RNAV approach to minimums in an RV-4
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 03. 2024
- If you’re not already an AOPA pilot, we’d love for you to join us. Learn more about our FREE* trial membership! www.aopa.org/trialmember
--
AOPA Pilot Editor at Large Dave Hirschman demonstrates the capability modern avionics add to a light airplane like a Van's RV-4.
--
Connect with us on social media!
Instagram: / flywithaopa
Facebook: / flywithaopa
Twitter: / flywithaopa
TikTok: / flywithaopa
LinkedIn: / verification
Check out our merch: pilotgear.aopa.org/
#flywithaopa #ifr #aviation #flighttraining
We’re AOPA, we keep flying safe, accessible, and fun for general aviation pilots, enthusiasts, and the general public by protecting, empowering, and supporting your freedom to fly. We are the most-recognized, go-to, one-stop, trusted preeminent resource for all things related to general aviation.
*This offer is only valid for first-time members and is limited to one AOPA Trial Membership. You must reside in the U.S. AOPA Trial Membership is available free for 3-months, a credit card and enrollment in automatic annual renewal is required at sign up and you will be charged for a full year of membership at $89 once your trial expires. 100% no risk trial - cancel at any time before the end of your trial to prevent charges. - Věda a technologie
Can do vs Should do are important distinctions especially in Aviation.
Love it!
My IFR enroute minimums are ceiling of 1,000 so that if the engine quits, I have a screaming chance of finding something soft to aim for. Also, on the first communication with the tower, you have to tell them you're experimental. Also great to have an intersection named after Marty Shuey!
Not sure I want to be talking to an ATC that doesn’t know an rv4 is experimental
Bob Buck in his book Weather Flying wisely said “instrument flying is weather flying”. What that means is that if you are going to fly in clouds, now you are subject to icing and embedded thunderstorms. Out west anyway we don’t have much IFR without those hazards
👍
Thanks for showing this!
I recently installed a GPS175 in my RV12. Mine is also coupled to my Dynon Skyview HDX. Just bought a Dynon D3 pocket panel as a backup attitude indicator. I absolutely love it.
Nice work Dave
So cool! I always ask pilots about their -4s when I have time on frequency. Did you put the avionics in after buying the aircraft? I love the -4 but it seems like there is less and less support for building them
Great video!
Thank you!
Good video. Indeed with good synthetic vision and adherence to ADS-B we could fly with the freedom of VFR in zero visibility. Dynon should get their HDX gps certified so the little overprice garmin nav can be avoided. It's trivial functionality and shouldn't be 13k extra. You seem to have the 7" Dynon but could fit 14" or more if the functionality was gathered in one unit with great benefit to the synthetic vision. 20" or even bigger should be normal.
I gathered some USGS geotiff terrain files and FAA obstacle data to see how easy it would be to build a synthetic vision system of required precision and what it could look like and put it in CAD software with some orthophoto on and it can easily look vastly better than the green checkerboard style that they all stick to. I tried terrain around san francisco SFO and it looks very recognizable. Just ~40meter terrain cells and 10meter pixel orthophoto looks quite lifelike from typical altitudes. Runway and roads can easily be seen as well as buildings and general cityscape. In principle good enough that you could spot fields or even golf courses to land on in zero visibility in an emergency. For all of USA and southern Canada that might be 120GB of data without any clever compression and that amount of data isn't a challenge today. A 128GB kingston card is under 10$ retail. You can add northern canada and mexico in a bit lower resolution for maybe 80GB more. There is higher quality terrain available in Europe but you have to gather it from more sources. Certainly doable. And there is worldwide data available that's a bit lower quality but much better looking than any available synthetic vision system. You'd just need to calibrate terrain with exact airport data so it's accurate for landing.
With a bit of clever compression you could probably store the entire world in 100GB
Dave . could you requested the opposite runway for a head wind?
Good question! I requested the Runway 23 approach because it's got a lower decision altitude.
A Vans 4 can do anything that established Production Aircraft can do. And so can all the Vans line as well. They provide the power, space and utility that any Pilot can use to operate in any environment. I know it first hand..! Cheers...!
Hey Dave after watching that, I am jealous! I wish I had the $ for the avionics for the beater that I fly!
What is your plan for engine failure during the approach?
So to your mind, no single-engine plane should be allowed to fly in IMC to minimums, is what you’re saying? What was C-FBWH’s plan for engine out on approach in Nashville? Should we not add a rule that single engine airplanes can’t fly at night? The risk seems to be almost as high as flying over clouds or in low visibility. But what do we do about N923KD? They had two engines, and their plan didn’t work entirely. We can’t avoid or mitigate all the risk. We’d save a lot of lives though, if they can’t fly at night. And I’m sure that would go over well in GA land!
@@RetreadPhoto Not at all. Most of my single engine time is with an ejection seat, which is one bad option to a bad situation. My more recent single engine time has been without that option, and so far I'm very reticent to fly without enough ceiling to have some chance for a controlled forced landing if the engine fails - say around 1000/3ish. Time to pick a spot, although in the SE U.S. there are wide areas of forest that would be a challenge. I'm actually interested in an answer from the original poster, as well as from you if you have good experience with operations like this. I have been taught to always have a plan for engine failure in a single engine plane.
That's a totally reasonable question, and truthfully, there aren't any attractive options for engine failures in single-engine airplanes in IMC, at night, over water, or over densely populated areas. We all have to consider the risk and proceed (or not!) accordingly.
Looks quite cold. Didn‘t you encounter icing in the IMC conditions?
It was a cold and dreary day but above freezing and no ice was encountered on this flight.
Wow! Isn't that the same equipment that would cost TWICE as much for a certificated airplane? Is your stuff TSO'd
The Garmin GPS 175 navigator is FAA certified. The Dynon and GRT avionics aren't.
Add a Monkworkz backup generator and you'll be bullet proof! 2.6 lbs, 30 amps off the vacuum pad.
Seems that @theaviator06 deleted one of his posted commentaries criticizing Mr. Hirschman and his RV-4 airplane. I thoroughly debunked @theaviator06, so he deleted his unwarranted criticism. @theaviator06 had asserted that airlines do not operate single engine airplanes because they are dangerous due to lack of engine redundancy. He also wrote that small airplane electrical systems have no redundancy such that if the system fails, you are "toast". He also wrote that airliners are safe because they don't accumulate ice, and that "low-powered aircraft" like Mr. Hirschman's, are unsafe because they do. @theaviator06 wrote that Mr. Hirschman is an inexperienced pilot. And finally, @theaviator06 wrote that Juan Browne described the Tennessee accident airplane as being a Van's aircraft.
Here is my response that I wrote earlier today, which is worth repeating and making delete-proof:
I've never personally been there, but I think in Alaska, there are passenger-carrying airlines that operate turboprop singles. Cessna Caravans and that sort. Your assertion is false. Besides, a counter-argument to engine redundancy might be: having a twin engine airplane simply doubles the probability of experiencing an engine failure.
If single-engine turboprops were so dangerous owing to a lack of engine redundancy, then why are so many aircraft manufacturers selling single engine turboprops as fast as they can build them, and spending fortunes developing new models? (Piper M700 for example) Why is every Cirrus SF-50 that is built, sold? Your opinion "You want redundancy regarding your engines" is not supported by the facts.
Aviation electrical systems have multiple redundancy. Dual alternators on one engine, dual batteries, instruments having their own internal backup batteries, and even a Ram Air Turbine, all serve as more than adequate electrical redundancy on an airplane. So you are not "toast". Just notify ATC, and land as soon as practical.
Multi-engine turbofan airliners can also pick up ice. Research Air France 447. Meanwhile, pilots of low-powered aircraft need knowledge and recurrent training to both avoid icing conditions and conduct icing escape maneuvers. Sure, this might read as flippant. But the same holds true for any emergency, including loss of thrust on take off, inoperative gear extension, propeller overspeed, communications failure, all of the aviation emergencies. No need to single out the potential for an icing encounter as your rationale for asserting that Mr. Hirschman's plane is unsafe. And by the way, unless you have seen Mr. Hirschman's logbook, or spoken to him at length, I venture to say that you are unqualified to assess his experience level, currency, and whether or not he has met your criteria for having gained enough practice to safely fly in IMC.
As they say, "It's not official until it's on Blancolirio."* A quick check of his channel shows a video regarding the Nashville accident that just dropped yesterday. I will add it to my YT view queue. Thanks for reminding me. However I did read that the accident airplane was a Piper Lance, not an RV as you stated. Properly equipped, a Piper Lance is certified for day and night IFR operations.
* I read that on one of his video's viewer comments, many years ago. Laughed out loud. I always remember that comment, and relay it to others whenever I can. So it's not "they say". It's just one other guy, and me !
Must be an American thing…. I’ve never seen Brit or Australian pilots so obsessed with gloves
Now ads throughout the videos? Nope. Unsubscribed. I guess our dues aren’t enough for you anymore.
I didn't see one !
IIRC that's on Youboob trying to squeeze every last cent out of every view, not AOPA.
Geez. Not sure if this is something that should be promoted, even if your panel has the capability the plane isn't made to do this safely.
Aircraft is equipped for the approach and the PIC is IFR rated and current. What's the issue here?
"the plane isn't made to do this safely"
Care to back up your assessment with facts?
Just avoid ice.
You're not going to find many professional commercial pilots with a lifetime of instrument flying taking that up in IMC. If you don't know why that isn't safe, then you don't know what you don't know.
Good point about different pilots having various degrees of risk tolerance. The safety record of professional crews flying multi-engine turbojets at big airports is exceptionally great, and there are many potential single points of failure flying single-pilot, single-engine, airplanes -- most of them equipped with one battery and one alternator -- in IMC. But we as pilots get to make informed choices, and the situational awareness and safety tools that this panel provides are awfully impressive.