Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:20 AM - Re: Re: EAB IFR Certification (Stuart Hutchison)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EAB IFR Certification |
For those that are interested =85 last year I wrote a 35-page IFR safety
case to CASA (in Australia) on behalf of the Sport Aircraft Association
of Australia (SAAA) to justify ongoing AB(E) IFR approvals.
Similar situation here =85 IFR is not precluded, but the rules are
sketchy/contradictory in places and some LAMEs claim amateur IFR build /
maint may lead to a breakdown in flight separation.
CASA=92s project summary is described here:
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101318
Our safety case is publicly available =85 linked toward the bottom of
the SAAA home page =85 =93IFR Safety Case=94 at: www.saaa.com.au
Cheers, Stu
F1 Rocket VH-FLY www.mykitlog.com/rockfly
On 30 Oct 2014, at 2:53 am, Stein Bruch <stein@steinair.com> wrote:
> Spot on comments for the US, but for Canada not so much=85as those
requirements are wholly different for IFR then ours in the US are. I=92m
still not sure if folks are specifically discussing US or Canada rules,
but I do know that some of it is getting intermingled here ' which
will only lead to the possibility of additional confusion. Perhaps this
should be split into =93US rules=94 and =93Canada rules=94=85.because
they are quite different.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stein
> Do not archive
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Owen
Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Don Johnston; aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: EAB IFR Certification
>
> 10/29/2014
>
> Hello Don, You wrote:
>
> 1) =93There's a lot of ignorance, mis-information and just downright
stupidity out there.=94
>
> Amen to that.
>
> 2) =93I spoke to my avionics guy and he said that any non-TSO'd
equipment would require separate certification to fly IFR.=94
>
> I=92ll be kind and put that requirement initially into the
=93mis-information=94 category. If he insists, then it may have to be
placed over into the =93downright stupidity=94 category.
>
> 3) =93But he didn't know how to obtain that certification.=94
>
> That would be because there is no such requirement and no way to do
so.
>
> 4) =93I ran across this article from the EAA.....=94
>
> I have no significant issue with the article. I wish that they had
used the word =93allowed=94 instead of =93approved=94 in the following
sentence: =93In order for the aircraft to be approved for IFR
operations,....=94 because the word =93approved=94 connotes some sort of
specific positive action or approval document to be provided by the FAA
and that is not what will happen.**
>
> 5) =93A friend that used Aerotronics for his panel build was told him
he needed a VOR head to fly IFR even though he's got a GRT display that
shows the CDI.=94
>
> My reaction when someone =93tells=94 me thus and so is to ask for the
specific regulation or requirement that makes it so. It is astounding,
as you alluded to, at the amount of hearsay, rumor, and gossip that is
available on this subject. If what I am told can not be substantiated by
documentation then it falls into one of those three categories.
>
> 6) =93I spoke with the factory of my kit and they said that because
it's such a gray area that they only install certified avionics (Garmin
G3X seems to be the one they use).=94
>
> Fine with me. They are certainly within their right to install what
they wish into the instrument panel and airplane that they are providing
to a kit purchasing customer. I am not sure what they mean by =93certified
avionics=94 though. Do they mean TSO=92d avionics? If so I am further
puzzled (amused?) by the fact that the Garmin G3X is not TSO=92d. See
here:
>
>
https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/aviation/sport-aviation/g3x-/prod63892.htm
l
>
> 7) =93I'm going to be pretty annoyed if when I'm done building I get a
"VFR only" sticker.=94
>
> I don=92t see that happening. Instead you should get this statement in
your Operating Limitations: =93=93After completion of phase I flight
testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument
flight in accordance with =A7 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated
under VFR, day only.=94 and the subsequent compliance is up to you.**
>
> 8) =93So whenever I run across anything that has to do with IFR in an
experimental aircraft, I try and get as much information as I can.=94
>
> Good for you, I wish more of the EAB aircraft builders and pilots had
that approach to this subject.
>
> 9) =93BTW, where are you located and what are you building/flying?=94
>
> I am located in Fairfax, VA and I have been flying my KIS TR-1 out of
KHEF (Manassas Regional Airport) since 2003 after six and one half years
of building. I am an ancient person and former military pilot with more
hours, aircraft types, education, and ratings than my poor old body can
support.
>
> OC
>
> **PS: For the most part the FARs are written in the =93forbidding
mode=94. They tell you what you can not do (legally) with words such as
=93 no person may.... unless=94. So if something is not forbidden by the
regulations then it should be permitted. Note that FAR Section 91.13
specifically forbids =93careless and reckless=94 (stupid?) operations.
>
> ===============
>
> From: Don Johnston
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:53 AM
> To: Owen Baker
> Subject: Re: EAB IFR Certification
>
> Owen,
>
> Thanks for the email!
>
> I've got to say that I'm totally baffled by this. There's a lot of
ignorance, mis-information and just downright stupidity out there.
>
> I ran across this article from the EAA and figured that I would be
okay. It's a little vague but I thought that it was pretty clear.
>
> I spoke to my avionics guy and he said that any non-TSO'd equipment
would require separate certification to fly IFR. But he didn't know how
to obtain that certification.
>
> A friend that used Aerotronics for his panel build was told him he
needed a VOR head to fly IFR even though he's got a GRT display that
shows the CDI.
>
> I spoke with the factory of my kit and they said that because it's
such a gray area that they only install certified avionics (Garmin G3X
seems to be the one they use).
>
> I'm going to be pretty annoyed if when I'm done building I get a "VFR
only" sticker.
>
> So whenever I run across anything that has to do with IFR in an
experimental aircraft, I try and get as much information as I can.
>
> BTW, where are you located and what are you building/flying?
>
> Thanks,
> -Don
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|