Alternate GPS ON Switch?

I first read about this "switch" in an article published by a flight instructor that I respect - Darren Smith. One of his popular "top ten" lists consisted of things that can help the single pilot IFR pilot juggle the work load. The article can be found here

Im going to come right out and say that I don't think this is worth the effort and money...
... and I can only say that for myself, you may need to consider where you fly and how the IFR system works in your neck of the woods, but flying in the Chicago area can be tricky when given departures and arrivals.

When flying down to Carbondale, I usually file a known outbound fix - Peotone (EON) and then an inbound fix near Carbondale called Centralia (ENL). Most of the time I get it, and another part of the time, I get "proceed direct Carbondale." This is almost a 250 mile trip. Regardless, the time it takes me to click in EON, then ENL, then KMDH, is about 30 seconds. I dont think that is too long of a time to enter a flight plan. If it takes you longer, then I think time is better spent in practicing entering the flight plan.

Here is a case in point - On my way home from Carbondale, I flight plan for VNN, CGT KIGQ. I always get it. However, sometimes around KCMI, I will get a re-route for traffic flow in Chicago. Sometimes I will get PNT V69 JOT CGT KIGQ... Sometimes I just get JOT CGT KIGQ... Sometimes I get a "proceed direct". You have to be able to do this in the air.

Im not sure what the switch is going to save you.

Self Criticism

If I had a criticism about myself, I would say that I talk too little. Some instructors talk too much. One instructor I had didnt talk too much, but rather spoke at the wrong times.

As we were about to do a maneuver like landing practice, right as I was about to take corrective action the instructor would blurt out "add power" or "correct heading". I would compensate for the instructor making those comments by trying to make the correction a little earlier than I would have normally just so I could be ahead of the instructor - prompting more questioning.

So, I need to improve on verbalizing a little more. I like to see if the student will make the correction themselves, but I need to recognize that if the student is not making the correction after a couple of times, I need to speak up.

One of the things I don't do enough of is demonstrations. The first time or two a maneuver is introduced, it is demonstrated, but after a certain amount of practice that demonstration is usually a forgotten zap between the synapses of their brain.

Time and time again when working with a student, I will find myself continually coaching and verbally correcting, but once I do a demo, a break through normally happens. This not only gives the student a little break, but allows the instructor to fly a little bit. All kidding aside, it takes the pressure off of the student for a little while so that they can focus on what you are actually saying rather than responding like a robot and not really listening. A picture is worth a thousand words and when a student observes the correct way to perform a maneuver, it usually clicks.

Class G

My buddy sent me the following email just the other day:
"I could hear an RV taking off below me. He was startled when I announced my missed approach; he said "where did he come from?" I announced my position and intentions since Rockford switched me to UNICOM at CABKO. Did that RV pilot have legal VFR minimums-- the AWOS said 1 1/2 and 300'! The sectional shows class E--I think. Magenta shading."

I responded with:
I looked on skyvector.com and see what you are talking about with the magenta circle... This means that there is class G airspace from the surface up to 700 ft AGL, so technically, he could take off and stay clear of clouds with 1 mile of viz while below 700ft AGL, then he needs the usual cloud clearance and visibility once above 700ft since he will be in class E. This is a good example of why airports like KDNV, or even Clinton - KCWI have that funky class E Airspace to the surface - to protect arriving IFR aircraft from goof balls like that RV from taking off with out the proper cloud clearance (but then again, they probably dont give a crap and would anyway)...

RNAV 7 to Rochelle - KRPJ

A friend of mine flew to KRPJ this morning. AWOS advertised wind 010@5kts, 1 1/2 mile, broken 300'. He flew the RNAV 7 approach. The LNAV minimum for straight in is 1140 and 1 mile visibility.

He gives me the following additional information:
- MDH is 400 ft
- Field elevation 781'
- He went missed at 1200'

His concern was the MDA is 1140 but that 781' (Field Elevation) + 400 feet (MDH) is higher! He wanted to know if he could legally fly this approach to the MDA of 1140 and said that the ceiling requirement conflicts with the MDA and calculated MDH & FE figures.

I really haven't thought about looking at the MDH and field elevation to see if they add up to the MDA. Not sure why he did this, but it was a great catch! So we thought...

Taking a look at the approach chart, I saw what was happening. There is a little (400-1) designation next to the MDH figure which should be ignored. It is for military operations, but I really cant find any official information on what that means. Do military operations have higher minimums than civil aviation? If he wanted to do the math, he should have used 364 - the figure just to the left of the military minimum figure.

The MDA is also calculated from the TDZE of the runway which is 776 and not 781, so that kind of skewed the calculation even further.

I'm using Jeppesen charts right now and didn't see what he was seeing right away. After figuring it all out, I went back to my Jepps and couldn't even find that military MDH and visibility figure on the charts anywhere. I guess the military are probably bound by some regulation to use the government charts, so Jeppesen probably doesn't even bother with including them on their charts.

With all of the acronyms, its hard to keep MDA, MDH, DH, DA, La-de-da all straight. Frequent review of the charts and analysis of every little notation is important so that you don't get caught off guard in the clouds when workload is high.

Risk taking Cirrus Pilots

I've been reading more and more articles about accidents involving Cirrus aircraft. Most of them seem to be related to weather and one writer commented that it appears that Cirrus pilots seem to take more chances than other pilots. Could this be because of the safety chute? Advanced avionics? Capability of the airplane?

I dont necessarily think that I would take more chances. Saying it that way sounds like extreme dare-devil antics are about to happen. Instead, I may lower my minimums, or fly more often at night. I believe that this is just a simple risk mitigation issue. If I have another element of safety added to my portfolio, it would lower the overall risk.

Take de-ice boots for instance. Flying in the winter in the Great Lakes region, there is a lot of potential for airframe icing. Knowing where the ice is, and how thick the clouds are play a major role in staying alive. We are all taking a chance when the weather is below freezing while flying in the clouds. Knowing escape routes, height and bases of clouds and temperatures aloft all mitigate the risk. Having de-ice boots further reduces our risk and gives us more options and that is perfectly acceptable.

So, are the Cirrus pilots taking risks? Sure they are. Are they OK if they are mitigated in some way or another? Absolutely.

Predict the wind

I caught myself saying to a student - "try to predict what the wind is doing and make your corrections."

Really "predict the wind" is totally invalid.

I changed the word to "react". Its amazing what word selection can do.
"I want you to react to what the wind is doing to you."

That's not to say that you should go into a situation blind. If the wind is coming out of the south west and you are heading toward runway 30, expect a short base and an immediate crab into the wind. Work it from that point.

Wouldnt it be nice to be able to predict the wind though?

Where did my DG go?

A pilot friend of mine is gearing up to start his instrument training and admitted to me that he never looks at the directional gyro.

Really? Never looking at the DG? Apparently so!

Thinking about it, I guess I really don't look it too much when I am VFR either! I'm too busy looking out the window enjoying the scenery.

But NO, his eyes are fully glued to the GPS instead! The GPS? Well, yes, that is where all of the information is - and he is right... kind of.

Flying VFR is all about looking out the window, enjoying the scenery and having fun. IFR is all about focusing on the instruments, practicing precision and complying with ATC instructions. I think the best thing to do in this student's situation is to focus on correcting their instrument interpretation and aircraft control. Get through the instrument rating, and then take some time in focusing on VFR aircraft control without any aircraft instruments. This would also be a good segue into the commercial rating.

Touch and Goes Bad?

I teach in a club that has a rule that "touch and goes are not allowed." If a student wants to practice take-offs and landings, the rule is to make the landings in a "stop and go" fashion.

As far as the instructor is concerned, I think this is a good idea - especially in the beginning of teaching a student to land. It will allow the student to develop their technique for cleaning up the airplane for a proper take off and give the instructor time to verify everything.

The clincher was when I heard that touch and goes are actually bad for the airplane and engine. I am not sure why this would be, but am going to try to figure it out. It seems to me that if a student (or even an experienced pilot for that matter) would like to practice take offs and landings, that a touch and go would provide better engine cooling and less wear on the brakes. It would also provide the student with forward speed that would allow a quicker take off. (A stop and go would require more runway). One might even argue that the touch and go forces the student to divide attention inside and outside of the aircraft - A skill you are trying to teach anyway.

Alternatively, it also introduces risk. Doing a clean up on the aircraft while still in motion takes some level of skill. If there is a cross wind, that just ups the ante.

All dried up

Well, I think I am breaking the cycle of not having any students. Its been a while since I posted, but thats because nothing has been happening....
... but that is about to change.

One of my primary students is coming back, an instrument student says he is coming back to finish, I think I may have a commerical student, and my instrument student's father is considering his private pilot certificate.

Sheesh - when it rains, it pours. We'll see how it all plays out.

The challenge with the commercial student is that he has a Bonanza with a throw over yoke. According to the regulations, he cant receive any instruction in that aircraft (other than instrument instruction) unless it has full functioning dual controls. It appears that there is some movement to have this changed, but until then, we are going to have to get a dual yoke before we start anything.

I hope its a busy summer!