A) Back Course (BC)

Sometimes, a back course (BC) is present even when it is into the prevailing winds instead of having a full ILS aligned with those winds. It might be for obstacles or equipment-positioning reasons that a glideslope is not able to be established from a particular direction. The BC is “the other side” of an ILS approach and traditionally requires a pilot to “reverse sense” while flying the approach. This means that instead of flying toward the deflected side for course alignment, a pilot would fly away from the direction, or, as most of us remember, “fly the needle to the ball.” Many modern avionics packages have HSI equipment or are digitally able to “flip” the signal and make it so a pilot doesn’t need to fly using reverse sensing. Knowing how your system works is critical to making sure you are correcting in the proper direction when flying this approach.

• READ MORE: Chart Wise: Charlottesville RNAV (GPS)-Y Rwy 21

B) Disregard Glideslope

Note 4 on this approach, like on many back-course approaches, indicates that a pilot should “disregard glideslope indications.” Glideslopes are typically generated on the opposite end of a runway when there is a back course and would lead a pilot along an incorrect descent path. This is a nonprecision approach,and a pilot should establish an appropriate descent rate to arrive at the minimum descent altitude before reaching the missed approach point.

C)  Discrete VOR and LOC Frequencies

On this approach the inbound course is generated through using the localizer (I-ESC) on 109.3. The VOR is also on the airport (ESC on 113.55), so be sure you are using the correct navigation source when you are inbound. This becomes especially confusing if you were using the VOR to navigate to the area and then along the DME ARC. Be sure to be selected to the LOC frequency for the inbound course.

• READ MORE: Chart Wise: Ocean City (KOXB) LOC Rwy 32

D) DME ARC Alternative

If you are flying this approach and don’t want to do the DME ARC to establish onto the approach, you can also track outbound from the VOR on a 092-degree radial to the KULAH waypoint, where you will intercept the localizer and then conduct a procedure turn after you are out past the waypoint, which is either 6 DME from the ESC VOR or 5.7 from the I-ESC LOC.

E) VDP and Map Differences

A visual descent point (VDP) is noted with the dark “V” at 1.1 DME from I-ESC, the localizer-based DME. A missed approach point (MAP) is noted at 0.5 DME from I-ESC and is where a pilot would need to go missed if they did not see the runway environment. Be careful not to confuse these DME readings with ones from the ESC VOR a pilot may have previously used to navigate onto the approach or while conducting a DME ARC.

F) Missed Hold Entry Turns Nonprotected Side

When going missed on this approach, a pilot would execute a climb to 2,500 feet, turn right back to the ESC VOR, and then hold. The turn in this case is toward the nonprotected side of the hold for the entry, and once established you will continue right turns while in the hold at 2,500 msl.

• READ MORE: Chart Wise: Spirit of St. Louis ILS 26L

G) Magnetic Disturbance Note

A note on the chart indicates that “magnetic disturbances of as much as 14 degrees exist at ground level in Escanaba.” A pilot is going to want to take that into account when setting their directional gyro. You might be best served to set it based on runway alignment rather than using a comparison to your magnetic compass.

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

The post Escanaba (KESC) LOC BC Rwy 28 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

A) NO-STRAIGHT-INS

A VOR-A approach like this indicates that the final approach course does not directly line up with a particular runway. It is designed to approach the airport and, once the runway environment is in sight, the pilot will circle to the runway of their choice. Expect some limitations. Circling to Runway 17 is not authorized at night. Circling east of Runways 21 and 35 is also not authorized for categories C and D aircraft, presumably because of proximity to the terrain to the east and the wider circling path needed for faster aircraft. Remember, a descent below your applicable circling minimum isn’t allowed until you are in a position to make a normal landing on an approach such as this.

B) USE THE ARC

With terrain to the east and west, pilots might take advantage of using the arc from the en route environment (both of these waypoints are on low altitude en route airways) to establish onto a segment of the approach. Both RACGO and JEMKU waypoints are initial approach fixes (IAFs) depicted from which the pilot could use a DME arc to then turn inbound on the 101-degree path to the VOR.

C) WORK THE DESCENTS

A pilot might establish onto a DME arc and descend from the en route environment at a higher altitude to a minimum of 7,200 feet msl along the arc. Once they turn inbound, they can descend when established at 5,700 feet msl until they cross the VOR. After crossing the VOR, a descent to the appropriate circling minimum is allowed. With no glide slope, the pilot must keep track of when and where they descend along the segments of this approach.

D) SHORT DISTANCE: FAF TO THE MAP

It is a mere 3.5 DME from the FAF at the OGD VOR to the missed approach point, and this distance can go by quickly. Timing is an option for determining the missed approach point but so is DME. When you reach the FAF, be ready to quickly find the airport or make a decision to go missed if necessary.

E) CLIMB AND TURN AND KEEP CLIMBING

Going missed on this approach has a pilot turn left to the OGD VORTAC and then following the 263-degree radial to the MOINT intersection, which is 15.1 DME from the OGD VOR. The instructions then note to “continue climb-in-hold to 13,000.” This is a good hint that unless you have some pretty spectacular climb performance from the circle-to-land minimums, if you go missed, you are going to have somewhere around 8,000 vertical feet of climbing to do before you are fully established in the hold. Expect to enter the hold and be climbing until you reach 13,000 feet msl.

This column first appeared in the September 2023/Issue 941 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Chart Wise: Ogden, Utah VOR-A appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I was a kid hanging out in the old Lunken Airport control tower the first time I saw one…and it was pretty spectacular. It was the mid-’60s, and a derelict B-25 was heading for the airport with a cabin full of reptiles. Really! Some “wild kingdom” exhibition opening downtown was evidently in financial distress and badly needed to attract a good, paying audience.

The pilot called far enough out and told the tower about his cargo. Problem was he’d had to shut one engine down and needed priority to land. By now the press got wind. As he neared the airport, he radioed that he couldn’t get the gear down and elected to land in the grass. The copilot (I’m not making this up) bailed out just north of the airport, and the B-25 skidded to a halt in the grass. It was wintertime and firemen had to unload and incapacitate a bunch of snakes and alligators. The papers had a heyday. I don’t remember if the show made any money.

That was my first but certainly not last experience with gear-up landings and what put it on my front burner is the latest. A friend with a beautiful A36 loans it to a couple guys—one is a pilot for a large corporation who’s probably among the best airplane drivers I know and a pretty good mechanic to boot. I don’t know the other guy, but he recently put the beautiful Beech in on its belly at Lunken. There were claims that “the electrical system was behaving strangely” and, fearing a fire, he landed with no gear, damaging the prop, engine, flaps, and belly skin.

• READ MORE: How Well Do You Know Aircraft Landing Gear?

You can almost bet that any pilot involved in a gear-up landing does two things: They put the gear switch or handle in the “down” position before any rescue arrives and usually have an explanation about why it failed to be down and locked. Almost never did they just plain forget.

If there’s any doubt, you do a tower or airport flyby. Even if it appears to be down, you leave the area and use the emergency gear extension procedure(s) in the pilot’s operating handbook. That’s what happened in a Bonanza with no gear lights I was flying a few years ago. I flew by, went out and cranked it down, and then asked for the equipment on the runway (Why not?). I landed without using any brakes and let it roll out.

The other time was at night with an alternator failure in a retractable gear Cessna Cardinal, totally out of “juice.” I pumped the gear down and could see it, but there were no lights, so I circled the field, hoping for a green light from the tower, but there was nothing. Finally, after watching a corporate guy clear the runway, I landed and, again, stayed off the brakes, letting it roll onto a large, adjacent ramp. When I called the tower on the phone they said, “You did what?” And I responded, “If you guys can’t see any better than that, I’m going to fly my Cub at night.”

These days, there are several aids to total electrical system failures. A handheld transceiver works or, lacking that, keep the telephone numbers of the FBOs, control towers, and approach control you commonly use. I did that a few years ago coming back from Oshkosh, when the generator failed. The landing gear in my Cessna 180 is welded down, so that wasn’t an issue, but at least I could call the tower on my cellphone.

As you might imagine, I’m not always that heroic. As an FAA inspector who did lots of Twin Beech check rides, I rented one of our Part 135 operators’ Beech 18s for proficiency flying with quite possibly the world’s coolest and best Twin Beech driver, Kevin Uppstrom, in the right seat. As we lifted off Runway 18 at Connersville, Indiana (KCEV), Uppstrom simulated a left engine failure by retarding a throttle. I chanted and did the “max power, flaps approach, positive rate, gear up, identify, verify and (simulate) feather.” It was beautiful and, smugly, as we rounded the pattern onto final for a landing, I said, “C’mon, Kev. Admit it. Nobody could handle it better.” He said, “Yeah, so far a great job. Do you plan to put the gear down before we land?”

I guess my funniest gear story involves a rather important CEO of a Cincinnati machine tool company who had a penchant for unique airplanes. He’d owned a single-place Mooney Mite with manually retractable landing gear. But he’d forgotten to use the awkward Johnson bar to extend it before landing. That was before I knew him. By now he was on the cusp of a divorce and rather taken with me (I was nearly seduced by his recently acquired Grumman Widgeon). I was at the hangar after the Mite had been extracted (gear up) from the runway and deposited in his large multi-airplane hangar.

Way before my FAA days, I still knew inspector John O’Rourke, who was walking around the broken bird, pipe in his mouth and clipboard in hand. Mr. CEO was explaining he had no idea why the gear hadn’t extended—he’d certainly put it down before landing. Then the back door of the hangar opened, and the soon-to-be-ex Mrs. CEO came in, surveyed the scene and, in her distinctive upper class, Down East Maine accent said, “Well, I see you’ve done it again.”

I’m not making light of landing an airplane with the gear not securely down and locked. It’s a dreadful experience, but pilots and passengers are rarely hurt. Hopefully, you have hull insurance and knowledgeable people extracting the airplane from the runway without further damage. There’s usually a long wait for overhauled or new engines, props, and repair to other airplane damage. The main problem is ego…and that’s a biggie.

I’ve always loved the memory of a big guy named Ed Creelman, an excellent pilot who flew a Beech 18 for a local paper company. I was nearby as he sat in the Sky Galley restaurant when somebody asked, “Hey, Ed. What happened to your airplane?” Without hesitation, in his signature gruff voice, he answered: “I forgot to put the f—ing gear down.”

He was (and is) my hero.

This column first appeared in the September 2023/Issue 941 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Gear-Up Landings: There Are Pilots Who Have and Those Who May Have To appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

A) VOR, THEN TURN ONTO THE FINAL PATH

A pilot who chooses to enter this approach from the IAF at the Pulaski (PSK) VOR would then fly outbound on a 077 radial using the PSK VOR as a navigation source for 22.6 nm to the EXUNE waypoint. During this time they would intercept the localizer path using 072 and transition to navigating using the localizer as their inbound navigation source. Make sure your DME source is switched from the PSK VOR to the ISZK localizer to properly count down waypoints along the inbound navigation path.

B) LOCALIZER OFFSET

A note in the localizer information box, at the bottom, indicates the localizer is offset 14.5 degrees from the runway alignment. Important to note, this means the pilot will have a slight left turn from the approach path of 072 degrees to land on Runway 6 when it becomes visible and they transition from instruments to visual tracking to the runway and their landing.

C) GLIDE SLOPE AVAILABLE—WITH DIFFERENT MINIMUMS

Not all LDA approaches have glide slopes on them, but this one does. So, much like a typical ILS, you will get horizontal and vertical approach path guidance. But if the glide slope happens to be out of service, or your aircraft is unable to use it, the approach minimums are quite different. In a worst-case scenario, if a pilot were unable to identify the SKIRT OM or not have DME/radar options to help apply step down allowances, a pilot would be restricted to a lowest descent of 2,680 feet msl,an extremely high 1,505 feet agl when flying this approach, instead of the lowest possible 1,615 feet msl that puts a pilot down to 440 feet agl. Knowing your aircraft capabilities and how those affect the minimums applicable can make a big difference on this approach.

D) CIRCLING NA NW OF RUNWAY 6/24

Should a pilot need to circle to land, this would not be authorized to the northwest of Runway 6/24. Terrain out to the north and west of the airport is a critical reason for this, and important for the pilot to stay aware of in this area.

E) TERRAIN IN THE AREA

While the touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) on this runway is 1,175 feet, not overly high, there is much higher terrain in the area. Points out to the west of the airport approach and exceed 4,000 feet msl, so this approach will be conducted at altitudes below local area terrain. The MSA (minimum safe altitude) depicted within 25 nm of the Woodrum (ODR) VOR on the field indicates an altitude of 5,700 feet msl would be required. This altitude would give a pilot 1,000 feet of obstacle clearance in that radius and be good to be aware of in the event a pilot experienced an emergency and needed to get to a safe altitude to manage any concerns.

F) IS ADF REQUIRED FOR THE MISSED?

While most pilots transition to using GPS for their missed approach if needed, this follows the ODR VOR 155-degree radial to the PARTE intersection at 28.6 DME, where a hold will begin. But it does transition through the VIT NDB along the way. While the NACO chart shows this NDB on the path, it is actually the VOR radial you would be flying, and it just happens to travel through the VIT NDB. It would not be required to be utilized to fly the standard missed approach path, and it’s not depicted except as an alternate missed approach fix on the Jepp chart. If you have an ADF receiver, use it for a little practice.

This column first appeared in the August 2023/Issue 940 print edition of FLYING.

The post Chart Wise: Roanoke LDA Y Runway 6 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

A. Glade Spring VOR IAF

A pilot might use the Glade Spring VOR to transition onto the approach, using the 210-degree radial outbound to intercept the ILS course of 230 degrees. A small note along the course, though, indicates that while no procedure turn (NoPT) will be needed, the pilot will be expected to be at 6,000 feet on this leg. The note above the 210 degrees indicates that it is a 10.1-mile leg. That leg will require the pilot to be at or above 6,000 feet until they can descend to the lower 3,600-foot altitude once established inbound at KEIPY. This will keep a pilot away from obstacles in the area to the northwest while establishing onto the final approach path.

B. IM, What’s That?

There aren’t lots of approaches that we fly anymore with all three marker beacons: the outer marker (OM), middle marker (MM), and inner marker (IM). This approach still has two of them noted, the OM and the IM, which a pilot might reference to identify passage of the final approach fix at the OM (MOCCA) and an IM close to the missed approach point. While the IM isn’t technically the missed approach point when flying the ILS—that’s still at the decision height just prior to the IM—it is a good secondary indicator that you are reaching the runway area. It also might be used when flying the approach as a localizer-only approach. Be sure to turn up the volume on your audio panel for the marker beacons when flying this, and remember what color blinking lights are associated with each marker beacon (OM: blue; MM: amber; IM: white).

C. Step-Downs By Cross Radial

Since this approach doesn’t have DME to identify waypoints along the approach, a pilot might choose to identify the FAF and an intermediate step-down waypoint (when flying it without use of the glide slope) at EAVER, using cross radials from the HMV VOR to the southwest of the approach path. This might require tuning and twisting the VOR and associated radials on a second NAV source while flying the primary ILS NAV.

D. Missed to the NDB

The missed approach takes the pilot to the BOOIE (BO) NDB. Do you still have an ADF receiver that works in your airplane? For aircraft that don’t have one operational, you will need to have a suitable IFR GPS to identify the missed approach point. If you don’t, you technically wouldn’t be able to start this approach, since you couldn’t fly the entire procedure—unless you have radar assistance, as noted in the briefing strip notes. Be ready to transition to the missed approach on this, from using the ILS navigation source to a GPS navigation course in your nav system after passing the missed approach point. Messing up this transition has certainly befuddled many applicants on practical tests, and certainly other pilots in their real-world flying.

The post Tri-Cities/Bristol, Tennessee ILS or LOC Runway 23 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

A. RADAR REQUIRED

Many approaches have a method to establish onto the approach without the use of ATC vectoring assistance. This approach does not. Note 2 specifically indicates: “Radar required for procedure entry” in order to get the pilot established onto the approach. While many GPSs are likely to be able to navigate directly to the CALEY waypoint, it is worth noting that this is an “IF” (intermediate fix), not technically an “IAF” (initial approach fix). So, even if your GPS can get you there, ATC needs to be providing radar services as you are vectored onto the approach or navigate directly to CALEY in order to set you up on the approach somewhere outside of the PEAAY waypoint.

B. DME FROM THE LOC

The DME on this approach is sourced from the ILS receiver, but it doesn’t count down to “zero” like many do. In this case, it is because there is also an ILS approach to the opposite runway, 23, and that is where the DME transmitter is located. If you were flying the ILS to Runway 23, it would count down to a DME point closer to zero, but since this approach is using the DME source from the opposite end of the runway, your missed approach point when flying the approach as a localizer would be at 1.5 nm. This is also helpful to refer to as you fly the ILS and descend to the decision altitude. It’s also worth noting that it could be easy to have aDME source selected to the ORF VOR, which is located on the field, but that would also generate an incorrect DME datapoint to use when flying this approach.

C. GS AND AP LIMITATIONS

A small note in this approach indicates: “Glide slope unusable for coupled approach below 744 [feet].” For many pilots who actively utilize automation, this is an easily missed note. This is an indication that by the time they reach this altitude, they need to transition to hand flying the aircraft. Technically, allowing the autopilot to remain coupled to the glide slope beyond this altitude is not authorized. For an approach with a decision height down to 226 feet and a TDZE of 26 feet, it means a pilot is going to need to keep those hand-flying skills ready to take over for a portion of the descent after passing the FAF at PEAAY and before reaching the DA.

D. CORRECT VOR FOR THE MISSED

A pilot who chooses to go missed on this and proceed with the published missed approach can easily mix up exactly what they need to do. Seeing the ORF VOR denoted on the approach plan view, and a radial denoted to the JHALL intersection just to the right of it on the chart, a pilot might initially assume this is what they will do. But a note on the box indicates this is an “Alternate Missed APCH Fix.” This would be applicable only if the pilot was doing something other than the expected published missed approach procedure, had been assigned the alternate missed approach, or requested it. A pilot would be expected to fly directly to the CCV VOR and hold on the 029-degree inbound course. This requires a pilot to use a frequency and navigation source they had not used until this point on the approach. A savvy pilot might have this frequency in the standby well ahead of time if they thought there was any chance they might go missed.

The post Norfolk (KORF) ILS RWY 5 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

If you read the letters themselves, they’ll give you a window into how the FAA’s legal officers think and provide context for how to conduct your operations in the future. 

Here are a few examples:

‘Can I Advertise My Trip on Social Media?’

With the growth of social media, one private pilot sought to clarify that, if he shared his trip plans on Facebook or other public forums and included that he’d have open seats on board his airplane, if this would be considered ‘holding out’—especially if the people who would accompany him paid their pro-rata share. 

Furthermore, the question of “common purpose” came up, because in the scenario, the pilot wanted to know if the people who opted to go on the trip went for a reason separate from his, if this would qualify under that law. 

In the Haberkorn-2011 letter, the FAA’s chief counsel offered a response to Haberkorn and explained the nuances of the law. If you read the letter, you’ll notice that it includes the appropriate FARs in question and the FAA’s interpretation of the law related to the scenario. In this case, the FAA deemed that if the pilot offered people in his online social network seats on his flight, this would not be allowed, even for people just in his circle. 

“Even if you limit the transportation services to a class or segment of the general public (such as Facebook users), it may still be considered holding out if it expresses a willingness to provide transportation for all within this class or segment to the extent of its capacity,” the FAA said in its response. In other words, the medium didn’t matter as much as the offer to passengers. What surprised me is that the FAA’s said that a pilot’s reputation of being generous, even without a direct offer to passengers, could create a problem, even if no one took the trip.

“There may also be a holding out without advertising, where a reputation to serve all is sufficient to constitute an offer to carry all customers. Whether or not the holding generates little success is not a factor,” the letter said.

But how about the common purpose segment? If the pilot was going on the trip, for example, to attend a wedding, and the passengers chose to go along for a baseball game, would that fall under the common purpose rule in the applicable FAR? The FAA said it would be best to determine this on a case-by-case basis. However, the specific activities don’t matter as much as the fact that both pilot and potential passengers had to do business or other pursuits in the destination city. So, was there a common purpose in the wedding-baseball game scenario? 

“Based on these facts, there appears to be a bona fide common purpose, as the pilot, not the passengers, dictated the destination. Both you and your passengers have personal business to conduct on Long Island. The purpose of this flight is not merely to transport your passengers to Long Island,” the FAA said in its letter.

Let’s try another. 

‘Do I Need a Parachute for Spin Training?’

I can see why this comes up. The first time I took a form of spin training, it felt like my brain was rattling around in my skull, especially when the airplane began its downward cycles and all I saw were the housetops. You might think you ought to have a parachute on for personal safety reasons—just in case. 

This is a part of what the FAA tried to clarify in its Fitzpatrick-Spartan College letter in 2018. In the letter, a former director of flight operations at the Part 141 school—Spartan College—wanted to clarify the operational rules, particularly FAR 91.307c. The reg generally says that the pilot and passengers must wear parachutes if they plan to intentionally bank an airplane more than 60 degrees or pitch the nose up or down 30 degrees. What may have added to the pilot’s confusion is that the regulation essentially said the rule didn’t apply if the flight maneuvers were required for any certificate—in which case, it seemed that a pilot and passenger wouldn’t need parachutes.

Well, to clear things up, in its response, the FAA said this: “Regardless of what certificate or rating the applicant is seeking, an acrobatic maneuver required for any certificate or rating (even one not presently sought by the student) may be performed without parachutes when done by or at the direction of a certificated flight instructor.” The most important part of that seems to be that no parachutes are needed as long as a flight instructor directs the student to complete a spin. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if spin training is required for the particular rating if the instructor thinks the student needs to have it, since “spin instruction is required for certain other certificates or ratings.”

How about one more? You may be wondering, does the FAA ever change its position if the world around it changes? The following letter shows that it does. 

‘Do I Still Need to Fly Three Different Approaches?’

With the phasing out of VOR navigation aids, students and instructors have wondered how feasible it will be for instrument training that requires students to complete three instrument approaches with three different navigation aids, such as with an ILS, the GPS, and a VOR navaid. Initially, in a 2008 letter, Glaser (2008), the FAA said the student had to use different systems. 

In another letter, Pratte (2012), the FAA expanded the number of approaches that would qualify, calling the initial interpretation “overly restrictive” and unable to account for future navigational aids. 

However, in February 2022, the FAA issued a notice to say for the reasons it would provide in the memorandum, it was rescinding the interpretations of the previous letters. The essence of its explanation is that a Flight Standards division was best positioned to determine what qualifies as “navigation systems,” according to the applicable FAR. Pilots who subscribed to the FAA Safety website would’ve been notified of this—the site is also where other pertinent public notifications are posted and it’s a good tool for current information. 

• READ MORE: Previous editions of ‘What a CFI Wants You to Know’

In that notice, the FAA said, “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.” It said CFIs and examiners should be aware of this change, especially to save students the headache and expense of trying to locate a VOR. “Students may meet the requirements for an instrument rating by performing three different approaches, regardless of the source of navigation,” the agency said.

Letters of interpretation are good tools for pilots and offer insight into confusing rules that are ambiguous or no longer apply. Based on my reading, many of them relate to safety, compensation, and what pilots can log as flight times. These seem to be the biggest concerns for most pilots at the end of the day. As you phase out of flight training into general or business aviation, you will do well to keep this resource in mind.

The post The FAA Answers Some Interesting Questions From Pilots appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The key aspect of any standard instrument departure is the word “standard.” SIDs were created to reduce the required radio traffic between air traffic controllers and pilots, as aircraft transition from the terminal to the en route airspace in busy environments such as the one surrounding Van Nuys, California. This past year, KVNY locally handled more than 212,000 takeoffs and landings, making it one of the busiest general aviation airports in the United States. Adding to the local complexity is KVNY’s proximity to Hollywood Burbank Airport (KBUR) to the east and its location beneath the busy Los Angeles Class B airspace.

Terrain and Climb Requirements

The takeoff obstacle notes found on the right side of the SID plate provide required climb gradients per nautical mile. These ensure the aircraft is able to safely clear local terrain. Some pilots confuse this requirement with climb rates in feet-per-minute depicted on the vertical speed indicator. Climb gradients are not displayed in the cockpit and must be calculated using an aircraft’s performance charts prior to departure, considering atmospheric and altitude requirements. For example, an aircraft climbing at 120 knots must interpolate a climb gradient per nautical mile by considering the 100-knot groundspeed that translates into 617 feet per nautical mile and a 150-knot speed, a 925-foot rate per nautical mile. That works out to an approximate climb rate of 740 feet per nautical mile being required up to 7,000 feet.

It All Depends on the Departure Runway

A quick look at the lower right side of this chart offers details about what the pilot can expect, depending on which runways are in use at KVNY. When runways 16 Left and Right are active, departures should expect an initial climb followed by a left turn to 163 degrees and a climb to cross the VNY 2.0 DME at or below 1,700 feet. Next, there’s a climbing left turn to a heading of 113 degrees. When north departures off runways 34 Left and Right are in use, pilots can expect a climbing left turn to a heading of 253 degrees. The notes on the bottom right tell pilots to “expect radar vectors to IPIHO, then via transition to assigned route.” This means that no matter the runway in use, a pilot should expect to cross IPIHO before continuing the departure procedure.

Check out more charts: Chart Wise

SIDs Offer Predictability

Once the aircraft crosses IPIHO, the route is easy to identify and needs no input from ATC. After IPIHO, the pilot flies to TWINE, then to LANGE, SLAPP and BOGET, next to the Palmdale VOR (PMD), then to ETHER, and finally on to DAG. Along this route, minimum altitudes are published much as they would be for an minimum en route altitude on a low en route chart. These altitudes increase in relation to the terrain. Pilots unable to maintain any of these altitudes along the way should notify ATC prior to departure by declining the SID and negotiating another option.

Lost Comms

Additionally, in the middle right column of the chart there’s a “Lost Comms” box that explains the action a pilot is expected to take if they lose radio communication with ATC during the departure. If departing Runway 16 Left, for example, the aircraft should fly the initial 113-degree heading. If the pilot was unable to make radio contact with SoCal Approach by the time they crossed the 5-mile point from the VNY VOR, they should turn left to 313 degrees and intercept the LAX 342-degree radial, and then continue on the published procedure. Also keep in mind that FAR 91.185 reminds pilots who experience radio failure in VFR conditions to proceed to the destination visually.

Editor’s Note: The text has been updated to correct the original text in print.

This story appeared in the October 2020 issue of Flying Magazine

The post Van Nuys Newhall 9 Departure appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Single-pilot IFR is the hardest thing most people will ever do. If you’re a heart surgeon, you might disagree, but for almost everyone else, there’s nothing that compares. The combination of high stakes and an unrelenting workload makes for a unique challenge, and there’s no undo button.

Instrument training should embrace that challenge, with a focus on both attitude-instrument-flying technique and a true pilot-in-command mindset. That means more than just physical skills—a good instrument pilot has good habits, ones that automatically build in safety margins. And approaches are where habits matter most. In 2020, these have less to do with identifying VORs and more to do with managing technology, but the fundamentals remain the same.

Brief Every Approach

It doesn’t matter if an airline crew has flown the same approach 100 times; both pilots will review the essential information and make sure they’re both expecting the same thing. For a single pilot in a Cessna or Cirrus, such a briefing might add a few topics, such as any personal minimums you have or any equipment limitations. I’ve added three things to my typical briefing, based on lessons learned. First, I confirm the type of minimums that are applicable. On an RNAV approach, it’s easy to mistake a decision altitude on an LPV approach (no level off) for a minimum descent altitude on an LNAV approach (level off and look for the runway). Then, I look to see if there’s a visual descent point on the approach plate—it’s helpful for making a stabilized approach to the runway from minimums. Last, I note the type of approach lighting to look for. The difference between a full ALSF-2 and two lonely REILs is dramatic.

Go/No-Go at the Final Approach Fix

Once the approach is briefed (ideally in cruise), you’re not done verifying things. I use the final approach fix as my last go or no-go decision point. This is the beginning of a critical time period, when you’re knowingly descending from a safe altitude toward the ground, so I like to pull back for a few seconds and pretend I’m the copilot. Is the airplane stabilized and on speed? Are the avionics set up correctly? Is that CDI button on the GPS on the appropriate VLOC/GPS setting, and is the autopilot doing what you expected it to do? Unless the answer to all is yes, it’s time to abort the approach and get things straightened out. In the clouds—500 feet above the ground—is no time to be uncertain.

Talk To Yourself

Even when I’m alone, I make verbal callouts throughout the approach. From “localizer alive” to “gear down,” there’s no penalty for talking to yourself. I also like to call out 500, 200 and 100 feet above minimums as a reminder to prepare for missed approach or landing. But make sure the push-to-talk button isn’t pushed when you’re running your checks.

Know Your Airplane’s Profiles

We’ve all heard the saying, “Don’t chase the needles.” It’s great advice, but I wish more f light instructors explained how to avoid that mistake: Set up the airplane for success, with power, gear, f laps, speed and sink rate established at the final approach fix. I know that, on a typical approach in a Cessna Skyhawk, 1,700 rpm, 10 degrees of flaps and a 500 foot per minute descent rate will get me in the ballpark. If I start from a known profile, any changes will be much smaller, and the approach a lot smoother. Practice these numbers on a VFR day and write them down.

Read More from John Zimmerman: Pilot’s Discretion

Have a Theory About the Approach

I start every approach with a ” heading hypothesis,” an educated guess of the right heading that will keep the needle centered, based on the current wind. If I know there’s a 15-knot crosswind from the left, I might start with a 5-degree left heading correction. If the needle is still drifting left, I’ll add another 5 degrees. This sounds basic, but the key is to change your mindset about who’s in control. You are flying a heading to stay on course, so the needle follows your airplane, not vice versa.

Follow a Technology Plan

Flight directors, autopilots, GPSs and data-link weather absolutely make IFR flying safer—but only if you have a plan to use them wisely. Know how to use them well, and add an avionics plan to every approach briefing. If I’m going to use the flight director or autopilot, that’s fine, but it should be planned ahead of time. I also like to rotate approaches, so one might be on the autopilot, the next with the flight director and the third with raw data only. Remember that heading and altitude bugs, trend lines, and synthetic vision can add helpful cues.

Practice Missed Approaches

Missed approaches get talked about more than they get practiced. On your next practice approach, don’t declare victory at the DH or MDA. Fly a realistic missed approach with a view-limiting device, and focus on building muscle memory; the reaction must be an immediate climb and positive attitude control. Try performing a go-around before the missed approach point (don’t turn early) and after a simulated autopilot failure (don’t try to save the approach). Hopefully the previous six habits keep you from needing this last one, but a safe pilot is always prepared.

This story appeared in the September 2020 issue of Flying Magazine

The post Seven Habits for IFR Approaches appeared first on FLYING Magazine.