Climb and Maintain ...

The flying adventures of a software engineer in the Pacific Northwest.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Second Multi Flight

After the first flight in a Beechcraft Duchess, I was mostly able to locate the required switches, controls, etc. for flight with both engines running. I even flew a couple of ILS approaches into Paine Field, which went very well. I still need to master the Garmin 430 in Northway's Duchess (while the 430 is similar to the G1000 in concept, it's not really enough to look at the 430 for five minutes and expect to be able to operate it at a level proficient enough for IFR flight), but overall, I think the flight went extremely well.

The second flight was when Milen and I started to work on engine-out procedures. We did some procedures for identifying the failed engine -- both visually and under the hood. Basically, Milen would pull the throttle back and I was supposed to say which engine failed. This was easy if the engine failed suddenly (lots of yaw), but it was not as easy if the engine failure occurred gradually; I think that was an important point in the demonstration, because in real life, engines do not fail instantaneously.

After I got the identification of the failed engine nailed down, we proceeded to do the actual engine failure procedures -- that is, practicing bringing mixtures, propellers, and throttles forward, cleaning up the flaps and the gear, identifying and verifying the failed engine, etc. We practiced these procedures on the ground before starting the flight; however, I must say that in the air, everything seems to feel differently. On the ground, the engine failure isn't quite "real". But, in the air, it just feels different -- at least to me. When you're losing altitude, and you've got to manage the engine failure and keep the plane upright at the same time, there is certainly a tendency to rush things. Rushing is obviously not good, and it takes a lot of practice to get the right pace -- not too slow, but not too fast, either.

The final maneuver of the lesson was the single-engine ILS. I can't say it went as well as the normal ILS: I was "all over the place." Fortunately, neither the glideslope nor the localizer went full-scale deflection -- so theoretically, it was within standards -- but it still looked scary. I like it much better when both needles just stick to the center. :-)

So, we've got our work cut ahead of us -- but Milen is confident that a couple more flights, and I'll be ready for the checkride!

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Time for "Identify, Verify, ..."

It's been almost 3 months since I got my commercial single engine license. And, the twin at Northway Aviation was something that I always wanted to try flying. Since the Seattle summer (and its associated good weather) are almost over, I figured "no time like the present." I called up my friendly CFI/CFII/MEI Milen and signed up for some twin time. Wow!

We basically figured I'd need around 7-10 hours in the twin. We split that over one weekend: two flights on Saturday and two flights on Sunday. Afterwards, I'd be going for a check flight with another instructor -- just to make sure everything was done well -- and then it would be off for the checkride later in the week. If this plan were to succeed, this would be my quickest rating ever. I guess I'm starting to believe in the "3 day multi-engine rating" advertisements featured in popular flying magazines. :-)

The first multi-flight was an "introduction" to the Beechcraft Duchess. By "introduction" we don't really mean straight-and-level flight: after departure, it was straight into procedures: steep turns, power-on and power-off stalls, slow flight, emergency gear extension, etc. I do have to say that the flight was not quite an easy one for me. Everything, and I mean everything, seems to be different in the twin. The switches are in different positions, the airspeeds are different, and because the Duchess has counter-rotating propellers, you do not need any right rudder on takeoff (which I applied anyway -- old single-engine habits die quite hard, I must say). But, at least I had a checklist in the format that I was familiar with -- that made it a little easier, but not by much.

In the end, I was able to land the Duchess OK after the lesson -- and we did a few touch and goes to make sure I got enough practice. I must say: the Duchess landing gear is quite durable. Don't ask how I know. :-)

Stay tuned for more updates as my commercial multi-engine add-on progresses.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Photo Flight

My friend Neil at work is an avid photographer. And while I enjoy taking pictures as well, I'm a "point and shoot" kind of guy. Neil, on the other hand, takes it much more seriously: he's got several cameras (both film and digital), a complement of lenses, and when he needs that extra zoom telephoto, he rents it -- much like I rent airplanes.

Neil is one of those folks who wants to go flying without needing to be convinced too much. We talked for a long time about going up for a flight, partly (or mostly) because Neil wanted to take some pictures of freeway interchanges from up high. And, since we had the perfect weather for this last Monday -- sunny, with not a cloud in the sky -- we went.

I guess this flight with Neil was the first situation for me that might have been a real-life "flight for hire" that I might have been asked to do had I been a working commercial pilot. Of course, I couldn't really charge Neil, even though I have a commercial pilot's license -- my medical is over 2.5 years old, which means it's only good for third class private pilot operations. But, even though I wouldn't be getting any money, I still had a good excuse to go up flying. So, we headed up to Northway Aviation, the FBO that I rent from most often at Paine Field, boarded one of their Cessna 172's, and headed off.

Neil wanted to take photos on the East side of Seattle -- particularly the I-405/SR-522 and I-405/SR-520 interchanges. The first interchange, with SR-522, could be done easily, since the overlying Seattle Class Bravo airspace does not start until 5,000 feet. SR-520 required a Class Bravo clearance -- it's a bit closer to Seattle-Tacoma International, and Class Bravo starts at 2,500 feet there and even goes down to 1,800 feet at the point where SR-520 crosses Lake Washington (which Neil wanted to take pictures of as well). But, we got lucky! Seattle-Tacoma happened to be landing to the North that evening, and we had no problems getting a clearance into Seattle Class Bravo at 3,500 feet as long as we stayed north of the 520 bridge and east of Mercer Island.

This flight was my first with an open passenger window, and I anticipated a lot of wind and a greatly increased noise level in the cabin. However, I was pleasantly surprised. There wasn't much wind, and even though we did have an increased noise level, I could still hear air traffic control just fine over the radio. What I did not anticipate was that an open window would provide a bit more of drag, and the plane cruised just a bit slower than usual. However, that was not a problem: I chose to operate at a pretty slow airspeed to let Neil find the perfect shot.

An exact 1.0 hours and 3 rolls of film later, we were back on the ground at Paine. I finished off the flight with a nice greaser landing on Runway 29, which put us right next to Northway's parking spots -- no extra taxi time needed. The photos turned out great as well!

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Trust, But Verify

How much faith do you place in air traffic controllers? Typically, we, as pilots, expect controllers to provide services appropriate to the rules of flight and the airspace we are in. For example, when flying IFR, controllers are supposed to keep you separated from other traffic; when flying VFR and getting flight following, they are supposed to point out traffic to you on a workload permitting basis.

With the advent of GPS, controllers can do something that might not have been possible before GPS -- give us a "direct to" shortcut. Or, they may give a clearance not along airways but with a "direct to" segment. As a result, sometimes, if we are lucky, the "direct to" point will be far away, and we will get to our destination faster.

But, there's sometimes a hidden danger. Controllers do occasionally make mistakes; most of the time, they are not fatal, and they can easily be corrected if caught. I experienced these mitakes first-hand recently on a flight from Reno to North Las Vegas. Even though I was flying a G1000 equipped Cessna 182, I filed via airways (direct Mustang then V105 to HARLS then direct) -- that was done to avoid restricted areas around Nellis Air Force Range and the Nevada Test Site. Reno Clearance, however, had a different idea: they said they were explicitly told to give me a full route clearance -- which sounded an awful lot like my original plan, except one crucial part was missing -- the "V105" part.

I questioned the clearance on the ground -- I had that "nagging feeling" that I would be going through some restricted areas -- but I got nowhere. Reno insisted on sending me direct from Mustang to HARLS. Given that it was +45C on the ground, that the plane did not have air conditioning, and we had "severely clear" weather, I took the clearance and decided to straighten it out with Oakland Center: "Uh, Center, Cessna 716LR, I'm showing that my current clearance will take me thru R-4807A, R-4808N, and some others... Is that going to be a problem?" Their response was "Standby", followed by "Yes, that will be a major problem, fly now direct Beatty VOR."

I wonder what would have happened if I had not caught the problem... Or, what if I had't been flying an aircraft equipped with a moving map GPS -- it would have been considerably harder to plot the course on a paper chart (actually two charts). "Trust but verify", I guess.