There were two choices for instrument approach plates: the government-printed National Ocean Service (NOS), or Jeppesen. Every fledgling instrument candidate had to choose which they would use.

I learned to fly IFR using NOS products. As I recall, it was the cost of the Jeppesen charts subscription combined with the fact my ex-U.S. Air Force instructor—who said he “cut his teeth” on NOS—that made me lean toward the latter. 

It was the 1990s and everything was still on paper. There were tactile as well as visual differences between Jeppesen and NOS. The first thing a fledgling instrument pilot noticed was that the paper used for the Jeppesen products was lighter and felt more delicate than the NOS plates, which are printed on newsprint.

In 2000, Jeppesen Sanderson Inc. was acquired by the Boeing Company, and Jeppesen continues to be the industry standard for commercial aviation. According to my professional pilot friends, their employers pick up the cost of the subscription. The cost varies, depending on how much geographic coverage you seek.

If you use both NOS and Jeppesen—and many pilots do—you will notice similarities between the two, as well as subtle differences.

The graphics are similar, but slightly different, so you will want to study before you take the aircraft into the soup. If you are seeking to become “bilingual,” it’s helpful to get an approach you know well and compare Jeppesen and NOS side by side. 

These are just a few things you will want to keep in mind:

Take It From the Top

Jeppesen approach plates have a briefing strip at the top that spells out the most pertinent information an instrument pilot needs. That information includes the name and the identifier of the airport, the expiration date of the plate, if the airport has category A, B, and C approaches, and what kind of approach it is (VOR DME, in bold letters, for example). 

Beneath this are several rows of rectangular boxes with the radio frequencies, navigational aid used for the approach, final approach course, altitude for glideslope intercept, MDA or DH, and airport elevation. Missed approach procedures are spelled out, and there are a few lines of notes specific to the airport.

The NOS plate is arranged with the name of the airport and type of approach on the top right, with the navigational aid and final approach course on the top left along with elevation of the airport, touchdown zone, and runway. NOS also has a “T” in a black triangle to let the pilot know there are obstacles to be avoided during takeoff, and conversely an “A” in a black triangle to give similar warnings about the approach.You will have to flip through the binder to find the page that has this information. 

The NOS binder, if hard copy, can be bulky. I learned to divide mine into A-N, then have another binder for M-Z.

The Jeppesen plates have more detail on them and more bold type to indicate the fixes that define the approach. The course the aircraft is supposed to fly is depicted by a heavy dark line and an arrow.

The NOS charts also have an arrow line, but the line is thinner. Also, the airport diagram with the field elevation appears on the lower right side of the page, along with information about the type of lighting in use.

Both plates use a segmented arrow to depict the missed approach procedure.

As NOS are used extensively by the U.S. military, you’ll find notes for these pilots in parenthesis on the plates, as well.

NOS also has “shelf life” information printed on the side. For example on the VOR/DME-A for Gillespie County Airport (T82) in Fredericksburg, Texas, it reads “05 Sep 2004 to 3 Oct 2024.”

Electronic Versus Paper

You will likely find it challenging to find a pilot outside the training environment who still uses paper charts. It’s much easier to store charts digitally in a tablet than it is to carry a binder—or in some instances, a suitcase—of charts with you in the cockpit. You have probably seen those large suitcase flight bags pilots used to carry to accommodate their approach plates.

At the flight school level, it can behoove you to know both Jeppesen and NOS, as the more skills you have, the more employable you are.

The post What to Consider When Choosing Instrument Approach Plates appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Although we were not getting flight following—the request was denied because ATC was too busy—I insisted on monitoring the frequency. I was about to explain why to the learner when another pilot requested the RNAV 35 approach to the airport starting at ARWEL, an IFR fix a few miles to the east of us and about 1,000 feet above us as published. 

• READ MORE: Improving CFI Training Remains a Never-Ending Goal

“We’re about to have company out here,” I said.

The learner, who had been a private pilot for several years but did not have an instrument rating, mentioned he flew in this area often and saw a lot of airplanes, but they were never on the airport frequency.

“That’s because they are on with Seattle Approach,” I replied. 

We talked about how this is different from the air-to-air communications frequency used in the other practice areas that pilots used to announce their location and intentions. Not only do these auditory tools back up the ADS-B information, they also prepare learners for their cross-country flights and instrument training, which as any IFR pilot will tell you, is radio intensive.

• READ MORE: The Confidence Factor in Learning to Fly

The experience requirements for a private pilot certificate per CFR 61.109 include three hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane on the control. Also required is the maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight.

Usually, this experience comes from the learner donning a view-limiting device and spending .2 to .5 of an hour under the device while they fly headings, altitudes, and maneuvers at the direction of their flight instructor. 

Occasionally a CFI will pick up an IFR clearance and have the learner fly an approach into an airport. But for the most part private pilot candidates don’t learn about the IFR approaches until they begin their instrument training. This can be a challenge when the learner flies out to their “favorite practice area,” blissfully unaware that they are close to IFR fixes—essentially, they are “playing on the freeway.”

Know Where the Traffic Congregates

In ground school we learn to be extra careful near VORs, over published ground visual checkpoints, and in the traffic pattern because these are places where aircraft congregate. We should be mentioning IFR fixes as well that may be well away from an airport.

Do you know where the instrument approaches begin at your airport? Ask an instrument-rated pilot, like a CFI, to show them to you. This is best done pulling up the appropriate instrument approach plate and comparing it to a VFR sectional. You may discover that your favorite place to do turns around a point is just 1,000 feet below an initial approach fix for the ILS. 

• READ MORE: The Art of Ground School

Some flight schools make photo copies of the local instrument approaches and overlay them on a VFR sectional so that their noninstrument-rated pilots will know where they are. This is accompanied by textual descriptions of what to be on the lookout for and appropriate procedures, such as listening on a particular frequency or an altitude limitation or caution.

According to the renter pilot I was flying with that day, he had no idea he was in the vicinity of the RNAV approach and what altitudes were used by the pilots flying the approach. Although the conditions were VFR, we obtained an IFR clearance and executed the RNAV 35 into the airport so he could see where the pilots flying the approach would be in relation to where he liked to fly. 

He was delighted. He had been flying for years but never knew what was going on in the instrument world. He said he had no intention of getting his instrument rating but was happy to have better situational awareness—and learning took place.

The post Discovering Situational Awareness in the Instrument World appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

At 15,000 feet I notice that the fuel pressure is fluctuating. I watch the gauge intently. The tempo of the engine is unsteady. The fluctuations become larger and longer. 

The fuel selector valve and feed lines are under a floorboard beneath Nancy’s feet. I nudge her legs aside and remove the floorboard. I can see the fuel in the plastic lines on its way to and from the engine. Normally the flow to the engine is invisible, while the vapor return is full of bubbles. Now both lines are full of bubbles. What is going to the engine is more like froth than fuel. I switch tanks, and a moment later the engine goes silent. Boost pump—it roars back, hunts for a moment, then settles back to an unsteady rumble. Nancy has lifted her hands to her face in an instinctive gesture of fright. The mountains are close below us.

• READ MORE: The Craft of Providing Variety in Airplanes

What’s wrong? Has a fuel line sprung a leak? But how can the lines from both tanks have gone leaky at once? Suddenly I recall being told that paper fuel filters could get clogged without appearing to be excessively dirty. They would gradually choke off the fuel supply, and the telltale sign would be a drop in fuel pressure. There are paper filters in the feed lines from both tanks. That must be it: Some impurity in the fuel has increased the resistance of the filters, and the engine-driven pump is pulling against the resistance, forming vapor.

Reluctantly, I turn back, call Lima Approach, and report an engine problem. It clears us direct, and we make the ILS approach. Below 10,000 feet the problem disappears, and I feel chagrin at having turned back.

On the ground, I check the fuel system. No leaks. I inspect the filter elements. They contain some lint and metal chips, mementos of the backyard construction of the wet wings, but  do not appear excessively dirty. I discard them anyway, leaving the filter shells empty. 

After two hours we’re back in the air. Now we’re both watching the fuel pressure. Above 10,000 feet it begins to fluctuate and gets steadily worse as we climb. There has been no improvement. But there is also nothing I can do that I have not already done. We level out at 19,000 feet.

In the hours we’ve wasted, clouds have built up over the mountains, but they are conveniently placed on either side of our route, as is often the case, because the clouds form first over the peaks while the routes follow the passes. We pass the beacons of Oyon—a small town nestled in a valley on our left—and Huanuco. The mountains fall away. Clouds are building on the eastern slope. We turn gradually toward the north over Tingo Maria and Tarapoto. Our last radio contact is with Tarapoto: shouting and static, thanks, goodbye.

• READ MORE: Looking at the Physics of STOL Drag

The mountains behind us, we descend to 12,000 feet. The fuel pressure is a little steadier here, but its misbehavior has left me with a lingering distrust. We are over the headwaters of the Amazon River. I take a heading from the chart, which is now a blank interrupted only by an occasional blue line of latitude. Half an hour later, a huge, sinuous serpent of a river comes into view. It is the Marañon, but I cannot tell where along it we are.

It will be hundreds of miles before we encounter another positive landmark. Ahead of us the sky is creamy and, close to the horizon, ominously dark. I feel the quiet, suspended unease that sometimes comes upon me over ocean or forest, or in darkness over mountains in this homemade single-engine plane.

There is nothing to do but hold heading and wait. Time creeps by. The fuel tanks switch automatically every few minutes. The trees, which I can discern only with difficulty through 3 kilometers of haze, look low and flat in their billions, a dense blue-green canopy under which brilliant parrots shriek; myopic anteaters nose among rotten logs in solitary shafts of sunlight; monkeys pick lice from one another; jaguars sleep; giant blue butterflies fan their wings slowly on dripping vines; and snakes doze draped over smooth limbs. 

Perhaps the drone of our engine momentarily diverts the attention of a naked bowman. I know it’s all there. I’ve seen it in the movies. The sun disappears behind an anvil head. Soon we plunge into a wall of clouds. Rain showers clatter against the windshield. We break out, glimpse an anonymous river—is it the Urituyaco, Copalyacu, Corrientes, Tigre, Curaray or Tiputini?—and then collide with a new mountain of clouds.

In principle, we are heading almost due north and crossing a degree of latitude every 23 minutes. Each 23 minutes, therefore, I mark an estimated point on the folded chart. I suspect we may have drifted into Ecuador, but from our position the difference between Peru, where we are authorized to be, and Ecuador, where we are not, seems insignificant. We cross a big river full of silty islands: It must be the Rio Napo. We should be picking up the beacon at Tiputini, but we are not. 

• READ MORE: There’s Something Essential in the Bank

A little later the ADF suddenly wakes up and points to Limoncocha in Ecuador. A moment later it finds Tarapoa, then Puerto Asis, and I am finally able to triangulate our position: on the equator, near 76 degrees west longitude. Then, on the right, an airstrip, settlement, river fork, island. Completely unsought and unexpected, the landmark offers itself with a helpful generosity that is as touching in inanimate objects as it is in strangers. It is Putumayo. We have entered Colombia.

The sun is setting as we cross the eastern cordillera. It briefly illuminates a sublime vista of cloud, cliff, valley, and river that deserves a double-page spread in a coffee-table book of Colombian landscape. We are making a good ground speed: 180 knots. Florencia passes beneath us, Neiva, and Girardot. Chocolate pours down from the mountains as we make the long straight-in approach to Bogotá.

A few days later, at the airport, I chat with a local pilot who is there, like me, to wrestle with the bureaucratic serpent of flight authorizations. I tell him about the fuel pressure problems I had on the way from Lima.

“Oh, yeah,” he says. “High vapor pressure. As soon as I get up into the mountains, I just turn on the boost pump and leave it on. The fuel here is crap.”

This column first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post Peruvian Excursion Provides a Lesson in High Vapor Pressure appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

From the earliest days of my aviation journey, I saw the way fog obscured the terrain around me during early morning flights. There were cross-country trips that were cut short when forecast cloud bases proved inconsistent with reality. Moonless night flights over dim farmland opened my eyes to how easy it might be to fatally confuse scattered street lights for stars. 

I don’t always need to file an IFR plan or fly in actual instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Yet the skills, tools, and options that accompany the rating help keep me flying safely when my prior personal minimums or the regulations themselves would otherwise have grounded me. 

Most importantly, those same skills, tools, and options make for much safer pilots in all conditions.

What Are FAA Instrument Flight Rules?

Most GA flights operate under visual flight rules, or VFR.

For the uninitiated, VFR requires that conditions be such that pilots can look outside the cockpit and safely fly using external visual cues. Perhaps the most obvious scenario this rules out is flight through clouds. With few exceptions, pilots will continuously maintain visual contact with the ground. 

This is not, of course, descriptive of many flights. Aircraft regularly fly through clouds and other low-visibility conditions quite safely. This is made possible through the use of instrument flight rules, commonly referred to as IFR. 

To act as pilot in command (PIC) in actual IMC outside of a training context, you need an instrument rating for the category of aircraft to be flown and must maintain a specific standard of instrument currency. Likewise, aircraft must be properly equipped and up to the task.

Although pilots must be on an IFR flight plan to enter IMC, appropriately qualified pilots can file in any weather conditions. They are indeed required to do so if they plan to enter Class A airspace. 

Regardless of whether filing is necessary, IFR flight plans are powerful tools that enhance coordination between pilots and air traffic controllers (ATCs). They provide important layers of planning and situational awareness to the benefit of everyone in the sky. 

Instrument Rating Prerequisites

Instrument-rated pilots are statistically much safer pilots, so there’s enormous value in obtaining an instrument rating. This is true even for those who have no intention of ever entering IMC on their own. 

Before calling up a local CFII, there are a few up-front requirements, per 14 CFR 61.65.

• Private pilot certificate: Instrument-rating applicants must hold a current private pilot certificate with a rating appropriate to the intended instrument rating. In other words, if the rating qualifies the pilot for instrument flight in airplanes, they must hold a private pilot certificate with an airplane rating as opposed to a helicopter rating. It is also possible, though much less common, to apply for both a private pilot certificate and instrument rating at the same time. 
• Current medical certificate: In order for a private pilot and, by extension, an instrument-rated pilot to act as PIC, a current medical certificate is necessary. Any class of medical certificate will do. BasicMed also counts. 
• English proficiency: The applicant needs to be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. Certain exceptions exist for those unable to meet this requirement due to medical conditions, but these usually come with operating limitations.
• Flight experience: Applicants need at least 50 hours of cross-country PIC time and at least 10 of those hours must be in an airplane. 

Instrument Rating Part 61 vs. 141

It’s worth pausing here to recognize that not all of the above requirements apply to all candidates. The list applies most directly to students training under FAR Part 61, which is generally descriptive of most students training part-time with local schools or independent flight instructors. 

Those training with Part 141 schools have somewhat different requirements. Most notable is the lack of a 50-hour, cross-country flight time requirement. Part 141 students must log slightly fewer total instrument training hours from 40 hours under Part 61 to 35 under Part 141.

Breaking Down the Instrument Rating Requirements

With basic prerequisites out of the way, it is time to begin training. As mentioned above, students in Part 141 schools have slightly different requirements, but those training under Part 61 must meet the following instrument rating requirements.

Ground Training Requirements

Instrument students are required to receive relevant ground training.

Although there is no defined hour requirement, this training must be logged. Ground training can be accomplished using an online home-study course or with an in-person, authorized instructor. 

Aeronautical knowledge training must include the following, per 14 CFR 61.55(b):

• Federal Aviation Regulations of this chapter that apply to flight operations under IFR
• Appropriate information that applies to flight operations under IFR in the Aeronautical Information Manual
• Air traffic control system and procedures for instrument flight operations
• IFR navigation and approaches by use of navigation systems
• Use of IFR en route and instrument approach procedure charts
• Procurement and use of aviation weather reports and forecasts and the elements of forecasting weather trends based on that information and personal observation of weather conditions
• Safe and efficient operation of aircraft under instrument flight rules and conditions
• Recognition of critical weather situations and windshear avoidance
• Aeronautical decision making and judgment
• Crew resource management, including crew communication and coordination

Home-study ground school courses are a popular option for initial ground study, especially in preparation for the written knowledge test. Most of these utilize online delivery methods and give students the ability to learn in small chunks at their own pace. 

Online delivery also means students can study on the go, all while paying much less than they would for traditional in-person training. 

Knowledge Test

Assuming an instrument rating applicant does not already hold an instrument rating for another category of aircraft, they must pass a written knowledge test. The instrument knowledge test is based on the aeronautical knowledge topics above.

In order to take the written knowledge test, an applicant simply needs to be at least 15 years old, have a valid FTN (an FAA tracking number), and be endorsed to take the test by an authorized instructor. This may entail a written logbook endorsement, or if a home-study course was used, a printable training record endorsement. 

Applicants must schedule a time to sit for the written knowledge test at an FAA-designated testing center. Before beginning the exam, they must present valid and current identification. 

The test is administered on a computer at the testing center and includes 60 multiple-choice questions. Test-takers have up to two hours to complete the exam and must receive a score of at least 70 to pass. 

Missed questions will generate a series of codes printed on the final score report. These codes reference the knowledge areas those questions dealt with and will be reviewed with candidates during the oral exam portion of their checkride. Test results are valid for up to 24 calendar months.

Instrument Flight Training Requirements

The FAA requires that instrument applicants in airplanes receive and log at least 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time. These should include at least 15 with an appropriately rated instructor and must cover the following areas of operation: 

• Preflight preparation
• Preflight procedures
• Air traffic control clearances and procedures
• Flight by reference to instruments
• Navigation systems
• Instrument approach procedures
• Emergency operations
• Postflight procedures

This time will also include a training flight of at least 250 nm with an authorized instructor using a filed IFR flight plan. The flight must include three different kinds of instrument approaches, including at least one at each airport.

At least three instrument training hours with an instructor should be logged within two calendar months before a checkride.

All flight training must take place in an aircraft appropriate to the instrument rating sought. There are provisions, however, for the use of flight simulators and training devices. These include full flight simulators (FFS), flight training devices (FTD), basic aviation training devices (BATD), and advanced aviation training devices (AATD). 

These devices must be FAA approved, and students must conduct the training time under an authorized instructor’s supervision. The most common situation is for students to count up to 10 hours of instrument training time received in a BATD or up to 20 hours in an AATD.

Practical Test (Check Ride)

The practical test, or check ride, is a universally nervous day. Even so, candidates who are well prepared should feel confident. They can expect an oral exam and a flight exam, each of which will take around two hours. 

While there is a lot of information to know and skills to perform, there are no surprises on the day of the check ride thanks to the Airman Certification Standards (ACS).

The ACS is a powerful tool that lays out the detailed standards candidates must meet during the practical test. Although the FAA is careful to emphasize that the ACS is not a training document, a thorough review should be an integral part of checkride preparation.

Ready to Begin Your Instrument Training Journey?

Are you ready to fly “in the soup?” You’ll need your instrument rating to make a career as a pilot.

But even if flying is purely a hobby, why not equip yourself with every tool you can to enjoy the gift of flight as fully and safely as possible? 

An instrument rating sharpens aeronautical decision-making, refines both instrument and general flying skills, and makes for safer pilots. Why are you waiting? 

FAQ

What airspace requires a current instrument rating?

An instrument rating is required to enter Class A airspace because flights in Class A airspace must be on an IFR flight plan. Class A generally includes all airspace beginning at 18,000 feet msl and extends up to and includes FL 600.

How hard is it to get an instrument rating?

Instrument ratings require diligent study and serious dedication. Even so, instrument ratings are not just for airline pilots. Every pilot with the means to do so should consider pursuing an instrument rating. 

How quickly can you get your instrument rating?

You can earn an instrument rating in a couple of weeks if you meet prerequisites, study full time, and schedule a checkride immediately. Most part-time students who train at least two or three times per week should take between two to four months.

The post How to Meet Instrument Rating Requirements appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The two-seat model is primarily designed for flight training and owns European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) CS-23 and FAA Part 23 certification. It is now certified under Transport Canada’s Part V Subpart 21, allowing Tecnam to begin deliveries to private owners and flight training organizations in the country.

Designed to train students from first flight until they earn their commercial pilot license, the P-Mentor includes a variable pitch propeller, simulated retractable landing gear, and ballistic parachute. It also comes with a Garmin touchscreen and avionics and is powered by a Rotax 912iSc3 engine.

The model supports both VFR and IFR training at a cost of operation of just 89 Canadian dollars ($64.71) per hour, by Tecnam’s estimate. That efficiency enables it to fly for about nine hours between refuelings.

The company also claims the P-Mentor can reduce flight school emissions by as much as 60 percent. The aircraft could represent a fresh injection into a fleet of training aircraft that is largely aging.

“We look forward to working with all the Canadian flight schools to improve the quality of training and support lowering hourly rates,” said Giovanni Pascale Langer, managing director of Tecnam.

During last year’s EAA AirVenture, Tecnam introduced the P-Mentor in North America after agreeing to a deal with EpicSky Flight Academy for the purchase of 15 aircraft. The company earned full FAA Part 23 certification just a few months later. It started U.S. deliveries in June, beginning with a shipment to Kansas-based Kilo Charlie Aviation.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Tecnam Begins Canada P-Mentor Deliveries Following Certification appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The NTSB released its final report into the fatal April 2022 accident that occurred when the pilot was on approach to Burley Municipal Airport (KBYI). The aircraft collided with an exhaust stack that lies directly beneath the extended centerline of Runway 20. The accident happened shortly after 8:30 a.m. when it was snowing and IFR conditions prevailed.

According to the NTSB, the aircraft struck an agglomerate stack that measured 32 inches in diameter. Just beyond it was a group of six exhaust stacks. The smokestack, which is used to collect particulate emissions from the manufacturing process, is 100 feet above ground level.

According to the 24-page NTSB report, the FAA had been advised of the stacks as a potential hazard to aircraft in 2016 and had been working with the plant owner on mitigation measures. Those measures included decommissioning of the airport’s visual approach slope indicator (VASI), painting the exhaust stacks white and aviation orange to make them more visible, and adding an obstruction lighting on the tallest stack.

However, photographs of the stacks provided to the NTSB reveal no such paint scheme. 

In its 24-page final report, NTSB said its investigators, who did not travel to the accident site, could not determine if the obstruction light on the tallest exhaust stack was functioning at the time of the accident, as it was allegedly stolen from the scene by an individual who was not part of the official instigation. 

According to the NTSB report, this individual later appeared in a YouTube video with the light and discussed its use during the accident sequence. The video was shot in the individual’s home office several states away.

The local police department investigated the theft, which included reviewing the YouTube video. A copy of the YouTube video has been included in the public documents of the NTSB report. The NTSB states the YouTube individual later recanted his statements, saying the light he appeared on camera with was not the one from the crash site.

Accident Details

At the time of the accident, the Caravan pilot held a commercial certificate, had approximately 1,400 hours total time, and had been flying for less than six months for Gem Air LLC. As is protocol during an accident investigation, the NTSB reviewed the company’s training procedures.

According to the chief pilot of Gem Air, the company’s pilots were taught to use the Garmin vertical flight path indicator as an “advisory guidance” and to use the autopilot on nonprecision approaches both in VNAV and Approach mode. 

Company flight records indicated the pilot had flown to KBYI at least 12 times before the accident.

The accident happened as the pilot was attempting to fly the RNAV 20 approach, which takes the aircraft directly over the potato processing plant with numerous vent stacks constantly in operation.

The standard for airspeed after passing the final approach fix was 120 kias indicated, according to the Flight Maneuvers Description Manual (FMDM).

The FMDM also stated that “after passing the final approach fix inbound, begin descent to MDA or step-down fix, if applicable. Descent should be approximately 1,000 fpm [feet per minute] to ensure that you are at the next required altitude. Failure to make the descent to MDA in a timely manner may result in missing the opportunity to visually identify the airport in time to continue a normal descent to landing.”

The standard approach gradient for an instrument approach is 3.0 degrees. The approach plate for the RNAV 20 at KBYI notes the descent angle for the approach is 3.75 degrees. Pilots are taught that an approach gradient of more than 3.0 degrees is a good indication that there is an obstacle to avoid on the approach path. The Chart Supplement Directory for the airport noted this, using “stack” in the airport descriptor.

The steep gradient is also noted on the RNAV 20 approach plate.

The Aeronautical Information Manual warns pilots about the dangers of exhaust plumes both visible and invisible, as they can contribute to turbulence, wind shear, and reduced visibility. Pilots are advised to avoid flying over them.

Failure to Maintain Altitude

A security camera photograph showed the Caravan in a slightly nose-up attitude as it passed over the plant. A witness on the ground told NTSB investigators that the sound of the aircraft engine increased just moments before it collided with the exhaust stack.

The pilot failed to maintain altitude during an instrument approach, “which resulted in a descent below the approach path and impact with a vent stack,” the NTSB said in its conclusion determining the probable cause of the accident. “Also causal was the failure of the processing plant to correctly paint the vent stacks, which had been determined by the FAA to be a hazard to navigation due to their proximity to the landing approach path. Contributing to the accident was the likely distraction/illusion/obscuration created by steam from the processing plant, which intermittently obscured the runway.”

The post NTSB: Pilot Was Flying Too Low Before Hitting Smokestack in Idaho appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Answer: I advocate checking the weather and seeing what approaches are being supported by the conditions, then select an approach and file to an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) for that approach.

• READ MORE: How Do You Check NOTAMs?

The reason? Because you lose your comms en route or before you are cleared for the approach, you will be following the AVE F procedure, which states that in the event of loss of communication you will fly one of the four: the heading you were assigned, vectored to, told to expect or filed to. If you are operating on an IFR flight plan, you should have at least one of these. This is what ATC expects you to do, so they will be protecting that airspace at the fix you filed to.

If you simply fly to the airport and the airport has multiple instrument approaches and multiple IAFs, ATC is going to have a more difficult time protecting the airspace. It will be like Whac-a-Mole with airplanes. If you file to a particular IAF, and they see a target squawking 7600 at that fix, they will have a pretty good idea that’s you. Make sure you continue to transmit in the blind – this means you make appropriate radio calls and position reports although you cannot hear them reply.

• READ MORE: What Does It Take to Transition from a Jet to a Piston Airplane?

Bonus move: Adjust time en route by five minutes. For example, if it will take 23 minutes to get to the fix, file it as 17 minutes because that way you won’t have to wait for time to elapse in order to shoot the approach. 

Remember, you are requesting an approach when you file your flight plan. ATC is not obligated to grant your request, which is why you should have your approach binder with you (in either paper or electronic form). So if you are assigned something other than you filed, you will be prepared to fly what is offered.

The post Should I File an Initial Approach Fix? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Nick Sinopoli, the inventor of the ICARUS Device, a high-tech view limiting device, knew this only too well after losing a friend in an aviation accident in 2016.

ICARUS was introduced to the training environment three years ago and is now used around the world by both the military and private sector.

The company recently delivered an ICARUS Device to Helicopter Resources, a company that provides services to government organizations in Antarctica. The area is about 40 percent larger than Europe and about as remote as can be imagined. There are no roads, so helicopters are crucial to bringing in provisions for the 5,000 who live there as part of various research operations.

• READ MORE: ICARUS Device Enhances IFR Training

About the Device

The name ICARUS is an acronym, standing for Instrument Conditions Awareness Recognition and Understanding System. Sinopoli, who is rated in both helicopters and airplanes and holds an engineering degree from Purdue University, designed the device so that visibility is gradually reduced. It almost sneaks up on a pilot, just as it often happens in the real world and sometimes leads to accidents when the pilot loses situational awareness, especially in marginal VFR.

How It Works

According to Sinopoli, the ICARUS Device is made of a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) film that the pilot wears in front of their eyes, either clamped onto a hat or headset or clipped into a flight helmet. 

The PDLC is battery powered, and the device is paired with an app controlled by the flight instructor. The instructor can degrade the visual conditions gradually, allowing the client to experience the sensation of a sudden loss of outside visual cues while flying in the actual aircraft. 

There is also the option for the CFII to press a button to bring on clouds. The rate and amount of occlusion can also be adjusted by the instructor for a more realistic IFR experience, such as the sudden loss of outside references when marginal VFR turns into IFR.

According to the company, there are 500 ICARUS devices in use around the world in every kind of aircraft from a Cessna 172 to a CH-47 Chinook Helicopter.

The device sells for $1,250 and comes with a three-year warranty.

The post ICARUS IFR Training Device Delivered to Antarctica appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Leonardo Helicopters’ AW109 Trekker is the first model to use the system with the new capabilities. The company said the enhanced version helps improve overall mission effectiveness by decreasing the pilot’s workload.

• READ MORE: Auto Flight for Rotorcraft

“We are very excited to now offer a four-axis, IFR flight control system for the helicopter market,” said Carl Wolf, Garmin’s vice president of aviation sales and marketing. “This technology will provide IFR operators with advanced automated flight capabilities and bring added protections to one of the most challenging flight categories in aviation. We’re confident AW109 Trekker operators will be impressed with the performance of GFC 600H.”

The GFC 600H includes a console-mounted, push-button mode controller and display compatible with night vision goggles. High-performance digital servos and new linear actuators that Garmin developed provide crisper, more powerful responses than previous systems, resulting in smooth handling in all phases of flight.

• READ MORE: Garmin Receives GI 275 STC for Airbus Helicopters

The new system supports a range of autopilot modes, including altitude acquire, altitude hold, heading select, attitude hold, approach auto-level, radar height hold, vertical speed, and indicated airspeed. The system also can fly approaches using inputs from navigation systems.

Garmin said its system’s smart servos eliminate the need for two linear actuators and flight control computers for each axis. The result is a lighter, cost-effective system that retains the redundancy needed for IFR flight.

The IFR configuration of the GFC 600H has received European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) approval on the AW109 Trekker helicopter. Garmin said it expects FAA approval later.

The post Garmin Offers IFR Flight Control System for Helicopters appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Answer: The answer to your question lies under both FAR 91.205 and FAR 91.207. FAR 91.205 lists the instruments required for daytime VFR flight, where most flight training starts. 

In order to be legal for daytime VFR flight, the aircraft needs a functioning airspeed indicator, oil pressure gauge for each engine, manifold pressure gauge for each engine, altimeter, temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine, oil temperature gauge for each engine, working fuel gauge, landing gear position indicator if the aircraft has retractable landing gear, magnetic compass, and safety belts. If the aircraft was certificated after March 11, 1996 it also needs to have an anti collision beacon.

• READ MORE: IFR vs VFR: What’s the Difference?

Under FAR 91.207, you will see reference to an emergency locator transmitter (ELT), which is required on training aircraft with certain exceptions, such as when the aircraft is being ferried to a place where repairs or replacement can be made or when it is engaged in training operations conducted entirely within a 50 nm radius from the airport from which local flight operation began.

That’s an awful lot to remember. So, you will likely be learning the phrase—A TOMATO FLAMES—to recall these items:

• Anti Collision beacon (if aircraft certificated after March 11, 1996) 
• Tachometer
• Oil pressure
• Magnetic compass
• Airspeed
• Temp gauge for engine
• Oil temp
• Fuel gauge
• Landing gear position (if appropriate)
• Altimeter
• Manifold pressure gauge (if appropriate)
• ELT
• Seat belts

The post Do Missing Instruments Ground an Airplane? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.