The International Cessna 170 Association

bagarre wrote:

voorheesh wrote: Regarding observations on recent private pilot training and slow flight, it is not unusual for CFIs to use a "Gouge" to help students remember the basics. 1700RPM, full flaps, 5 degrees nose up pitch will help get you to minimum controllable airspeed in a typical Cessna single. Maintaining altitude, heading and airspeed in slow flight is evidence of an important skill and is required to pass the test. If you read the Noll report, you will find the majority of aviation accidents occur during takeoff and landing where slow flight and stall recognition skills are the most important. Frequently, we find that pilots involved in these accidents did not maintain proficiency in these maneuvers with the following results: They are unable to recognize impending loss of control. They lack the skill necessary to maintain/recover control in critical situations such as takeoff or landing. The basic skills you demonstrate on a private pilot test will deteriorate with time even if you fly regularly. We all develop bad habits to the detriment of safety. Do not wait 24 months for a cursory flight review. Practice Practice Practice! Happy new year.

Those numbers sound familiar I passed the check ride obviously but had no confidence in my ability to slow fly or stall an airplane in any other configuration than what was drilled into me. It wasn't until I started flying with my tailwheel instructor in the 170 that I really understood what was happening with the plane. He'd cover the all the instruments and we'd practice real stick and rudder slow flight. Slow flight, stalls in all kinds of configurations....without gauges, you learned what the plane was telling you and I lost my fear (replaced with healthy respect).
10 hours with him and I felt like I learned more than in the previous 100 hours.

Perhaps, in my case the difference was my first instructor was building time to become a jet pilot (and CFI was a way to do that) and my second instructor was someone passionate about little airplanes? I wonder how many other pilots out there never practice slow flight and stall recovery because they were never comfortable with them in the first place.

That sounds like a success story to me. Examiners frequently recite the old line: "License to learn, Son". Also, a good idea to fly with the gauges covered, probably best with an experienced CFI.

Reliance upon gadgets to correct deficient piloting-skills is abhorrent to me.
I personally condemn rocket-powered parachutes as an escape tool for stupidity and lack of judgment.... but see it's value in the case of catastrophic mechanical failure.
For the same reason, I am disgusted by the thought that anyone might want an autopilot which can recover from an unusual attitude simply because they refuse to learn piloting skills or lack the common sense to avoid situations beyond their skill level, and might view such gadgets as a "nanny".
That mentality is like driving in traffic at high speeds while not wearing your car seat belts because you have air-bags.

That has to be the most constructive post on this topic to date.

Of course, the only people who crash airplanes are the ones that REFUSE to learn piloting skills and lack common sense to avoid situations beyond their skill level.
How did we miss that???

Maybe the FAA should just add those questions to the medical exam and everyone will forever be safe.

I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a friend that I feel knows what he is talking about. We were discussing the recent loss of the father and son in the crash at Sutter Creek. He tells me that the pilot was recently turned down for a bi annual flight review by a very well regarded, long time, flight instructerthat we both know quite well.. Seems that he wanted to argue strongly with the instructer over some uf the questions that were asked. The instructor just advised him that, under these circumstances, perhaps it would be better if he found someone else to provide the flight review. He did. I do not know the instructor that he found, but, to my knowledge, he is not at all an active instructor at our airport. although he does hangar his airplane here.
KInd of gives one food for thought. In talking to the guys around the airport, it seems that everyone says they very seldom ever saw him fly his airplane.

blueldr wrote:I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a friend that I feel knows what he is talking about. We were discussing the recent loss of the father and son in the crash at Sutter Creek. He tells me that the pilot was recently turned down for a bi annual flight review by a very well regarded, long time, flight instructerthat we both know quite well...

And there's one instructor who's very glad his signature doesn't appear last in that pilots logbook, I'll bet.

If I might drag this conversation back to the question of what avionics can be installed in a certified aircraft again for just a moment...

Let me start by saying I'm a VFR only pilot and have no interest in flying in bad or marginal weather. I enjoy pleasure flying and aerial photography. IMC is not conducive to either activity. My 170 is not IFR equipped. I have a King KX170B NAVCOM with VOR head, and mode S transponder, there is no glideslope or certified GPS. All steam gauges.

A couple of years ago, I was planning to have an old Narco Mark 12 (no longer legal to use) NAV/COM removed from my 170 and replaced with a Garmin GMA 240 Audio Panel and SL-40 COM radio. The SL-40 would be my new number one radio and my older KX170B would become my backup and drive a seldom used VOR. The audio panel would give me an intercom making it possible to converse with the occasion passenger.

I approached Sterling Aviation at Buchanon Field in Concord, Ca. about installing the selected setup. They refused to install a GMA 240 in any certified aircraft stating that it was not TSO'd and they had been advised in writing by the local FDSO not to do so in the past. In other words, I needed to install the GMA 340 which has a ton of extra capabilities that I have no use for (3 NAVCOM inputs, 6 place intercom, DME and various other alerts), has a much more complicated user interface and costs about $600 more.

I fail to see how TSO'd equipment in certified aircraft makes our airspace safer given the increasing number of homebuilts and LSAs that operate in that same airspace with the non-TSO'd equipment in question.

As a result, I did not upgrade any of that equipment and find myself temporarily grounded as the KX170B has stopped transmitting. I'd like to install a GTR 200 as I actually like the way if works better than the new GRT 225, but no TSO.

One site I visited today claims the KX 170B is not TSO'd. So what's it doing in my airplane?

Is Sterling just out to lunch or does the FAA really not permit installation of non TSO'd equipment in certified, VFR aircraft?

There is no TSO requirement for radio in a VFR airplane.
I don't think there is a TSO requirement for a radio in an IFR airplane either if it's not for hire.

Find another install shop.

Better yet, install it yourself and pay your mechanic to supervise. There is NOTHING complicated about installing a radio in an airplane.

Check out the PS Engineering PMA4000 audio panel:http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/PMA4000_DS.pdf It will handle two com, two nav, and it has an excellent intercom function. They're about $800 new but I found one new on eBay for $400. Oh, yeah, and it's TSO'd.

bagarre wrote:There is no TSO requirement for radio in a VFR airplane.
I don't think there is a TSO requirement for a radio in an IFR airplane either if it's not for hire.

Find another install shop.

Better yet, install it yourself and pay your mechanic to supervise. There is NOTHING complicated about installing a radio in an airplane.

Even making up a wiring harness?

There is no requirement for avionics, instruments, etc to be TSO'd for installation in your 170. Tell Sterling to get educated or go jump in the lake and find another shop.

George we definitely disagree here (which likely will make for good thread length ).
I'm not asking for Cat 3 capability for my 170 but I look at my E.I. Oil temp/px equipment and the statement use as a secondary instrument. O.K. I've got a Cessna gauge with a green band, a small red band, white needle, no numbers although in fine print the temp range is at the bottom of the gauge. One can be set up into simple master warning system, the other might be used by someone with better piloting skills.
One night, a pilot and the check pilot tried to kill me and 300 others. Fortunately for all, the A/P saved us and fortunately the crew who knew they were in trouble were smart enough to let it save us.
Did the crew make mistakes, sure but sometimes even smart people can make mistakes.
As for putting modern avionics in older planes, I'm all for it especially if it enhances safety. Probably this is my disappointment with the regulatory bodies, avionics are light years ahead, yet they can't be utilized in my 170 and for what reason?
Anybody?
As for basic situational awareness, I do use an IPad with Foreflight but I think its a shame that I can't install a better device at a reasonable cost.

OK, Jim... your post makes a lot of assumptions that require explanation.
Your E.I. gauge simply cannot replace other required equipment because it's mfr'r didn't care to get it approved for each and every airplane they wish to sell it to. (Your original oil temp gauge is required equipment unless you can find an approved replacement.)
This does NOT mean the replacement must meet TSO.

The fact that some crew screwed up and used the autopilot to save their bacon sounds like what we call "automation dependency" which is a well-known shortcoming among crews flying modern, highly computerized cockpits. I see it frequently among crews who are so dependent on the equipment they cannot maintain situational awareness when the moving map shuts down. That's pitiful.
Just because some crew somewhere has a success story of how they used the automation to make up for their deficiencies is no reason to develop the mentality that all airplanes must have automation and therefore FAA should allow uncertified autopilots in certified airplanes.

That sticker near the entrance that states "Experimental" means just that.
And you CAN install an uncertified device in your airplane. My GArmin Aera 510 is uncertified but I use it far more than any other navigational source when I fly. You can use your Ipad with Foreflight. They just can't replace other required equipment.

Autopilots are in a special category because they modify FLIGHT CONTROLS. That's serious business and no certificated airplane in the Standard category should be running around with such major alteration unless it's certified equipment.
The 170 has several certified autopilots approved for it and all it takes is money....but a competent pilot should be capable of flying without it.

bagarre wrote:There is no TSO requirement for radio in a VFR airplane.
I don't think there is a TSO requirement for a radio in an IFR airplane either if it's not for hire.

Find another install shop.

Better yet, install it yourself and pay your mechanic to supervise. There is NOTHING complicated about installing a radio in an airplane.

Apparently VAL avionics agrees no TSO required here is a link to their explanation.

http://www.valavionics.com/installation ... craft.html

As for installing it myself.... you haven't seen the rats nest of tightly bundled wires under my panel at least some of which have been abandoned.

Either way I will not be using Sterling as they either don't know what they are talking about ir are intentionally running up the bill. No thanks.

Anyone know a good shop in Northern California? I hear good things about Airtronics at Calaveras Country. The shop on my own field (J&R at LVK) has been unbelievably unhelpful and from what I hear glacially slow.

DaveF wrote:Check out the PS Engineering PMA4000 audio panel:http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/PMA4000_DS.pdf It will handle two com, two nav, and it has an excellent intercom function. They're about $800 new but I found one new on eBay for $400. Oh, yeah, and it's TSO'd.

I'm actually considering PS Engineering's new PAR200 which has both a 4 place intercom, Bluetooth, control of 2 NAV COMs, a remotely mounted Trig Avionics COM unit and is TSO'd. Does anyone have experience with this unit?

http://www.ps-engineering.com/PAR200.shtml

George your reply is right on the money.
I still believe the regs should change to allow easier approval of modern electronics for small planes such as the ones we own.