Category: Flying

In the last two years, the new FAA attitude toward avionics in light aircraft has resulted in what looks to pilots like a revolution (ordinary consumers, though, will say “You mean it couldn’t already do that?”).

Here’s the latest: Garmin Autoland. After the elderly classic GA pilot has a heart attack from reading one Trump tweet too many, the Cirrus Jet will land itself, corrected for any crosswinds, and hit its own brakes:

Well, now, with certification pending for Autoland on the M600 SLS and shortly thereafter on the Cirrus SF50 Vision Jet, the Garmin panel goes to the next step of beginning an automated sequence of events that results in a safe touchdown on a runway, where it rolls the airplane to a stop, shuts down the engine, broadcasts a message on the local frequency that the airport is closed because of a disabled aircraft on the runway, and plays a video on the multifunction display that instructs the passengers how to open the door and get out.

Of course, that is not a requirement because the Autoland system would have already (although not in our demonstration) begun transmitting on the tuned frequency and the emergency frequency of 121.5 MHz a message telling anyone listening that N60HL, in this case, had a possibly incapacitated pilot and that it would be landing at New Century AirCenter in six minutes. It would update and broadcast that message every 30 seconds—listening to make sure that it didn’t transmit over any other radio calls. Once near the Class D airspace of the tower, it would have changed one of the radios to the tower frequency and kept the other on the emergency frequency. The system also would have changed the squawk code to 7700, the emergency code.

During those first few seconds after I hit the Autoland button, the system went through a series of complex calculations and decision-making processes to determine the nearest suitable runway based on runway length, width, and surface; fuel remaining; crosswind component; terrain; obstacles; and general weather information. The system requires an RNAV approach, but beyond that, the runway and weather criteria can be decided by the airframe manufacturer.

Like a chess grandmaster, we certificate holders can now proudly say that we’re able to do what an inexpensive microprocessor can do!

Of course the $2 microprocessor can’t exercise the kind of judgment that an experienced pilot would, right?

The system even forecasts its own weather if the nearest suitable runway is a significant distance away, long enough that the current ADS-B or SiriusXM weather may not be valid. It uses the latest weather trend information, for example, to determine if a thunderstorm might move into the runway environment where it intends to land. It will route the airplane around thunderstorms as well as terrain and obstacles, all of which it gets from its internal databases. If en route to a runway it determines, because of changing weather conditions, that another runway is closer or more suitable, it will change its destination. It can even estimate changing barometric conditions and adjust the altimeter—using algorithms. Garmin engineers say the calculated barometric readings are within 0.01 inches of mercury of actual ambient conditions.

Time for the single pilot plus dog crew! (the dog bites the pilot if he/she/they/ze tries to touch anything)

Full post, including comments

From NBAA… “Gulfstream Ups the Ante with New G700 Flagship”:

Gulfstream Aerospace unveiled the G700 as its newest flagship this evening at its NBAA-BACE static display at Las Vegas Henderson Executive Airport. Its latest offering combines the best features of its G650ER and recently certified G500/600, resulting in a $75 million twinjet with an NBAA IFR range of at least 7,500 nm. The G700—available for viewing in cabin mockup form this week at Henderson—has a five-living-area cabin with 20 large, G650-size windows, providing a strong competitive response that industry-watchers were widely expecting.

Though touted as an all-new airplane, the fly-by-wire G700 is actually a 10-foot stretched derivative of the G650, with which it also shares the same nose and wing.

The aft section of the mockup contains a master bedroom with a full-size bed and dresser, in addition to an en suite lavatory with a toilet and vanity opposite from a floor-to-ceiling storage closet.

According to Gulfstream, the G700 will have a maximum takeoff weight of 107,600 pounds and a maximum fuel load of 49,400. Balanced field length at mtow is 6,250 feet, while the landing distance is 2,500 feet at an as-yet-unspecified “typical landing weight.”

One issue with planes that weigh more than 100,000 lbs. (fully loaded) is the requirement that operators put passengers through TSA-style screening. What’s the point of flying private if you have to let TSA workers try on your clothes?

It seems as though the fix might be in, however. From an obscure TSA document from 2017:

Utilizing the regulatory framework allowing the Administrator in 49
CFR 1544.101(f)(2) to establish an alternative program, the TSA should allow airplanes with Maximum Take Off Weight at or below 120,150 pounds to comply with the TFSSP as a means of compliance with the PCSSP in the near term. Long term, the TSA should pursue rulemaking to update the PCSSP weight threshold to 120,150 pounds.

Now we know the weight of the Gulfstream G800!

When will the peasants riot?

Full post, including comments

NBAA officially starts tomorrow, but most of the important announcements are today.

“Pilatus Unveils NGX, Its Third-Generation PC-12” is interesting:

In what Pilatus is calling a first for turboprops, the new engine will be able to operate in a low-prop-speed mode, reducing the prop speed from 1,700 rpm to 1,550 rpm and lowering cabin noise.

This is potentially an enormous improvement for the PC-12. For passengers in the cabin it is about as quiet as a turboprop can get, but a similar-size true turbojet is as much as 10 dBA quieter. As noted in my Pilatus PC-12 review, the faster PC-12 NG is actually a little bit noisier than the original comparatively sluggish PC-12/45.

What else is new and exciting?

Additionally, the new engine will have a 5,000 hour time-between-overhaul period with hot section inspections only required on-condition and be able to transmit data on more than 100 engine parameters that are continuously monitored, adjusted, and recorded. “Building on the legacy of the PT6 family, the new engine is a leap forward in engine control and data management systems,” said P&WC president Maria Della Posta.

The old engine was 3,500 hours TBO and, unlike in a piston, that was a requirement for Part 91 operators. Fleet operators often got extensions to 4,500 or 5,000 hours, but this new engine will do it without the paperwork hassles and maybe without as many borescope inspections.

Too busy punching autopilot buttons to adjust the power lever? The new PC-12 will do it for you:

An option in the NGX cockpit is a fully integrated digital autothrottle.

The 15-year-old Honeywell avionics that everyone agreed were powerful, but that nobody loved, get a user interface update with a touch screen.

Related:

• the American competition to these Swiss overachievers is hit with a delay: “Cessna Denali First Flight Delayed To 2020”

Full post, including comments

A reporter sent me the NTSB preliminary report on the recent B-17 tragedy at Bradley in Connecticut. Here’s what I wrote back…

This more or less eliminates a popular speculation that the plane was mistakenly fueled with Jet A. Two people were there at the fueling. A good FBO will sample the fuel truck every morning for water, sediment, etc. This particular truck was thoroughly checked as part of the investigation.

The NTSB found no skimping on maintenance. The plane was within its annual inspection and had received progressive inspections at 25-hour intervals. Three of the engines were more or less fresh from overhaul (0 hours in January 2019; 268 hours of operation since then). Based on a quick search, I found that gently operated big radial engines in airline service after World War II were able to go 3,000+ hours between overhauls.

The plane should have been light. Out of a total fuel capacity of 1,700 gallons for a standard B-17, only 160 had been added that morning (to whatever was held in reserve from previous flying).

The report seems to eliminate another possibility, i.e., that the No. 4 engine wouldn’t feather properly, thus creating a huge amount of drag on one wing. (see ASA 2311 and ASA 529, both of wouldn’t have occurred if a prop could have been feathered; multi-engine planes are designed with the ability to twist the prop blades until they’re more or less at a knife edge to the wind, thus minimizing drag and workload for the remaining engine(s)).

The report hints at the No. 3 engine also being feathered. That would be bad. The plane isn’t designed to fly with two engines on one side and none on the other, though it probably would still be controllable at a low power setting consistent with approach and landing, especially at the “no flap” setting that they were using (flaps are essentially for landing on a short runway because they let the plane be flown slower and descend steeply at a slow speed, but they add drag and require extra power, so the pilots were being conservative in not extending them and relying on having a long runway for rolling out from a higher airspeed).

This doesn’t resolve any of the mystery, I don’t think. The failed engine was feathered, so the multi-engine plane should have been flyable just like the book says to fly it. The fuel was good 100LL. The pilots shouldn’t have needed more than a touch of power since they wanted to descend and had no flaps out.

The most surprising part of the report: “the airplane was about 300 ft agl on a midfield right downwind leg for runway 6.” Normal pattern altitude is 1000′ above ground level (AGL). “Right downwind” means they were going in the opposite direction of Runway 6 such that they’d have to turn right and right again to land. If this 300′ AGL altitude is correct, the plane was buzzing buildings on the SE corner of the airport (diagram) and better set up to land on Runway 33.

Still just as sad and still nearly as mysterious.

Related:

• my first post on this subject

Full post, including comments

Here’s something that one would have thought would have been built about 15 years ago: a complete glass cockpit that fits into a legacy instrument panel 3″ hole. The uAvionix AV-30: it can be an attitude indicator, an HSI, a G meter, angle-of-attack indicator (“AoA is calculated by comparing the aircraft’s pitch, flight path, and G-loading”), etc. It even has a built-in battery that will run for 2 hours after the aircraft’s electrical system fails. All for about $2,000 for a certified aircraft.

Thought: if the Boeing 737 MAX had used this device, which tries to determine AOA via inference, instead of the (failure-prone) mechanical AOA sensors that it did use, nobody would have been killed by the airplane.

Related:

• the same company has a retrofit wingtip-mounted ADS-B OUT transponder and a new one that will work on the 1090 MHz frequency required for Canada

Full post, including comments

New Hampshire license plate (“Live free or die”) parked outside the FBO at our local airport:

What kind of vehicle for the modern-day Icarus?

Full post, including comments

From a recent visit to the National Air and Space Museum:

Behind and above, a Piper Cub (derivative of the Taylor Cub being advertised).

Adjusted for inflation, if we assume that the advertisement was from 1931 (first year of production), the “costs no more than a medium priced car” price of $1,270 is around $21,000 in 2019 mini-dollars.

[Note that the manufacturer apparently did not expect readers of the ad to be surprised that a person identifying as a woman (based on clothing) would be the owner-pilot. This was before Americans agreed that women are the new children (quoting a Facebook post in which a woman who earned a Private certificate in 1970 was “an original feminine trailblazer”, fully 60 years after the first woman earned a certificate).]

Full post, including comments