Yoke Mount for iPad Mini

When I fly the A36 Bonanza, I mount my iPad Mini on the yoke using a RAM X-Grip with the large strap hose clamp and ball and a short RAM arm to connect the clamp to the X-Grip.

This arrangement works with 1984 and later Beechcraft Bonanzas and Barons, which use conventional yokes, not the big crossbar or throw-over yokes installed in earlier models. The tube that connects the Beechcraft yokes to the mechanisms behind the panel has a larger diameter than the tube used in other aircraft, such as Cessnas, so the large strap hose clamp is necessary to secure the mount.

The X-Grip holds an iPad securely while allowing air to circulate around the tablet, reducing the likelihood that it will overheat in flight. The X-Grip works even when an iPad is in a low-profile case. But it might not hold a tablet that is in a heavier, bulkier case.

A Gusty Crosswind Landing at KBFD

I have been flying the A36 Bonanza on another coast-to-coast trek to work with the crew at Pilot Workshops. On such long xc flights, you often must deal with challenging conditions, and such was the case when I landed at Bradford, PA (KBFD) for fuel (video below). I had been flying directly to strong headwinds the entire day (unusual when traveling eastbound) as I tracked just north of a strong low-pressure system.

The gusty, shifting winds at KBFD were generally 30-40 degrees off any of the available runways, so with the help of the information in ForeFlight, I chose runway 14 and wrestled my way to the ground.

The wide, sturdy landing gear of the Bonanza handles crosswinds well (the max demonstrated xwind component is 17 knots).

Unusual Attitudes: Under the Hood

AOPA has been putting the former BruceAir Extra 300L to good use. Here’s a video that shows how the Garmin GI-275s that they installed perform during a series of unusual attitude recoveries with the pilot flying “under the hood”–unable to use outside visual references.

Takeoff and Landing Performance

Here’s a trick question: How do you how much runway you’ll need to take off today?

The gotcha answer: You don’t know. The best you can do is estimate performance based on the available data and then add a conservative safety factor.

Pilot Workshops recently posted a Tip of the Week about aircraft performance. You can find it here. (Full disclosure, I participate in the IFR Mastery series at Pilot Workshops, and I occasionally contribute tips of the week).

During stage checks at the flight school where I instruct, we ask pilots to calculate and explain takeoff and landing performance. When I review their numbers, I always ask about the assumptions behind the numbers. The discussion that follows typically goes something like this:

First, note that for most light aircraft, the POH/AFM includes takeoff and landing numbers only for short-field operations. You don’t typically find “normal” takeoff and landing data.

So the values you calculate based on the tables or charts assume setting the flaps as specified, running the engine up to takeoff power while you hold brakes, raising the nose at the specified airspeed, etc.

Is that how you typically take off?

The performance data also assume a new engine that produces rated horsepower, but none of us knows if our engine, today, is achieving that number.

Now, let’s do some basic arithmetic. The book for a C172S says that at sea level on a 20 C day, the ground run at 2550 lbs. takeoff weight is 995 ft. Call it 1000 ft. Distance to clear a standard 50 ft. FAA tree is 1690 ft. Again, assuming precise short-field technique.

Knowing the above, most pilots tell me they’d add 10 or 15 percent to those numbers as a buffer. But 10 percent of that 1000-ground roll is 100 ft. Ten percent of 1690 (call it 1700) is 170 ft.

The C172 takeoff table assumes liftoff at 51 KIAS (86 ft/sec) and 56 KIAS (95 ft/sec) at 50 ft. In other words, as you lift off and climb out, you’re covering about 100 ft/sec. In three seconds (“one-potato, two-potato…”), you fly the length of a football field (or soccer pitch). Have you watched runway stripes go by as you try to urge the airplane aloft or float a bit on landing? Runway stripes are typically 120 ft long, with 80 ft gaps between them (minimum stripe length is 80 ft).

Similar considerations apply when you estimate how much distance you’ll need to land.

These numbers are one reason that I recommend viewing REALITY CHECK: TAKEOFF AND LANDING PERFORMANCE from the AOPA Air Safety Institute and then following the long-standing AOPA ASI advice to multiply your takeoff/landing calculations by at least 1.5.

And for a more detailed discussion of aircraft performance, see Performance: What Matters Most by Catherine Cavagnaro in the July 2021 issue of AOPA Pilot magazine.

AviationWeather.gov Updates

The National Weather Service is overhauling the AviationWeather.gov website. You can preview the new look at: https://beta.aviationweather.gov/

The new site is still in the experimental stage, but many of the changes look promising. According to a tweet from the NWS:

AWC’s web developers have been working on a major upgrade for http://aviationweather.gov. New features include automatic screen resizing (looks great on cell phones), dark/night mode, and an archive.

Flying the Blake Arrival at Boeing Field

Ride along as I return to Boeing Field (KBFI) after a quick stop for fuel at the Shelton-Sanderson airport (KSHN), southwest of Seattle.

I set up for the Blake Arrival, a VFR procedure that begins over Blake Island, which lies about 8 miles west of Boeing Field.

The VFR departure and arrival routes for Boeing Field are described on the reverse side of the Seattle terminal area chart, the so-called VFR Flyway Planning Chart.

I have created more detailed descriptions of each departure and arrival route, available as a PDF in my Aviation Documents folder at OneDrive.

The Blake Island Arrival is a “south arrival” for traffic inbound from the west. It’s used when Runways 14L and 14R are active. It begins over Blake Island at 2000-2500 ft to remain below the Class B shelf in the area. You then fly direct toward Lincoln Park, just north of the Fauntleroy Ferry dock, descending to cross the shoreline at 1500 ft, then continuing down to 1000 ft, taking care to remain below and clear of the overlying Class B airspace.

Boeing Tower usually directs you to fly a right base leg for runway 14R, but sometimes, to sequence you with other traffic, ATC needs to put you on a right downwind.

Or, as happened on this day, changes your runway assignment to 14L.

A Better Approach to Teaching and Using Technology in the Cockpit

Here’s a video version of a presentation that gave at the Northwest Aviation Conference in February 2022. I have long argued that flight instructors and pilots need to adapt how we teach and use technology such as electronic flight displays, GPS navigation, and electronic flight bags (EFBs) to reflect how pilots fly in the real world.

We certainly don’t want to create so-called children of the magenta line, pilots who are helpless without GPS guidance and autopilots. But given the reality that most of us fly today with at least some advanced technology, we should do a better job of preparing pilots to use the tools available to them. And we should remember that the “good old days” weren’t really so good, at least when we consider the frequency of accidents related to weather, loss of situational awareness, running out of fuel, and so forth.

This 25-minute presentation also offers suggestions that can help flight instructors use technology, such as autopilots, flight directors, and aviation training devices, to introduce basic skills to new students–and to help pilots who have upgraded their panels and avionics adapt their old flying habits.

How is an LPV Glidepath Created?

Most of us understand how paired LOC and GS signals provide a course and a glideslope to follow when flying an ILS to a decision altitude (DA). (If you’d like a detailed review, see, for example, How ILS Works on the FlightInsight YouTube channel).

But the glidepath you see when flying an RNAV (GPS) approach to LPV minimums (usually shown as a magenta diamond on the vertical deviation scale) is more mysterious.

As this excellent explanation from Honeywell explains:

To make an LPV mimic an ILS’s behavior, LPV relies on programmed coordinates and instructions contained in a Final Approach Segment (FAS) data block. The FAS data block contains instructions for the approach, including coordinates for the runway, threshold crossing height, elevation, glidepath angle, and horizontal and vertical alert limits. The GPS receiver computes both linear and angular deviation but, as previously mentioned, only angular is displayed. They can be thought of as instructions to provide a pseudo localizer and glideslope. 

In other words, the IFR-approved navigation receiver in your panel receives GPS-WAAS signals from space, and then creates a glidepath. The GP that you see and your AP/FD follows doesn’t emanate from a transmitter on the ground. That’s one reason we have so many RNAV (GPS) approaches with LPV minimums, even at small, quiet airports. Except for runway lights and (optional) approach lights, an approach with LPV minimums that mimics an ILS does not require expensive transmitters on the ground.

You GPS-WAAS receiver uses the same principles to create the advisory glidepaths (e.g., LNAV+V and LP+V) that you can use to help you descend to the MDA when flying a 2D (non-precision) approach, or to fly the vertical guidance on the visual approaches available with the latest GPS navigators.

VNAV with a GFC 600 Autopilot

I recently flew the Beechcraft A36 Bonanza from Boeing Field (KBFI) to Aurora State (KUAO) just south of Portland for system software updates at Pacific Coast Avionics.

The IFR flight was in benign weather, but I did need to fly the RNAV (GPS) RWY 35 approach at KUAO. It was a good opportunity to exercise the VNAV capability of the Garmin GFC 600 autopilot. Enjoy the scenery en route and observe the autopilot in action as I explain and use the VNAV feature.

For more information about using VNAV, see Using VNAV During an Instrument Approach.

The departure was pretty, including a nice view of KSEA, but if you want to focus on the approach, start at about 22:10.

And here’s video of the trip back to KBFI via the LOC RWY 32L approach.

“Long IFR XC”: FAA Changes Guidance

FAA recently updated its guidance for instructors and DPEs about the types of approaches that must be accomplished during the so-called long IFR cross-country described in 14 CFR Part 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C).

That rule requires:

Instrument flight training on cross country flight procedures, including one cross country flight in an airplane with an authorized instructor, that is performed under instrument flight rules, when a flight plan has been filed with an air traffic control facility, and that involves –

(A) A flight of 250 nautical miles along airways or by directed routing from an air traffic control facility;

(B) An instrument approach at each airport; and

(C) Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems.

Paragraph (C) has caused confusion. For example, some DPEs have said that flying an ILS and then a LOC approach on that “long IFR xc” doesn’t meet the requirement for three different approaches, because both of those procedures are based on a localizer.

The new guidance, described in NOTC2305 (excerpt below) and in a more formal legal memorandum (PDF) dated February 28,2022, distinguishes between types of approaches and types of navigation systems. The notice explains that “the requirements for an instrument rating may be met by performing three different approaches, regardless of the source of navigation.”

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently reviewed two legal interpretation and determined they were overly restrictive. The Glaser (2008) and Pratte (2012) legal interpretations focused on the requirements of an instrument rating under § 61.65.  Specifically, the requirement to use three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems to meet the requirements of § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C).  These interpretations inaccurately concluded that an applicant for an instrument rating must use three different kinds of navigation systems to meet these requirements.

On February 28, 2022, the FAA rescinded both the Glaser and Pratte legal interpretations, stating the regulation’s plain language requires three different types of approaches, not three different navigation systems.  Certificated flight instructors (CFI) and designated pilot examiners (DPEs) should be aware that the requirements for an instrument rating may be met by performing three different approaches, regardless of the source of navigation.  

It’s important to understand, however, that this policy change affects only the specific regulation cited above. That rule describes one of the requirements that an IFR applicant must meet during training, specifically while completing the “long IFR xc,” a flight of at least 250 nm with approaches flown at three different airports.

The new guidance does not change types of approaches flown during a practical test. The requirements for flying precision and non-precision approaches are in the ACS for the instrument rating, and are based in part on the equipment installed in the aircraft used for the practical test.

To clarify the requirements for the long IFR cross-country and the instrument rating practical test, I suggest that FAA publish guidance like the following:

During the cross-country flight required by § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C), you must fly three approaches at three airports along the route. The approaches must include:

  • One approach to a DA flown with approved vertical guidance (i.e., an ILS glideslope or a glidepath provided on an RNAV (GPS) approach with LPV or LNAV/VNAV minimums).
  • Two approaches with lateral guidance to an MDA, such as LOC-only, LOC BC, VOR, or RNAV (GPS) procedures. If you are flying an aircraft with avionics capable of displaying advisory vertical guidance while flying non-precision approaches, typically annunciated as +V (e.g., LNAV+V, LP+V, or VOR LNAV+V), you may display and use the advisory vertical guidance as allowed in the AFM and supplements for the avionics installed in the aircraft.
  • A PAR approach may be substituted for an ILS or RNAV (GPS) approach with approved vertical guidance, and an ASR approach may be substituted for one of the non-precision approaches.

We need to be careful, however, about using the terms precision approach and non-precision approach.

As I noted in a blog post about the forthcoming AC 90-119, FAA plans to adopt the new(ish) ICAO definitions for procedures that include 2D (lateral navigation) and 3D (lateral and vertical navigation).

In the past, precision approach applied only to procedures based on ground facilities that provide a glideslope or other approved vertical guidance to a DA–viz., an ILS or PAR. That obsolete definition required the creation of a new term, APV (approaches with vertical guidance), for RNAV procedures that offer approved vertical guidance to LPV or LNAV/VNAV decision altitude minimums.

Today, ICAO has updated its definition of precision approach by describing procedures that include approved vertical guidance to a DA, so-called 3D navigation. ICAO also describes so-called 2D approaches to MDAs.