Time to come back home

[kwmoore]

Just placed an order with Todd for my 3rd 260se! There may be 1 or 2 folks ahead of me in the queue, so we're looking at late summer or fall delivery most likely.

I'm really excited and will post updates as things of substance happen. For now I'm certain about the following:

Millenium Edition
BRS (Senior Management insists, and I prefer it too)
New extended baggage a la the Katmai
Regular landing gear with speed kit
...and for sure, leak-proof tubes in the tires!

And reasonably certain about avionics:

Garmin or PSE audio panel
GNS430 or 530 as #1, interfaced to a GPSMAP496 on the yoke
KX155 or SL30 as #2
GTX330 transponder interfaced to #1 and the 496
STEC30 or STEC50 with GPSS
EDM700 with tachometer readout
FS450 fuel flow interfaced to #1 for "fuel required to destination" information
Metal panel with internally lit instruments etc.
All updated wiring, antennas, cooling fan

Not sure about the X-STOL wing extensions. Clearly I don't need them, so it's a matter of "want." Sometime in the next weeks I'll make the pilgrimage to EQA and see how the Katmai handles. If I like it, then we'll make it a full-fledged Katmai.

Welcome back Kevin (though you never really left). I know you will be happy to be back in the saddle again . Has your job changed that now allows you this opportunity? As I recall, that's why you had to go to renting.

George

[kwmoore]

In late 2003 I took early retirement from a company I'd been with for 22 years (DNAX, a subsidiary of Schering-Plough). Schering-Plough was struggling financially at the time--only now beginning to emerge from the difficulties--and offered voluntary early retirement packages to US-based employees aged 50 or older (that would be me). It was a fair but not hugely enticing offer, and I took it because I found something else (a biotech start-up).

However I lost all my accumulated vacation time, took a salary cut, and began to work 12 hour days instead of 9-10 hour days (I'm sure many of you have been there). Thus not much time available for flying.

Fortunately the company was acquired by Amgen this fall, and even more fortunately, I was asked to stay on. Given the more stable work environment--and nearly two years' worth of unused vacation time!--the time seems right to try aircraft ownership again!

Kevin, so glad for you. Can't wait to see your plane. Levon

Hi Kevin,

Any idea of what the new panel and all the avionics will cost?

When you say all new wiring etc.. Does that mean all the old wiring stripped out? Is that normal when Todd does a plane? Does Todd do the electrical work himself?

What does interfacing the 496 with the 430 do?

What is the market like for used 182's now, have you found a plane? What year are you going to use?

Does Todd do the BRS install?

Sounds like It will be fun.

[kwmoore]

Originally Posted by morrisond

Hi Kevin,

Any idea of what the new panel and all the avionics will cost?

When you say all new wiring etc.. Does that mean all the old wiring stripped out? Is that normal when Todd does a plane? Does Todd do the electrical work himself?

What does interfacing the 496 with the 430 do?

What is the market like for used 182's now, have you found a plane? What year are you going to use?

Does Todd do the BRS install?

Sounds like It will be fun.

So many questions, grasshopper...

Avionics cost depends on what's already in the plane. Many used 182's now have at least a GNS430 and/or KX155 in the panel. If it were all new stuff, I'd guess around $35-40K.

Yes, I'd want the ancient wiring replaced, and new antennas too. I have heard many stories of vexing avionics glitches that were ultimately not equipment problems but were traced to the jury-rigged use of old wiring/antennas. This would all be done by an avionics shop TBD (for example, see the thread on building Norm's Katmai). I know a couple of good ones here in CA; there are also some that Todd knows in KS, including Bevan.

The 496 would provide nearly all the functionality of a GMX200 at 1/3 the price, with XM Weather thrown in for free. You can read about its capabilities here. When interfaced to the GNS430 or 530, a flightplan or approach entered into the 430/530 is automatically downloaded into the 496. When interfaced to the GTX330, TIS traffic can be displayed on the 496. When interfaced to the SL30, the 496 can download frequencies from its database into the standby frequency slots of the SL30. It also has a faux panel display that updates 5 times/sec and can be used as a backup in case of vacuum or electrical failure. IMHO the 496 is an amazing value.

Todd has started looking for a clean, straight 182P or 182Q. He's the best judge of the market, but from my limited perspective it looks like airframe prices are about what they were when I started the 812KT project in 2001.

I believe Todd would do the BRS install, but he can chime in if that's not correct.

Kevin,

I thought that, with all your involvement with the Cirrus folks, that you would end up with the wrong plane.... Glad to see you have come to your senses.

I think you know that Todd and Chris installed the BRS chute in my plane and they did an extraordinary job. Frankly, they were originally my second choice -- I was going to go with the recommendation of the BRS people and use their affiiated installer in Minnesota but delays and weather upset that plan. In retrospect, I am glad it did because the installation done by Peterson was superb. Not only was it a very clean installation but Todd coordinated with my interior shop to get proper replacement carpet and paint so that the box now matches the interior paint colors. It's a great install.

I was concerned about the loss of baggage space but, with the extended baggage kit, it's not really too bad. I would say that, effectively, there is at least as much volume (though somewhat diminished load capacity) now as there would be in a standard baggage area.

On a useful load basis, I still have a 500 mile (LOP) with 1 hour reserve airplane capable of filling all four seats and carrying some luggage. Couldn't ask for more.

Until I got the chute, my thinking about it had been theoretical. Now, with the handle on the floor, just behind the fuel lever, clearly in sight, it forces the issue of seriously considering just when would I use it. It's kind of like when I got my handgun carry permit. If you're gonna have it, you better have thought about when you are going to use it because it's a very critical decision.

The more my experience and confidence with the 260se grows, the more convinced I am that there would be almost no cases where I would use the chute in a power out scenario. The ones usually cited -- over mountains at night or low ceiling IMC are cases I would be trying to avoid anyway before I take off.

Some people say that it would be best, if ditching, to use the chute but I am convinced that, unless you would be flying into very high (>8 foot) waves, the 260se will serve you well to fly in slow and try to do a stall landing.

So, that leaves pilot incapacitation, collision and/or engine separation, complete control surface loss, unrecoverable spin and impossible flight situation.

There have been two cases I am aware of where pilot incapacitation, real or perceived, resulted in a successful chute pull. The first was a pilot who awoke from a seizure, in a spiral dive above redline and who was unsure of his and his plane's fitness to continue so he pulled power, popped the chute, and landed. Turns out he had an undiagnosed brain tumor. The second was a pilot who, with his family on board, suffered a fatal stroke on departure and his son, not a pilot, sitting right seat, pulled the chute. The family survived. These are two clear instances, I believe, that demonstrate the true value of the BRS system.

With collision or engine separation resulting in an unflyable plane, you have another clear case where the BRS system is the only way of getting safely on the ground.

With control surface loss, in a 260se, it's less clear. A 182 is notable for it's ability to still fly reasonably with any one control surface gone. Rudder (or open doors!) can substitute for loss of aileron (or vice versa). Trim can substitute for loss of elevator. So, it's not clear whether it would make sense to use the BRS then.

An unrecoverable spin is something that would be hard to do in a 260se. More likely you might find yourself in a stall with incipient spin low to the ground. While the BRS system must officially be deployed at relatively high altitudes, I was told that those figures were based off of the maximum deployment speed (135kts). If going slower (as you are likely to be in a 260se!), the system will deploy much more quickly and might be effective as low as a hundred feet ASL. So, there might be some value there, though good training and technique is probably the better answer for this problem.

Finally, the "impossible flight situation". I am thinking of the Cory Lidle situation or a box canyon scenario where, after some bad judgement you find yourself faced with the reality that your only option is to proceed onward into an immovable object. I think the chute, if you could pull it quickly enough, might just save your bacon there.

Some "anti-BRS" or anti-Cirrus (I'm not one of those; I like the Cirrus, I just don't think it's much fun to fly) folks say the Cirrus would be much safer without the BRS because it's useful load would increase and this would result in far fewer "out of spec" departures. This criticism is much less apt for a 260se because our useful load is significantly higher to begin with and the Peterson improvements add so much additional lift and controllability that the safety margins are vastly higher.

Thinking about all of this made me realize that I really need to do some "chair flying" to sort this all out. I am really pleased to have the parachute installed on my plane. While I realize that my own stupidity or bad judgment is far more likely to get me into trouble than any situation the chute can fix, there are a few of those rare -- but invariably fatal cases -- where there is no way out except for the chute. Knowing it's aboard gives me a warm feeling but I need to prepare myself for the situation where I might need to pull that handle.

Kevin,

I couldn't let mention of an avonics shopping list go uncommented upon.

Overall I think your choices are excellent ones. The 496 is a vastly superior method of displaying weather and of providing overall situational awareness qua a typical MFD. Much cheaper too! In retrospect, I would dump my Avidyne EX500 and swap in a 530 for one of the 430's.

I would put in the 530 in lieu of the 430. The morse ID feature alone is worth it (though the SL30 has it too if you go that route).

I would strongly consider getting the Avidyne (nee Ryan) TCAS in lieu of the 330. TIS is being phased out as you know but, more importantly in my view, I have found the latency, inconsistency and plain failures of the TIS system to be major problems. The onboard system works great and, with Avidyne's new pricing structure, it makes some sort of economic sense.

Two things not mentioned are: 1.) an electric backup AI (I have the Sporty's and like it) and 2.) BAS seatbelts. Both are major safety upgrades and well worth the cost.

Don't you need the 330(Mode S) Transponder for the active Traffic? Will the Ryan pull the extra info out of other People's Mode S, so as kind of a courtesy isn't the Mode S a better idea?

Will the active Traffic be displayed on the 496?

Do the 530's not have enough displau detail and that is why the 496 or MX200 is preferred?

[kwmoore]

Originally Posted by morrisond

Don't you need the 330(Mode S) Transponder for the active Traffic? Will the Ryan pull the extra info out of other People's Mode S, so as kind of a courtesy isn't the Mode S a better idea?

No, the Ryan and Skywatch systems do not involve TIS or mode S.

Originally Posted by morrisond

Will the active Traffic be displayed on the 496?

I don't know if the 496 can be made to display Skywatch or RYAN TCAD traffic data. Norm?

Originally Posted by morrisond

Do the 530's not have enough display detail and that is why the 496 or MX200 is preferred?

The GNS430/530 displays are far less detailed than the 496, GMX200, Avidyne EX500 or other dedicated MFDs. The latter units can display maps in a variety of different formats, e.g. like a sectional chart, like an IFR enroute chart (or even split screen for the GMX200), and overlay traffic, radar, NEXRAD, terrain, etc.

[kwmoore]

Originally Posted by nworth

Kevin,

I thought that, with all your involvement with the Cirrus folks, that you would end up with the wrong plane.... Glad to see you have come to your senses.

"Father, I know there's still good in you. I can sense it..."

I do like the Cirrus--it's a great transportation tool and passengers love it for its comfort and visibility, and of course the parachute. I can still rent one when the spirit moves. But for versatility, safety, and pure joy of flying, I never wavered from the 260se.

Good points about thinking through in advance when you will pull the red handle. This subject has been discussed extensively on the COPA forum. A number of members have tried the Cirrus simulators and gone through emergency drills in them. They uniformly reported that, as they became fixated on (a) the emergency situation(s) and (b) trying to regain control of the plane, the thought of activating the BRS (CAPS) did not even occur to them until it was too late. And these guys were experienced Cirrus pilots! No doubt, one needs to think through a plan in advance to the point where it's almost automatic, an "SOP."

I will also prepare a "passenger emergency procedures" card for Senior Management et al. with pictures and instructions on how to call for help, activate and fly the autopilot, squawk 7700, and yes, activate the BRS.

Question for the group: If you were going to teach a non-pilot how to land the 260se safely, what configuration would you recommend? I was thinking 20 flaps, 16" mp, trim for 60 KIAS. This should be safe even in inadvertent steep turns. Then control all altitude changes with throttle only. Get ATC to vector you to a long, wide runway, and everything should turn out OK, eh?

Originally Posted by kwmoore

I don't know if the 496 can be made to display Skywatch or RYAN TCAD traffic data. Norm?

Negative on displaying the Ryan or Skywatch output on the 496. It can display on the 530/430, an MFD or its own display head. For me this was the justification for a couple extra AUs in getting the second 430. It's part of my before takeoff checklist to put the #2 430 on page 3 of Nav to display targets.

My setup also includes the Sandel HSI which displays, as a rule, the Stormscope (a *REALLY* important instrument here in Thunderstorm Central).

My default setup is #1 430 on page 2 of Nav (the little moving map page), #2 430 on Traffic, Sandel with Stormscope, weather on the 396 on the yoke. The Avidyne shows all three but frankly does it more poorly than any of these separates. I really like this setup and, as I wrote above, find the Avidyne EX500 superfluous and not really useful.

Kevin may find that, flying mainly in California, that TIS works well for him. Also, if you mainly or only fly IFR, it presumably is less necessary.

The active TCAS systems from Ryan or Skywatch are active transponder interrogators. They literally send out a request to all aircraft with switched on Mode C or better transponders to respond. From this, the device can tell who is flying and can calculate closure rates and liklihood of collision. It's realtime and not dependent on a ground link as is TIS. The Ryan system is really good in that it announces imminent risk verbally so you do not need to look at the panel at exactly the moment you need to be looking out of the window. I can't exactly say the Ryan system has saved me but it has alerted me to nearby aircraft that I probably would not have detected absent the alert. I like it a lot.

[kwmoore]

Originally Posted by nworth

Kevin may find that, flying mainly in California, that TIS works well for him.

This was my experience flying 812KT. Coverage was great from north of Sacramento over to the coast, all the way down to Salinas. Most of the Central Valley from Sacramento to Bakersfield had it too. Southbound coverage resumed near Santa Barbara and was solid all the way to San Diego. Thus in the most busy airspace I had service and IMHO the GTX330 was worthwhile for the flying I do. Compared to Skywatch or Ryan TCAD available at the time, I figure I got 75% of the utility for about 1/4 the price.

Of course Ryan's TAS-600 is cheaper now, and I will ask the avionics folks about the price differential between the GTX330 and the GTX327/TAS-600. My notion had been to use the GTX330 until (if?) ADS-B becomes available out here.

I will likely put in a back-up electric AI and will strongly consider the new seatbelts, at least in the front.

Originally Posted by kwmoore

I ... will strongly consider the new seatbelts, at least in the front.

Go here: http://www.basinc-aeromod.com/

and click on the photo to seem some really spectacular crashes in which the occupants walked away. Gotta get those seat belts.

Also, little know fact: The BRS STC requires shoulder belts (3 point) in the rear seats so you will have to get those at least. Might as well get the matched set and go for the inertial reels up front.

Those pics are tremendous.
Thanks!
And KW, thanks for getting me on here.