Archive for the ‘Max Trescott’ Category

Your Local Club: Members, Manpower, and Money

Thursday, July 17th, 2014

Aero Club of Northern CaliforniaI’ve had great fun as President of the Aero Club of Northern California for the past 6 months. Local clubs and chapters are one of the many fun aspects of aviation and you probably already belong to one or more. If you’re not actively involved in running and/or participating in a club, please consider jumping in with both feet and becoming more involved. And if you’re in Northern California, please join our Aero Club and/or Like us on Facebook.

Clubs need your help. Another local club President told me that he volunteered a couple of years ago to be President “because he didn’t want to see the club fold.” As it was, the club hadn’t filed their required form 990 or 990N with the IRS for the prior 3 years, so it lost its 501(c)(3) non-profit status and now has to go through the application process again. Keeping track of those kinds of details are important for any non-profit club or organization. But how do you do that, when activity waxes and wanes over time and club officers come and go? By the way, that club is growing once again.

I still shake my head when I think of another local club I’ve belonged to in the past. At the first meeting of the year I attended, probably the January or February meeting, the newly elected President walked up to me and literally, the first words he said were, “We haven’t got your check yet.” Well, hello, nice to see you as well too. The art of warmly greeting and welcoming one of a club’s most precious resources—its members—was totally lost upon this fellow. As you might guess, the club didn’t do very well that year.

Earlier this year, I walked our board of directors through the 3 Ms: Members, Manpower, and Money. Without these, it’s hard for a club to grow and succeed.

We’re using the 3 Ms to focus our activities and so far it’s working. Membership is up by 60% over last year and we’re only halfway into the year.

Members has two important elements. First, we have to attract potential members and convince them to part with $40 each year to become a member, which is a non-trivial task. To do that, we have to have the second element in place: member programs and events attractive to members and potential members.

From a numbers perspective, our club has held just two events a year for the last few years. But they are outstanding events. The annual Crystal Eagle Award dinner is a world-class event that’s carefully planned for 8 months. Each dinner honors an individual whose accomplishments have significantly contributed to the advancement of aviation or space technology. The list of past recipients reads like a Who’s Who list of famous aviators and astronauts.

The “Eagle” is a large, beautiful piece of crystal glass we import from Italy. Our members then professionally mount it on a block of Redwood with a plaque. The dinner is also a fundraiser, raising money for scholarships that we award to students in S.F. Bay area aviation college programs.

This year, we have five events on the calendar, a significant increase over last year. We’re also moving toward a school year calendar of events, leaving the summer open for planning. That’s a practice we learned from the Aero Club of New England, which was founded over a hundred years ago! By the way, Aero Clubs are regional affiliate clubs of the NAA, the National Aeronautic Association. Check to see if one of the six regional Aero Clubs is located near you.

In addition to Members, a club needs Manpower, or volunteers. For the last few years, our board of directors did most of our club’s work. But that’s a formula for burnout, especially as we grow. Now, we never miss an opportunity to ask members to volunteer, so we can match them up with tasks to be done. We still have a long way to go in this area, but we’re making progress.

The last M is for Money. Obviously, any organization has to be able to cover its expenses. Our goal is to set member dues at a level that covers fixed expenses, so all additional money we raise can go to the scholarship fund. The silent auction, held at our annual dinner, is our most productive source of scholarship funds. There’s undoubtedly more we can do to raise money, but our initial focus is on improving the other two Ms first.

As I talk with other local club Presidents, I hear consistent themes. Members are getting older, it’s hard to find new younger members, and it’s difficult to find speakers for their regular monthly meetings.

We’ve taken a different approach to meetings. While the board of directors meets monthly, there are no regular monthly meetings for members! Members only meet at our major events, typically a luncheon presentation, dinner, or group tour. That takes the pressure off having to come up with an amazing speaker every four and a half weeks. Since the event dates are essentially random, members who might have a conflict with a regular monthly meeting can still attend. While they may have an occasional conflict with an event, at least they won’t have a conflict for every club meeting.

What challenges do your local clubs face and what solutions have you found?

Happy Birthday Garmin G1000 – 10 Years

Wednesday, May 28th, 2014

G1000 Birthday Cake 10th AnniversaryCongratulations to Garmin on introducing the G1000 ten years ago. I bet most readers are surprised that this wildly successful glass cockpit has been around so long. If you still haven’t flown one of these fun systems yet, don’t let another ten years slip by before you do!

A Brief History
Rarely in the last fifty years has General Aviation experienced such a tidal wave of change. In only two years, the industry converted nearly 100% of piston aircraft shipments from round gauges to glass cockpits. And for the first time, it meant that a student pilot could learn behind the same glass panel that he or she might later use in a jet!

Cirrus and Avidyne led the revolution in 2003 by adding a PFD (Primary Flight Display) to the MFD (Multifunction Display) that already shipped in the SR20 and SR22. That glass cockpit system, the Avidyne Entegra had its greatest success at Cirrus until the Cirrus Perspective, a G1000 derivative, debuted in the SR22 in May 2008.

The Garmin G1000 was first shipped in a Diamond DA40 in June 2004. Meanwhile, in Independence, Kansas, nearly completed Cessna 182’s were filling the ramp as the factory awaited their G1000 deliveries. The first Cessna 182/G1000s were delivered in July 2004 and 172s began shipping with the G1000 in early 2005.

By mid-2005, five aircraft OEMs including Cessna, Diamond, Beechcraft, Mooney, and Tiger announced shipment of the Garmin G1000 in most of their piston aircraft. Columbia, which previously offered the Avidyne Entegra in their 350 and 400 aircraft, converted to the G1000 in early 2006, though not without a major problem from Mother Nature. Nearly 50 new Columbias were parked outside the factory, all awaiting delivery of G1000 systems, when a freak hailstorm pelted the planes. Months were spent quantifying the damage and determining how and if to repair the composite wings, which had hundreds of micro dents from the hail.

The Revolution
Reading or hearing about a glass cockpit for the first time is akin to reading or hearing about EAA’s AirVenture at Oshkosh. Until you actually experience it, it’s hard to imagine just how great it is and how much it will exceed your expectations.

I was initially skeptical when I read magazine reports about the then new G1000. I’d spent 25 years working in the high technology industry, where occasionally I saw technology thrown at problems that could have been solved in simpler ways. So when I first read about the G1000, I recall thinking “What a waste of a computer,” to install one in the instrument panel of a GA aircraft. How wrong I was.

By early 2005, curiosity led me to get an hour of dual instruction in a G1000-equipped Cessna 182. Immediately I knew it was different, but I didn’t want to rush to judgment until I’d had time to reflect on the experience.

I wrote about my conclusion in Max Trescott’s Garmin G1000 and Perspective Glass Cockpit Handbook

“The single biggest benefit of the G1000 and Perspective, compared to competitive products, is that it allows you to aviate, navigate and communicate from a single 10-inch or 12-inch display. In contrast, competitive products have pilots looking in multiple places to see data and reaching in multiple places to operate controls.”

Having your eyes near the primary flight instruments all the time reduces the odds of entering an unusual attitude while tuning a radio or entering a GPS flight plan. Plus, the 10-inch wide artificial horizon is far superior to the 2-inch airplane symbol found in most round gauge attitude indicators. But that’s just the beginning. Glass cockpit aircraft contain many safety features, like traffic, terrain, and weather information that have the potential to reduce accidents when pilots are trained in their use and use them properly.

Glass cockpits have also changed the paradigm for avionics. Historically, avionics stayed on the market for many years with few changes until entirely new models replaced them. Quoting again from my G1000 Book, “The G1000 system clearly breaks this paradigm. First, with two large software-driven displays, new features can be continually be added to the G1000 in far less time than it took to design, manufacture, and release traditional avionics…The Ethernet bus architecture also makes it easy for new devices to be designed and connected to the G1000.”

But if engineering school taught me anything, it was that there are tradeoffs in every design decision. Today’s new computer and software-based avionics, as good as they are, occasionally suffer from the same woes seen in the computer world. For example, one time a Columbia 400 equipped with TAS, an active traffic system, came back from maintenance with TIS, a less capable traffic system. It turned out the maintenance personnel forgot to reload the software for the TAS system, so it effectively disappeared!

The Future
So where are we headed? Undoubtedly, Garmin will pack a few more new features into the G1000 and Perspective through software upgrades and possibly more hardware additions. So existing owners can expect some new features. Eventually the speeds of the now ten-year old processors will limit upgradability. But it is a modular architecture, so Garmin might in the future offer new hardware modules to provide G1000 and Perspective owners with an upgrade path that adds robust new features.

The G1000 and Perspective may appear in a few more aircraft types, possibly as retrofits to older turbine and jet aircraft and perhaps in a few new aircraft types. But Garmin now offers the G2000, G3000, and G5000 on the high end and the G300 on the low end, so that keeps the Garmin G1000 from moving up or down into these markets. I don’t expect to see the G1000 being retrofitted into many older single engine piston aircraft. With the average age of the GA fleet approaching 40 years, the cost of the upgrade would exceed the value of most of these planes, so the market opportunity is too small for Garmin to pursue. However these older aircraft are an excellent target market for partial glass cockpit upgrades using solution like Aspen Avionics and portable iPad solutions.

Of course someday the G1000 will be replaced with something new. The workhorse Garmin 430 shipped for about 14 years. But the G1000 is more upgradeable, so it could conceivably have a longer product life cycle. And there’s always the possibility that Bendix/King, or another competitor, could introduce a new product that replaces the G1000 in a future refresh of new aircraft cockpits.

The impact of the G1000 and other glass cockpits cannot be overstated. For years, airline pilots told me the G1000 “was better than what I have in the airliner I fly.” But sadly, glass cockpit-equipped aircraft are still a small fraction of the overall GA fleet, partially because of the slowdown in new aircraft sales since the 2008 recession. Most pilots still aren’t flying in them and thus aren’t benefiting from their safety advantages.

So on the tenth birthday of the G1000, we should thank Avidyne and Cirrus for starting the glass cockpit revolution in GA aircraft, and thank Garmin and Cessna for making it such a widespread phenomena. Kudos to all of these companies for their great work! Now let’s get started on the next revolution in General Aviation…What do you think it will be?

When to switch to VLOC on an ILS or VOR approach?

Monday, May 5th, 2014

VLOC SAC ILS VORHard to believe, but the ubiquitous workhorse IFR GPS receiver, the Garmin 430, was introduced 17 years ago in 1997. With more than 100,000 Garmin 430s and 530s shipped, it still has the largest installed base of any IFR-capable GPS. Yet despite its longevity, pilots are still asking basic questions about it, such as “When should I Load versus Activate?” or “When do I switch to VLOC on an ILS or VOR approach?”

Lest you think any of these questions are trivial, the former question became a full page in my Max Trescott’s GPS and WAAS Instrument Flying Handbook. As for the latter question, there’s finally an official FAA answer and surprisingly, it’s different depending upon whether you’re flying an ILS or a VOR approach.

For a lot of people flying mostly ILSs into the same few airports, the answer may seem simple. They might respond “Well the CDI just switches automatically to VLOC as I’m about to intercept the final approach course.” That is true some of the time, though only for ILS approaches and only if you’ve turned on the ILS CDI Autocapture in the Garmin 430 or 530’s AUX group.

But the automatic switching on an ILS only occurs if you intercept the final approach course between 2 to 15 miles outside the Final Approach Fix (FAF). That’s not a problem for most ILSs, but for a really long one with a large descent of perhaps 5,000 feet or more (e.g. the ILS 31 at Salinas, Calif. or the ILS 32R at Moffett Field, Calif.) the CDI won’t switch automatically as you join the final approach course. In these cases, you’ll need to manually switch it. Of course, you’ll always need to manually switch it for any non-ILS approach that uses a Nav radio, such as Localizer, VOR, VOR/DME, LDA, SDF, and Localizer back course approaches.

How Late Can You Switch?
But when are you required to switch to the Nav radio for primary guidance? Imagine you’re on a checkride and you forget to switch the CDI from GPS to the Nav radio. How far can you proceed along the approach before you fail the checkride because you didn’t switch the CDI to the Nav radio?

The story I heard years ago—but never confirmed so I don’t know if it’s true—was that Garmin and Cessna gave differing guidance on this point, because they were located in different FSDOs and got different guidance from their local FAA regional offices. One said you had to switch the CDI or HSI to the NAV radio as soon as you turned onto the final approach course. The other said that you didn’t have to make the switch until you reached the FAF. Which is correct? Like most things in life, it depends!

The FAA reference for this is AC 90-108, dated March 3, 2011. For an ILS, localizer, LDA, or localizer back course, Section 8. c. says that an RNAV System (e.g. a GPS) cannot be used for “Lateral navigation on LOC-based courses (including LOC Back-course guidance) without reference to raw LOC data.” This means that as soon as you turn onto a localizer or ILS, you need to display course guidance from the Nav radio. On the Garmin 430/530, that means as soon as you turn onto the localizer, you must push the CDI button so VLOC is displayed.

But oddly for a VOR approach, the answer is different. Section 8. b. says that an RNAV System (e.g. a GPS) cannot be used as a “Substitution for the NAVAID (for example, a VOR or NDB) providing lateral guidance for the final approach segment.” The final approach segment always starts at the FAF, which is marked with a Maltese cross. So on a VOR approach, you can fly all the way to the FAF before you need to switch the CDI or HSI to the Nav radio. Fly past the FAF using just the GPS (as I saw a client do a few days ago) and you’ve busted your checkride, and the regulations if you were to do it for real on an IFR flight plan.

How Early Should You Switch?
Waiting until the last possible time to switch the CDI or HSI to the Nav radio rarely makes sense. My guidance to clients is when the controller first begins issuing vectors—meaning you’re no longer using the GPS for primary guidance—switch the CDI or HSI to the Nav radio (unless of course you’re flying a GPS approach). That gives you time to verify that the course is set correctly before you join the approach course.

I saw a great example of why that’s important while teaching last weekend at a Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) in Concord, Calif. One of the attendees I flew with didn’t switch the HSI to the Nav radio until the moment he turned onto the final approach course for the LDA RWY 19R at KCCR. At that time, I noticed that the HSI’s course pointer was incorrectly set for 191 degrees rather than the 181 degrees required for the approach, but didn’t say anything because I wanted to see if and when he’d catch the error. Had he made the switch earlier, he would have had more time to review his setup and possibly catch this error.

The needle remained centered, though it was pointed 10 degrees away from our heading. As we crossed the FAF, he asked “Now do I turn ten degrees to follow the pink line to the airport?” I was stunned that he came up with that as a possibility, since localizer signals are always beamed out in a straight line with no turns. Clearly he knew there was a problem in the conflicting information he was seeing, but he never considered the possibility that the course was set incorrectly.

The mantra I teach clients is to review “MORSE, Source, Course” as part of their setup for an instrument approach. There’s no need to check the MORSE code ID or to set the CDI Course when flying a GPS approach, but they’re absolutely essential to check and set anytime you’re using the Nav radio.

Why Does the FAA Allow the Switch to Occur Later for a VOR
So why must you switch to the Nav radio as soon as you turn onto an ILS or localizer, but can wait until the FAF to make the switch when flying a VOR approach? Consider an instrument approach with a VOR at the FAF. You might guess that when on the approach outside the VOR, a GPS signal keeps you closer to the centerline than a VOR signal, but that’s only true when you’re more than 6 NM from the VOR. At that point, the GPS is in Terminal mode and full scale CDI deflection is ±1 NM, which matches the ±10° full-scale deflection for a VOR signal at that distance.

Six miles is probably close to the average length of an intermediate segment, so while I have trouble saying these words [choke], the VOR would actually be more precise for navigating the last six miles to the FAF. Yes, a VOR signal scallops around a lot, but usually not much when you’re that close to a VOR.

The real benefit of GPS accuracy when flying a VOR approach occurs when you’re flying the initial segment, almost all of which would be more than 6 NM from a VOR at the FAF. Not only would GPS keep you closer to the centerline, but more scalloping occurs on a VOR signal at that distance.

It’s a little tougher to do the same analysis on an ILS or localizer approach, since the beamwidth of the localizer varies between about 3 to 6°, depending upon the particular installation. Suffice it to say that any approach with a localizer will have a narrower beamwidth, keeping you closer to the centerline, than a VOR approach when at the same distance from the antenna site. Just remember that localizers are more precise, so the FAA wants you to start using the Nav radio as soon as you turn onto one. But VORs are less precise, so you don’t have to switch to the Nav radio until you reach the FAF.

Postscript
After reading this post, a friend emailed suggesting I’d misinterpreted AC 90-108 and came to the wrong conclusion about needing to switch to localizer data as soon as you turn onto the final approach course. I sought clarification from AFS-470 at FAA HQ and they quickly responded confirming that pilots MUST use raw localizer data for primary guidance along the entire localizer. They raised an additional point that a reader also mentioned  in the Comments section. Both pointed out that a pilot can always monitor RNAV (GPS) data as they fly along a localizer. However they cannot use it for primary navigation. The pilot must have raw LOC data displayed on their primary instrumentation and  must use that LOC/VOR data for primary navigation. My thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion!

Instrument Changes: Approaches without IAFs and Vectors to Fixes

Monday, March 24th, 2014

 

00285R11

My article about a “new” third way to start an approach, by flying to the intermediate fix (IF), drew many comments, including one asking “wouldn’t it be best to establish yourself earlier on the approach earli
er than the IF.” Another flight instructor explained that, in the case of the GPS 31 approach into Palo Alto, the IAF locations are inconvenient (unless you’re flying in from Japan!) and are over mountainous terrain, which is why most pilots start this approach at the IF. Now, even the FAA doesn’t consider an IAF a necessity and many approaches are charted without any IAFs!

First, my thanks to longtime friend Hilton Goldstein, for pointing out a number of approaches that lack an IAF. Hilton is the brains behind WingX, an integrated aviation app for the iPhone and iPad that provides just about every function a pilot might need for planning and flying a flight. He reviews every new instrument procedure chart before it goes into WingX, which is how he spots interesting procedures.

But first let’s go to the source, the Air Traffic Control Handbook, Order 7110.65U. Last year, section 4-8-1 Approach Clearance, was updated and now says in part:

“Standard instrument approach procedures (SIAP) must begin at an initial approach fix (IAF) or an intermediate fix (IF) if there is not an IAF.” [emphasis added].

Newark Liberty International (KEWR) is a great example. By my count, they have a total of 14 approaches that lack an IAF; all begin at an IF. An example is the RNAV (GPS) RWY 11 approach, which starts at the IF, MUFIE. Note the chart is marked RADAR REQUIRED, as are all charts for procedures starting at an IF.

Looking for the RADAR note is one possible clue that an approach might lack an IAF and start at an IF. At KEWR, 14 approaches have that restriction and all start at an IF. Well technically, one of them doesn’t have an IF, but it was probably an oversight.

If you look at the VOR RWY 11 at KEWR, you’ll note it starts at PINEZ. The next fix, LOCKI, can be identified as the Final Approach Fix (FAF) since it shows a Maltese cross at LOCKI in the profile view. An intermediate segment begins at an IF and terminates at an FAF, in this case LOCKI. Thus PINEZ should be an IF, though it’s unmarked. So technically, the FAA cannot clear an aircraft to start this approach at PINEZ, since per JO 7110.65U, an approach must begin at “an intermediate fix (IF) if there is not an IAF.” My guess is “IF” will be added to PINEZ in a future chart revision.

Why don’t these approaches have an IAF? Probably because it simplifies things in what’s already some of the most congested airspace in the United States. Besides, per the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook, “The purpose of the initial approach segment is to provide a method for aligning the aircraft with the intermediate or final approach segment.”

In most cases, an aircraft can start at an IAF from any direction. Depending upon the angle of arrival at an IAF, an aircraft may need a lot of space and time to get turned around and straightened out, hence the need for the initial segment.

But airliners flying into a major metropolitan airport like Newark are usually vectored in an orderly line more than 100 miles out from the start of an approach. Thus they’re well lined up and hairpin turns aren’t required as they start an approach. In that kind of structured environment, there’s no need for an initial segment to get lined up and hence no reason not to start at an IF. So what do you think? Will the IAF slowly fade away in the future, except in non-radar environments?

Vectors to Fixes Outside the FAF
Another change last year in section 4-8-1 of 7110.65U says that aircraft can now be vectored to start an approach at any fix, as long as it’s 3 NM or more outside of the FAF. Typically in the past, vectors have been to join the final approach course along a leg, not to a particular fix (except for the IAF and IF). Here’s the exact text:

“Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course, or clear an aircraft to any fix 3 NM or more prior to the FAF along the final approach course in accordance with Paragraph 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course, and Paragraph 5-9-2, Final Approach Course Interception.”

Looking at Paragraph 5-9-2, one finds that controllers must assign a heading that cannot exceed 30° from the final approach course. Thus we end up with the following maximum intercept angles for joining the final approach course at a fix:

  • 30° when at fixes outside the FAF, except for:
  • 90 ° for intercepts at the IF, and
  • any angle for intercepts at an IAF.

I’d venture to say that the majority of approaches don’t have any other fixes outside the FAF, other than the IF and IAF, which were covered by prior rules. Yes, you’ll find lots of feeder fixes outside the IAF, but you can typically join these at any angle. So while this rule change may give pilots and controllers another option on some approaches, it’s not clear to me that it offers much new benefit. If you’re aware of an approach where having this option offers a significant operational advantage, please share it with readers in the comments.

One thing we know for sure that’s constant is change. And that the rate of change is accelerating. Which means pilots and controllers alike will need to spend even more time learning about future changes and how they affect they way we fly. Perhaps that’s why a pilot certificate is often called a license to learn.

How to Request to Start an Approach at the Intermediate Fix (IF)

Tuesday, February 25th, 2014
Requesting to be cleared "Direct to" the IF can result in a hairpin turn that's not permitted by the AIM.

Requesting to be cleared “Direct to” the IF can result in a hairpin turn that’s not permitted by the AIM.

Instrument pilots know that there are two ways to start an instrument approach: they can get vectors or fly direct to an initial approach fix (IAF). Last month, I wrote about the “new” third way to start an approach, by flying to the intermediate fix (IF). This month I planned to write about the challenges in requesting to start an approach at an IF. Coincidentally, the day this article was due, the problem I planned to describe occurred…again.

I added quotes to “new” because, while this third method has been described in section 5-4-7(i) of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) since 2006, I expect it will take many years before this information fully permeates the pilot and controller populations. Why so long? Partly because old habits in aviation die slowly and because standard IFR phraseology is confusing when applied to starting at an IF.

The confusion is not unlike the language issues that led to “Position and hold” being changed to “Line up and wait,” a change I enthusiastically supported. Countless times I’ve been in the cockpit with a pilot who confused “Position and hold” with “Hold short,” presumably because they both contained the word “hold.” In this case, potential confusion exists with the words “vectors” and “direct to,” when used to request to start an approach at an IF.

In September 2012, I exchanged several emails about this problem with a friend who is a supervisor at the Northern California TRACON. In my first email, I wrote in part,

“In my books, I tell pilots that there are three ways to fly an instrument approach:
1. vectors,
2. own navigation (or pilot navigation) to an IAF, and
3. a third method, which appeared in the Aeronautical Information Manual beginning in 2006 that allows pilots to start at an IF under certain circumstances (see extract from my G1000 Book below).

“We have short, well understood names that pilots use to ask controllers for the first two methods. But I’m not aware of a convenient name for pilots to use when requesting this third method. Are there quick, easy names that controllers use to describe this third method? Or should we be inventing a new name for it and promoting it among the aviation community?”

Why the need for a “quick, easy name?” Because for years, I’d sometimes had to clarify my request to start at an IF by adding that I’d like “to be vectored to a point from which you can clear me direct to DOCAL with a turn of less than 90 degrees.” That’s a mouthful and an inefficient use of radio time at a busy TRACON.

The reply from my supervisor friend was that the consensus at the facility was that a pilot should name the approach and ask to start at the name of the IF. In the case of the GPS 31 approach at Palo Alto, a pilot would ask to “start the approach at DOCAL,” Alternatively, you might consider requesting “to start the approach at the Intermediate Fix,” which should trigger the controller to remember the 90 degree turn rule.

Potential Confusion in Phraseology
Using the words “vectors” or “direct to,” works great when a pilot is requesting to start an approach with vectors or at an IAF. But they can be confusing when used to start an approach at an IF.

“Vectors” means you’ll be guided to join an approach at least several miles outside of the final approach fix (FAF). Requesting “vectors to DOCAL” could make sense, except that the JO 7110.65U tells controllers that when giving vectors, they are to turn pilots to within 30 degrees of the final approach course, not the 90 degrees permitted at an IF. So you don’t really want “vectors” to the IF.

If instead of asking to “start the approach at DOCAL” a pilot asks to be cleared “Direct to DOCAL,” controllers will sometimes take that literally and clear a pilot from their present position to the IF. But this can result in nearly a 180 degree turn at the IF, which isn’t permitted under 5-4-7. And that’s exactly what happened to me today. I had just crossed over Moffett Field and was essentially on a downwind leg to the approach. The controller asked whether we wanted vectors or to start the approach at DOCAL. I chose the latter and was immediately cleared “Direct to DOCAL.”

I’m not sure why the controller did that, though I’m guessing he was familiar with the 90 degree rule in 5-4-7. Shortly afterwards, I said “we’d like to continue on this heading until we can make a turn of less than 90 degrees at DOCAL,” to which he said “That will be fine.”

Why so casual? We weren’t IFR, but were doing a VFR practice approach, where separation standards are relaxed. Under those circumstances, I’ve seen controllers not require a turn of less than 90 degrees at an IF, a practice that may confuse pilots and controllers alike about the proper way to start an approach at an IF.

Get on the Same Page as the Controller
Regardless of how you request an approach, or how you are cleared to an approach, it’s important to be on the same page as the controller. If you have any doubt as to whether the controller and you have the same game plan in mind, request clarification. In the meantime, don’t hesitate to ask to “start the approach at the IF” if that’s how you would like to fly the approach.

Three Ways to Start an Instrument Approach: Vectors, IAF and Intermediate Fix (IF)

Tuesday, January 28th, 2014

KPAO GPS 31

A friend lamented on Facebook that the NDB procedure at the airport where he learned to fly is no longer available. He added  “For some reason it makes me a little sad.” I’m guessing his sadness had more to do with his feelings about learning to fly at that airport, than it did about flying an NDB approach. Or perhaps he was reminiscing about the pride he felt in mastering the NDB approach.

I used to enjoy the intellectual challenge of flying an NDB approach and the even greater challenge of teaching others to master it. But no more. There are no NDB approaches left in the S.F. Bay area where I teach and I say “good riddance.”

The approaches were inaccurate and difficult to fly and former Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown was killed when U.S. Air Force pilots failed to correctly fly a rare “dual NDB” approach. I’m much prefer to see pilots expend their intellectual horsepower on mastering flying IFR approaches with modern GPS receivers, which can be more work than learning NDB approaches, and staying up to date on rule changes.

One rule change that frequently causes confusion among pilots and controllers alike relates to the third way to fly an instrument approach. All instrument pilots know you can fly an approach with vectors or use pilot navigation to start at an IAF (initial approach fix). However there’s a third way that’s been around since 2006, but word about it has been slow to get out to pilots and even to a few controllers.

Pilots can now start an instrument approach, with some restrictions, by flying directly to the IF (intermediate fix). Just to remind those who may have forgotten, the initial segment of a typical instrument approach procedure starts at an IAF and ends at the IF. So typically the IF is the next fix after the IAF as you fly toward the airport.

You might be wondering, “What’s the big deal, why would I want to skip the IAF.” For many approaches it won’t matter, especially if the IAF is along your direction of travel toward the airport. But for some approaches it can save a few clicks on the Hobbs meter. For example, at my home airport of Palo Alto, Calif., the GPS 31 approach has two IAFs, but both are in the boonies and most pilots start the approach at DOCAL, the IF.

You’ll find the details about starting an approach at an IF in section 5-4-7(i) of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), where it first appeared in 2006 (yes eight years ago!). However, you won’t read about it in the FAA’s Instrument Flying Handbook or even in the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook, both of which are excellent publications.

The rule applies to all approach types, not just RNAV (GPS) approaches. Here’s the current text from the AIM:

ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix:

1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.

2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix at least 5 miles from the fix.

NOTE - This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.

3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.

4. Ensure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to the final approach fix.

Here’s what it means to a typical GA pilot.

1) You need to be GPS equipped (which is the only practical way for most GA aircraft to be RNAV equipped). This let’s you find your way independently to the IF.

2) The controller might advise you that you’ll be starting the approach at the IF, but more typically, you’ll have already requested that of the controller.

3) You’ll be assigned an altitude to maintain until reaching the IF. Most likely you won’t be on a published segment of the approach until the IF, so you need to be assigned a safe altitude.

4) The controller cannot clear you directly to the IF until you’re in a position from which you can make a turn of less than 90 degrees to join the approach at the IF.

It’s the last part, making a turn of less than 90 degrees, where pilot and controller sometimes get confused. The idea is that the turn at the IF needs to be an easy one, much like turning left or right at the intersection of two streets. It can’t be a hairpin turn or resemble something like a U-Turn.

Think of it this way. If you were to draw a line on your chart at the IF that’s perpendicular to the intermediate segment, on one side of the line, the side farthest from the airport, you are allowed to fly directly to the IF, since the turn inbound is less than 90 degrees. If you’re on the other side of the line, the side closer to the airport, you can’t be cleared to the IF until after you’ve been vectored across the perpendicular line.

All of this presents some new challenges for pilots and controllers, especially if they’re unclear on the rule. We’ll talk more about those challenges….next month.

Join an Aircraft Type Club and Save Your Life

Tuesday, December 10th, 2013

Type Clubs Save LivesAircraft type clubs are General Aviation’s best-kept secret weapon. While there are more than a hundred of them, they fly stealthily below the radar of most pilots, who seem to be blissfully unaware of their existence and benefits. Only a fraction of pilots belong to any of them, yet they offer the best value proposition in aviation: they’re cheap and they could save your life.

No, I’m not talking about AOPA, EAA and the other large industry associations that have hundreds of thousands of members. Type clubs are smaller, usually only a few hundred or a few thousand members, and they play a very different role. While the large organizations champion industry-wide issues, type clubs are dedicated to helping owners and renters of specific aircraft makes and models.

Most type clubs offer a newsletter or magazine and many have a web site loaded with aircraft details. But no two clubs are alike; each seems to have a slightly different emphasis. For example, the Cessna Pilots Association (CPA) is focused heavily on maintenance. Each time I had a maintenance issue with the Cessna T210 I owned ten years ago, I phoned the CPA before seeing my mechanic. Invariably, their experts were able to narrow down the issue so I could point my mechanic to the specific problem that needed fixing. That saved hours of troubleshooting and lots of money.

Some clubs, like the Cirrus Owner and Pilots Association (COPA), have a strong emphasis on pilot training and safety. In addition to a very active online forum in which training and accidents are discussed in detail, they offer training at locations around the world in their weekend Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Programs (CPPP). Half of the weekend is spent in seminars on subjects like avionics and engine operation. The other half is spent in the air with a flight instructor, often factory trained, who specializes in teaching in Cirrus SR20 and SR22 aircraft.

The payoff is that the Cirrus fatal accident rate, which was originally higher than the GA fatal accident rate, has declined steadily in recent years and is now slightly lower than the overall GA fatal accident rate. Not surprisingly, COPA members have far fewer fatal Cirrus accidents than non-COPA members.

According to Rick Beach of COPA, the type club has over 3,700 members representing 2,900 Cirrus tail numbers, which is 55% of the 5,400 aircraft that have been produced. About 3,200 of the clubs members are certificated pilots, which is 40% of the total estimated 8,000 Cirrus pilots (including owners and renters).

Beach says “In the history of the fleet, 25 COPA members were involved in the 103 fatal accidents or 24%. If Cirrus pilots were uniformly likely to be involved, then we would expect 40% to be COPA members.” Not only are COPA members about half as likely to be involved in an accident, active COPA members, those who participated in a BPPP or were active in online forums, are even less likely to have an accident. In the history of the fleet, 11 active COPA members were involved in fatal accidents or 11%, about one quarter of the accident rate for all Cirrus aircraft.

Beach continues “If we just look at the past 36 months, as fatal accident frequency dropped considerably, the results are more emphatic. Of the 36 fatal accidents in the past 36 months, 7 were COPA members (20%) and 3 were active COPA Members (8%) instead of 40%.”

On the flip side, COPA members are more likely to have pulled the Cirrus parachute handle and floated down to safety. “Over the lifetime of the fleet, there have been 38 CAPS [parachute] saves. Of those, 17 involved COPA members or 45%, slightly higher than our guesstimate of the proportion of COPA members in the Cirrus pilot community. In the past 36 months, there have been 16 CAPS saves. Of those, 6 involved COPA members or 38%, almost the same proportion of COPA members in the Cirrus pilot community, and certainly a higher percentage than in fatal accidents.”

Lest you think COPA is unique in its safety results, look at LOBO, the Lancair Owners and Builders Organization. In 2008, the worst accident year in Lancair history, seven crashes resulted in 19 fatalities. In October 2008, LOBO was formed to address the high accident rate. In 2009, there were only four accidents with 7 fatalities and by 2010 there were only two fatalities, the lowest accident rate in ten years. Per their January 2011 newsletter, “since the inception of LOBO, there has only been one serious accident involving a LOBO member.”

Give yourself an early Christmas present: Join the type club for the aircraft you fly most frequently. But don’t just write a check; become an active participant. Whether you own or rent, you’re bound to learn more about the intricacies of that aircraft model. And if your family is lucky, what you learn as a type club member may someday save your life…and possibly their lives too.

The Future of General Aviation is You, so Get Cracking!

Wednesday, November 13th, 2013

Much has been written about the decline in the pilot population in the United States. Over the last 20 years, both AOPA and EAA have launched major initiatives to reverse the decline, yet the population continues to trend downward. Perhaps it’s time for pilots to start their own grass root effort to reverse the trend, rather than wait for industry organizations to solve the problem.

Lest you think the situation is hopeless, consider, that some other countries have reversed the decline in their pilot populations. According to this week’s IMC Radio “Plane Talk” podcast, former AOPA VP Adam Smith said, “When I mentioned that the pilot population in my home country in Britain is growing again, I think it’s because eventually it got through the horrible crisis of the decline and the rising costs, etc. And people got positive and optimistic again and this fresh air of enthusiasm blew through aviation and so for me that’s what I would look to happen in America.”

Perhaps we need a grass roots approach in which every pilot commit to replacing him or herself in the pilot population by actively recruiting a friend, coworker, or acquaintance to become a pilot. For better or worse, from the outside looking in, aviation looks like a club. And to get people to consider joining a club, YOU need to invite them in.

Here are positive steps you can take right now:

  • Go through your contacts list
  • Identify people you think would enjoy being a pilot
  • Call them on the phone today, not a month from now, and ask them if they’d like to go flying with you.
  • Before the flight, find a flight instructor with time in his or her schedule to start giving your friend flying lessons within a week after your flight. That’s important as increased airline hiring has led to a CFI shortage in some areas.
  • Plan your flight carefully. Select a place to fly with your friend that’s a fun destination, perhaps with an airport museum or a restaurant on the field. Choose a time when turbulence will be minimal, such as earlier in the day.
  • After your flight, get them to meet with a flight instructor within a few days while they’re still pumped up from your flight together.

To get the best return on your efforts, select someone who not only has an interest in flying, but who also has the means to afford flying lessons. Flying a lot of teenagers may pay off a few decades from now, but what we need are pilots who have the time and means to take flight training NOW. In my experience, that’s often people between the ages of 30 and 50 years old, unless they’re considering aviation as a career, in which case they may be much younger.

For most people interested in learning to fly as an avocation, flight training is a lower priority than buying a car, building a career, forming a family, and buying a house. So they may not have the time or the means to learn to fly until they are at least 30 to 35 years old. People in their 60s and older can still train for a pilot certificate, so definitely consider recruiting them too. But you may want to counsel them that it could take them more total hours to complete their training than a younger person may require. Yes, there are younger and older people who get a pilot certificate, but the sweet spot appears to be people who have already experienced some success in their careers and are ready for new challenges.

Not only will our industry benefit from your actions, but you’ll benefit too. Flying with someone is always more fun than flying alone. And helping others achieve their goals can be very satisfying. Best of all, six months or a year from now, you may have a newly licensed pilot friend to go on trips with and who might be a potential airplane partner. The future of GA is up to all of us. So let’s get cracking today on finding the pilots of tomorrow!

A Future with More Government Shutdowns?

Monday, October 7th, 2013

Government Shutdown FAAAs of this writing, the 2013 government shutdown, the first in 17 years, has been in effect for a week with no signs of ending. If it only continues for another week or two and doesn’t reoccur in the near future, the many people and organizations affected by it will give a collective sigh of relief and it will soon be forgotten. But what if government shutdowns become the new normal?

It wasn’t that long ago that filibusters in the Senate were rare, but since 2009 they’ve become routine, requiring 60 votes whereas in the past a simple majority vote was sufficient.  If government shutdowns become routine, we may be in uncharted territory.

From the important to the mundane, here’s what’s not happening at the FAA during the government shutdown:

  • The Aircraft Registry Branch is closed, so new aircraft sales have halted since the planes can’t be registered. A GAMA survey indicates that 12 deliveries were missed in the first two days and a total of 135 deliveries totaling $1.38 billion if the shutdown lasts a couple of weeks. Interestingly, the Aircraft Registry Branch was deemed essential and left open during the shutdowns in the 1990s. Why not this time?
  • The Flight Standards Service is down from 5,000 people to fewer than 200 essential people, mostly managers. So the inspectors who provide safety oversight of maintenance and operations are mostly sidelined. Expect virtually no ramp checks, ferry permits, CFI renewals, or approval of applications, such as a new Part 135 certificate for a new charter operator. “Limited” certification work, such as on new aircraft under development, will continue according to the DOT.
  • Written exams for knowledge tests have halted, an inconvenience for anyone who put off taking their written exam until just before a now delayed checkride.
  • Major new initiatives are delayed. Remember Part 23 reform that according to AOPA will “overhaul small-aircraft certification rules to double safety and cut costs in half.” Not happening right now. Development and testing of NextGen technologies is also halted. And if you’ve taken a written exam and wondered why you saw lots of questions about ADF receivers, but few on GPS, be aware that the current overhaul of knowledge tests has stopped.

Some things that are essential to protect life and property continue to be in place. That includes air traffic control facilities, the FSS services provided by Lockheed Martin and the aviationweather.gov web site (which is actually part of NOAA, not the FAA). And DOT reports that 2,490 employees from the Office of Aviation Safety will be incrementally recalled over a two-week period. FAA practical tests (checkrides)  continue for now, except for those that require a ride with an FAA inspector, such as CFI checkrides in some FSDOs.

The 2013 FAA budget involved reductions of $486 million and the Fiscal Year 2014 target includes a reduction of $697 million. A future FAA with a shrinking budget is likely to take longer to implement new rules, to reduce the services it currently provides, and to outsource more of its functions. I expect it to also attempt to charge for previously free services (e.g. the $447,000 bill for ATC service at AirVenture).

So what are the near-term implications for General Aviation? For starters, people working in GA will need to start planning further ahead to minimize the impact of future government shutdowns. Some things will be easy, like encouraging flight students to take their written exams when they first start flight training. Others, like getting a new Part 135 charter certificate approved when the FAA is open will be difficult because of backlogs.

Looking further down the road, GA should be involved in the dialog on how to restructure a changing FAA. If you have a good idea on how they can cut waste and improve efficiency, send it to the Administrator. Do you have an idea on how they could outsource a service, like the Flight Service Stations (FSS) that were outsourced through Lockheed Martin? Send them a note or a proposal.

The worst possible outcome would be if other, better-funded agencies step in to help the FAA with their mission. I can only imagine how awful GA flying would become if, for example, the TSA took primary responsibility for ramp checks. If government shutdowns ever become the new normal, many things will change. And it will be up to all of us to make sure that GA as we know it doesn’t get swept under the carpet in the process.

Renewing a flight instructor certificate via FAA Wings Program

Tuesday, September 17th, 2013

If you’re not a flight instructor but enjoy sharing your love of flying with others, I heartily encourage you to become a CFI. Not only will you become a better pilot in the process, but you’ll find out how much fun it is helping others to learn to fly.

Unlike other pilot certificates and ratings, a CFI rating must be renewed every two years or it goes away. Given the amount of work required to become a CFI, few people want to lose the rating. So every two years, over 90,000 CFIs renew through a variety of ways.

For CFIs who are not actively teaching, the most common way to renew is through a Flight Instructor Renewal Clinic or FIRC. These are typically weekend-long seminars hosted at hotels around the country on a rotating schedule. AOPA’s Air Safety Foundation’s FIRC is among the most popular. After two days of class, CFIs who attend are renewed for two years. Even non-current pilots can attend. I’m currently working with a lapsed pilot who hadn’t flown for 30 years. However, he still has a current CFI rating, since he attended a FIRC every two years!

Online FIRCs are also now available from multiple vendors. They’re less expensive and you can do them at home without traveling to a hotel. I’ve never used one, though I recently heard a CFI complain about the cumbersome nature of one of these courses.

If you actively teach, there are a variety of ways to renew a CFI rating through your local FAA FSDO office. In the past, I’ve renewed my CFI by bringing a list of five or more pilots that I’ve signed off for a checkride in the prior two years. To qualify by this method, at least 80% of the pilots have to have passed their checkride on the first attempt.

This year, I decided to renew by bringing the FSDO a list of five or more pilots for whom I had signed off a total of at least 15 flight elements in the FAA WINGS program.  This is a great alternative for CFIs who are less active, but still give at least two to three Flight Reviews (previously called a BFR) per year. Instead of signing pilots off for a Flight Review, have them sign up at www.faasafety.gov and take online courses for WINGS credit. Then print the lists of tasks they need to perform in the air, fly with them until they can complete the tasks to FAA checkride standards, and endorse their logbook with the FAA WINGS endorsement found in AC 61-65E. You too will need a faasafety.gov account so you can validate each pilot’s request for WINGS credit.

The first step to renew a CFI rating is to go to IACRA.faa.gov and fill out an online 8710-1 form. Then go to the FSDO with your IACRA FTN number, user name, and password. At the FSDO, the FAA inspector signs on to IACRA to find your online application. Then you sign on to IACRA to submit your 8710-1 form. The FAA inspector signs back on again and processes your application.

Renewing a CFI rating is non-trivial and takes some time. But it beats the alternative of failing to renew and having to take the Flight Instructor checkride again!