hang out with Cub Crafters at the 51WI grass strip just north of the OSH Class D airspace. There was a free BBQ and I got to take a ride in a Carbon Cub. My landing from the back seat was a bit rusty, but still a very cool experience. Buzzing the BBQ area in tandem was pretty neat.
Photo Courtesy of William Day, copyright 2018, All Rights Reserved
Day 3 brought some cooler temps and some clouds. We walked out to the vintage airplanes, spending the morning gawking at Cessna 195s and Wacos. Then I took the plunge to explore all the vendor hangars. My idea was to walk around and see if I can find some interesting and innovative technology. Well, after 2 of the 4 hangars, my head was spinning, so I decided to watch the rest of the airshow to let my brain drain out a bit.
Photo Courtesy of William Day, copyright 2018, All Rights Reserved
3 Days was a good amount of time to spend. I don’t think I could have stayed all week, but only a day or two wouldn’t have been worth it. I flew up with a former student in his TBM 700, which was a very nice way to travel. We landed and stayed in Green Bay (KGRB), which was super easy and low stress. Had a great tailwind on the return and made it to Houston non-stop.
A few closing observations:
The Stratos 716X Personal Jet
If Stratos Aircraft is ever able to bring this to market, it sounds awesome. 400 knots, single engine, single pilot, with 6 seats. Being a single engine jet, similar to the Cirrus Vision Jet, it’s 100 knots faster, plus with the airflow and engine technology, it doesn’t have that big V Tail in the back, thereby reducing drag. I have a feeling it would find a good market, but the certification process is a bear to get through. Just ask Epic.
The Lancair Mako
This is a legit airplane. Lots of thought was put in to the design of the Mako by the new Lancair organization in Uvalde, TX (KUVA). The airplane was extremely comfortable, capable, and pretty cool. The stick is in the center, with throttles on the side (where the stick would be in a Cirrus or Columbia). AC, full Garmin integration, and the cool factor of the nose gear retracting, but not having a gear handle. Higher useful load than a Cirrus or Columbia, it would be a great alternative (and cheaper) to one of it’s certified competitors.
Avionics
There is a lot of new avionics technology hitting the market. Dynon, beloved by experimental enthusiasts, is finding a foothold in the certified world with some neat panels. It will be an uphill battle to take on Garmin, but there is some potential in the retrofit market to offer a cheaper alternative to the Garmin TXi.
Speaking of the TXi, I played around with the 10.7″ panel at the Garmin booth. It is extremely intuitive. Garmin did a great job of making it a simple touch screen interface, easy to use, and easy to learn.
Avidyne is pushing their iPad integration with the IFD 100 iPad app. It ties via Wifi or Bluetooth to an IFD 550 or 440 navigator, giving an additional screen in the cockpit to work with. You have the ability to modify flight plans and such on the iPad and it will show up on the GPS units.
Photo Courtesy of William Day, copyright 2018, All Rights Reserved
All in all, Osh Kosh was an experience I’m glad to have finally experienced. I don’t think I would go every year like some folks, but every few years, especially when my sons are older, seems like just enough for me, but not too much.
All Photos Courtesy of William Day, copyright 2018, All Rights Reserved
For those of you in the Hill Country looking to kick off the Christmas month right, head over to the Castroville Airport (KCVB) on Saturday, December 6th and get yourself a short stack of flapjacks. For just $5, you can get yourself a good hearty breakfast that includes coffee or juice and bacon or sausage. The eating starts at 0800 and goes until 1200, local time. Come with an empty belly and an empty gas tank as CVB currently has some of the lowest priced gas in South Texas, currently listed at $4.70/gallon.
There will be plenty of hangar flying, lots of airplanes to look at, and most importantly, lots of pancakes!
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.
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:
After removing the old bulb, I double checked the information on the back to be sure I ordered the correct LED replacement.
You can see that the bulb is a 13V, 250W landing light, #4313.
The new light mounted easily into the existing bracket with no modification.
After mounting the new bulb, I reconnected the wiring and installed the bracket back into the nose bowl.
It works!
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.
