Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Thu Dec 13, 2001 12:48 pm PST Link
Thanks to Tom Emery, Instuctor of the sport air workshops, I found
the info below (along with a lot of other really good info) at the
following URL:
http://www.edt.com/homewing/faq.html
Robert
******************************************************************
Is it legal to fly IFR in an RV? What are the equipment requirements?
In the US, IFR is essentially no different in a homebuilt than in a
production plane. You do need to have the required minimum equipment,
as outlined in FAR 91.205, and have performed the required pitot-
static and VOR checks (FAR 91.171).
Contrary to popular myth, your instruments and NAV/COMs don't have to
have TSO approval in order to be used for IFR in either homebuilts or
production planes in the US. Yes, the FAA has started to crack down
and require TSO approval on retro-fit radios, but if it's on the
original equipment list, the FAA shouldn't have a problem with it
(just go down the flight line and look at all those Cessnas and
Pipers with their original equipment non-TSOd King KX-170As and Bs.)
As the manufacturer, Cessna and Piper approved those radios for use
in their IFR equipped aircraft, and YOU are the manufacturer of your
RV...!
ELT and Transponder must meet TSO specs however. Ref. FAR parts
91.205, 91.207, 91.215.
Some people have reported that an FAA inspector or DAR told them IFR
is not legal in homebuilts, or that you need TSO'd NAV/COMs, or that
the radios or other equipment must be installed by an approved shop,
etc, etc. If he says this, you should probably just smile and nod and
not argue -- but be sure to check the operating limitations. These
are generally all written from the same template, and the language
goes like this:
2. This aircraft is approved for day VFR only, unless equipped for
night VFR and/or IFR, in accordance with FAR Section 91.205.
What this means is that if the plane is EQUIPPED for IFR (and/or
night), it's LEGAL for IFR (and/or night). No specific "IFR
certification" exists or is needed. Furthermore, if your plane is not
now so equipped, but you add the required instruments later, you do
not need any further approval. (One caveat: any change is potentally
a "major alteration", so if you want to play it safe you should check
with your FSDO to find out if they want you to reopen a flight test
period. Usually this isn't a big deal, and amounts to something like
a 5 hour supplemental "test" period and logbook signoff by you.)
Assuming you have the required gyros, transponder, etc., do you need
dual NAV/COMs/GS/DME? The fact is you can be legal for IFR without a
full King silver-crown radio stack. The regs just say "Two-way radio
communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the
ground facilities to be used." So if you were to stick to VOR airways
and VOR only approaches, you could technically be legal doing enroute
and approaches with a single NAV/COM. Granted this would be the
extreme, and in practice it's probably a bad idea to fly IFR with
only a single NAV radio (plus your options would be very limited).
But the point is that there's no rule that specifically calls out
which specific radios and how many you need to be legal for IFR.
There are exceptions to the above. The standard operating limitations
have changed over the years, and will probably change again in the
future, And there are some inspectors who regularly add their own
limitations to the standard ones. So it is possible to have specific
restrictions wind up there. So if you're contemplating going IFR or
Night, you might want to ask your inspector how he handles the
limitations for such things beforehand, so as to avoid any surprises.
Author: "dljinia" <dljinia@...> Time: Fri Dec 14, 2001 6:36 am PST Link
Robert,
This is interesting. I called the FSDO in Des Moines, Iowa
yesterday (before reading your post) to ask them the TSO'd question.
The avionics expert wasn't in but the individual that I did talk to
stated that he believed the instruments had to be TSO'd. The
avionics guy is supposed to call me in the next couple of days.
Interesting thought, if you don't have to use TSO's instruments as
the basic 6, and keeping in the thought process of "certified by the
manufacturer", What keeps you from using a non-industry certified
hand held GPS for approaches (besides maybe common sense)? Is this
logic consistent with the "approved my the manufacturer of the plane"
discussion below? (just fyi, I don't have intentions of shooting an
approach with a hand held to minimums even if it's legal)
Doug
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "robert_paisley" <robert@p...> wrote:
> Thanks to Tom Emery, Instuctor of the sport air workshops, I found
> the info below (along with a lot of other really good info) at the
> following URL:
> http://www.edt.com/homewing/faq.html
> Robert
> ******************************************************************
>
> Is it legal to fly IFR in an RV? What are the equipment
requirements?
> In the US, IFR is essentially no different in a homebuilt than in a
> production plane. You do need to have the required minimum
equipment,
> as outlined in FAR 91.205, and have performed the required pitot-
> static and VOR checks (FAR 91.171).
>
> Contrary to popular myth, your instruments and NAV/COMs don't have
to
> have TSO approval in order to be used for IFR in either homebuilts
or
> production planes in the US. Yes, the FAA has started to crack down
> and require TSO approval on retro-fit radios, but if it's on the
> original equipment list, the FAA shouldn't have a problem with it
> (just go down the flight line and look at all those Cessnas and
> Pipers with their original equipment non-TSOd King KX-170As and
Bs.)
> As the manufacturer, Cessna and Piper approved those radios for use
> in their IFR equipped aircraft, and YOU are the manufacturer of
your
> RV...!
>
> ELT and Transponder must meet TSO specs however. Ref. FAR parts
> 91.205, 91.207, 91.215.
>
> Some people have reported that an FAA inspector or DAR told them
IFR
> is not legal in homebuilts, or that you need TSO'd NAV/COMs, or
that
> the radios or other equipment must be installed by an approved
shop,
> etc, etc. If he says this, you should probably just smile and nod
and
> not argue -- but be sure to check the operating limitations. These
> are generally all written from the same template, and the language
> goes like this:
>
> 2. This aircraft is approved for day VFR only, unless equipped for
> night VFR and/or IFR, in accordance with FAR Section 91.205.
> What this means is that if the plane is EQUIPPED for IFR (and/or
> night), it's LEGAL for IFR (and/or night). No specific "IFR
> certification" exists or is needed. Furthermore, if your plane is
not
> now so equipped, but you add the required instruments later, you do
> not need any further approval. (One caveat: any change is
potentally
> a "major alteration", so if you want to play it safe you should
check
> with your FSDO to find out if they want you to reopen a flight test
> period. Usually this isn't a big deal, and amounts to something
like
> a 5 hour supplemental "test" period and logbook signoff by you.)
> Assuming you have the required gyros, transponder, etc., do you
need
> dual NAV/COMs/GS/DME? The fact is you can be legal for IFR without
a
> full King silver-crown radio stack. The regs just say "Two-way
radio
> communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the
> ground facilities to be used." So if you were to stick to VOR
airways
> and VOR only approaches, you could technically be legal doing
enroute
> and approaches with a single NAV/COM. Granted this would be the
> extreme, and in practice it's probably a bad idea to fly IFR with
> only a single NAV radio (plus your options would be very limited).
> But the point is that there's no rule that specifically calls out
> which specific radios and how many you need to be legal for IFR.
>
> There are exceptions to the above. The standard operating
limitations
> have changed over the years, and will probably change again in the
> future, And there are some inspectors who regularly add their own
> limitations to the standard ones. So it is possible to have
specific
> restrictions wind up there. So if you're contemplating going IFR or
> Night, you might want to ask your inspector how he handles the
> limitations for such things beforehand, so as to avoid any
surprises.
Author: "edge_tyrant" <mark.hodson@...> Time: Fri Dec 14, 2001 7:27 am PST Link
Authorized GPS operation under IFR has many requirements. Check out
your AIM (1-1-21 (starting at paragraph "e"))for a very good
explanation. Hand-held units are not authorized for IFR navigation.
See TSO C-129 & AC 20-138 for complete information. You can access
all of these at aopa.org if you don't have a hard copy.
Regards,
Mark
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "dljinia" <dljinia@y...> wrote:
> Robert,
> This is interesting. I called the FSDO in Des Moines, Iowa
> yesterday (before reading your post) to ask them the TSO'd question.
> The avionics expert wasn't in but the individual that I did talk to
> stated that he believed the instruments had to be TSO'd. The
> avionics guy is supposed to call me in the next couple of days.
>
> Interesting thought, if you don't have to use TSO's instruments as
> the basic 6, and keeping in the thought process of "certified by the
> manufacturer", What keeps you from using a non-industry certified
> hand held GPS for approaches (besides maybe common sense)? Is this
> logic consistent with the "approved my the manufacturer of the
plane"
> discussion below? (just fyi, I don't have intentions of shooting an
> approach with a hand held to minimums even if it's legal)
>
> Doug
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "robert_paisley" <robert@p...> wrote:
> > Thanks to Tom Emery, Instuctor of the sport air workshops, I found
> > the info below (along with a lot of other really good info) at the
> > following URL:
> > http://www.edt.com/homewing/faq.html
> > Robert
> > ******************************************************************
> >
> > Is it legal to fly IFR in an RV? What are the equipment
> requirements?
> > In the US, IFR is essentially no different in a homebuilt than in
a
> > production plane. You do need to have the required minimum
> equipment,
> > as outlined in FAR 91.205, and have performed the required pitot-
> > static and VOR checks (FAR 91.171).
> >
> > Contrary to popular myth, your instruments and NAV/COMs don't have
> to
> > have TSO approval in order to be used for IFR in either homebuilts
> or
> > production planes in the US. Yes, the FAA has started to crack
down
> > and require TSO approval on retro-fit radios, but if it's on the
> > original equipment list, the FAA shouldn't have a problem with it
> > (just go down the flight line and look at all those Cessnas and
> > Pipers with their original equipment non-TSOd King KX-170As and
> Bs.)
> > As the manufacturer, Cessna and Piper approved those radios for
use
> > in their IFR equipped aircraft, and YOU are the manufacturer of
> your
> > RV...!
> >
> > ELT and Transponder must meet TSO specs however. Ref. FAR parts
> > 91.205, 91.207, 91.215.
> >
> > Some people have reported that an FAA inspector or DAR told them
> IFR
> > is not legal in homebuilts, or that you need TSO'd NAV/COMs, or
> that
> > the radios or other equipment must be installed by an approved
> shop,
> > etc, etc. If he says this, you should probably just smile and nod
> and
> > not argue -- but be sure to check the operating limitations. These
> > are generally all written from the same template, and the language
> > goes like this:
> >
> > 2. This aircraft is approved for day VFR only, unless equipped for
> > night VFR and/or IFR, in accordance with FAR Section 91.205.
> > What this means is that if the plane is EQUIPPED for IFR (and/or
> > night), it's LEGAL for IFR (and/or night). No specific "IFR
> > certification" exists or is needed. Furthermore, if your plane is
> not
> > now so equipped, but you add the required instruments later, you
do
> > not need any further approval. (One caveat: any change is
> potentally
> > a "major alteration", so if you want to play it safe you should
> check
> > with your FSDO to find out if they want you to reopen a flight
test
> > period. Usually this isn't a big deal, and amounts to something
> like
> > a 5 hour supplemental "test" period and logbook signoff by you.)
> > Assuming you have the required gyros, transponder, etc., do you
> need
> > dual NAV/COMs/GS/DME? The fact is you can be legal for IFR without
> a
> > full King silver-crown radio stack. The regs just say "Two-way
> radio
> > communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to
the
> > ground facilities to be used." So if you were to stick to VOR
> airways
> > and VOR only approaches, you could technically be legal doing
> enroute
> > and approaches with a single NAV/COM. Granted this would be the
> > extreme, and in practice it's probably a bad idea to fly IFR with
> > only a single NAV radio (plus your options would be very limited).
> > But the point is that there's no rule that specifically calls out
> > which specific radios and how many you need to be legal for IFR.
> >
> > There are exceptions to the above. The standard operating
> limitations
> > have changed over the years, and will probably change again in the
> > future, And there are some inspectors who regularly add their own
> > limitations to the standard ones. So it is possible to have
> specific
> > restrictions wind up there. So if you're contemplating going IFR
or
> > Night, you might want to ask your inspector how he handles the
> > limitations for such things beforehand, so as to avoid any
> surprises.
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Fri Dec 14, 2001 9:04 am PST Link
The GPS definitely has to be IFR certified.
Robert
> Interesting thought, if you don't have to use TSO's instruments as
> the basic 6, and keeping in the thought process of "certified by
the
> manufacturer", What keeps you from using a non-industry certified
> hand held GPS for approaches (besides maybe common sense)? Is this
> logic consistent with the "approved my the manufacturer of the
plane"
> discussion below? (just fyi, I don't have intentions of shooting
an
> approach with a hand held to minimums even if it's legal)
>
> Doug
Author: "LT Chris Hayle" <dchayle@...> Time: Fri Dec 14, 2001 11:51 am PST Link
Handheld's are not certified for approaches, just for VFR navigation, the
logic being that they don't want you fumbling around in the cockpit during
the approach after you dropped it under the seat. Even IFR enroute panel
mounted units have to be approach certified.
-Chris Hayle
-----Original Message-----
From: robert_paisley [mailto:robert@p...]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:04 PM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: IFR in RVs
The GPS definitely has to be IFR certified.
Robert
> Interesting thought, if you don't have to use TSO's instruments as
> the basic 6, and keeping in the thought process of "certified by
the
> manufacturer", What keeps you from using a non-industry certified
> hand held GPS for approaches (besides maybe common sense)? Is this
> logic consistent with the "approved my the manufacturer of the
plane"
> discussion below? (just fyi, I don't have intentions of shooting
an
> approach with a hand held to minimums even if it's legal)
>
> Doug
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "dljinia" <dljinia@...> Time: Fri Dec 14, 2001 12:57 pm PST Link
Guys,
I think you're missing the point of my earlier post. (Isn't
electronic communication wonderful. I seem inept at communicating my
true meaning.) I understand that hand helds GPS's are not
certifiable for IFR approaches and I even agree. I've shot a couple
of approaches to minimum's and didn't exactly like it even with a
cockpit full of certified nav's agreeing on where I was and where the
ground was.
I'm not dis-agreeing with the statement about non-TSO'd instruments
being legal (because I don't know), it just seems that hand-held
GPS's in experimental's follow the same logic as being able to use
non-TSO's nav's. If I can put a non production certified nav and call
it "certified by the plane manufacturer" for IFR; why can't I stretch
the logic and do the same for GPS's, solid state nav's, etc.
That's probably the root of my problem. Trying to apply logic to
what is approved and what is not.
BTW.. thanks for all the great info and links to further info.
Doug
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "LT Chris Hayle" <dchayle@h...> wrote:
> Handheld's are not certified for approaches, just for VFR
navigation, the
> logic being that they don't want you fumbling around in the cockpit
during
> the approach after you dropped it under the seat. Even IFR enroute
panel
> mounted units have to be approach certified.
> -Chris Hayle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_paisley [mailto:robert@p...]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:04 PM
> To: RV7and7A@y...
> Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: IFR in RVs
> The GPS definitely has to be IFR certified.
> Robert
>
> > Interesting thought, if you don't have to use TSO's instruments
as
> > the basic 6, and keeping in the thought process of "certified by
> the
> > manufacturer", What keeps you from using a non-industry
certified
> > hand held GPS for approaches (besides maybe common sense)? Is
this
> > logic consistent with the "approved my the manufacturer of the
> plane"
> > discussion below? (just fyi, I don't have intentions of
shooting
> an
> > approach with a hand held to minimums even if it's legal)
> >
> > Doug
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Fri Dec 14, 2001 1:32 pm PST Link
I don't think the "you can certify it as manufacturer of the plane"
aspect applies to the GPS. GPS units are very explicitely labeled as
IFR usable or VFR only. In this case, it's the GPS manufacturer that
is doing the "certifying". This has more to do with the features of
the GPS than anything.
Robert
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "dljinia" <dljinia@y...> wrote:
> Guys,
> I think you're missing the point of my earlier post. (Isn't
> electronic communication wonderful. I seem inept at communicating
my
> true meaning.) I understand that hand helds GPS's are not
> certifiable for IFR approaches and I even agree. I've shot a
couple
> of approaches to minimum's and didn't exactly like it even with a
> cockpit full of certified nav's agreeing on where I was and where
the
> ground was.
>
> I'm not dis-agreeing with the statement about non-TSO'd instruments
> being legal (because I don't know), it just seems that hand-held
> GPS's in experimental's follow the same logic as being able to use
> non-TSO's nav's. If I can put a non production certified nav and
call
> it "certified by the plane manufacturer" for IFR; why can't I
stretch
> the logic and do the same for GPS's, solid state nav's, etc.
>
> That's probably the root of my problem. Trying to apply logic to
> what is approved and what is not.
>
> BTW.. thanks for all the great info and links to further info.
>
> Doug
>
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "LT Chris Hayle" <dchayle@h...> wrote:
> > Handheld's are not certified for approaches, just for VFR
> navigation, the
> > logic being that they don't want you fumbling around in the
cockpit
> during
> > the approach after you dropped it under the seat. Even IFR
enroute
> panel
> > mounted units have to be approach certified.
> > -Chris Hayle
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: robert_paisley [mailto:robert@p...]
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:04 PM
> > To: RV7and7A@y...
> > Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: IFR in RVs
> > The GPS definitely has to be IFR certified.
> > Robert
> >
> > > Interesting thought, if you don't have to use TSO's
instruments
> as
> > > the basic 6, and keeping in the thought process of "certified
by
> > the
> > > manufacturer", What keeps you from using a non-industry
> certified
> > > hand held GPS for approaches (besides maybe common sense)?
Is
> this
> > > logic consistent with the "approved my the manufacturer of the
> > plane"
> > > discussion below? (just fyi, I don't have intentions of
> shooting
> > an
> > > approach with a hand held to minimums even if it's legal)
> > >
> > > Doug
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> > Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> > www.vansaircraft.net
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "Kevin Haslebacher" <khaslebacher@...> Time: Fri Dec 14, 2001 1:57 pm PST Link
Robert is correct on this, and in addition I believe the regs state that the
installation also has to be approved for IFR certification of the unit.
Therefore, I believe there are two requirements:
Unit is built as IFR certifiable - meaning you can fly approaches with it
(the approach mode has much greater definition than the enroute mode. Not
all GPS units can do that).
and
Installed and certified for IFR use.
I am not sure of the conditions for a certified installation, and that
probably should be defined. My "guess" is that you can install it yourself
with the oversight and sign-off of an approved avionics installer.
Just my $0.02 on it.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: robert_paisley [mailto:robert@p...]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:33 PM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: IFR in RVs
I don't think the "you can certify it as manufacturer of the plane"
aspect applies to the GPS. GPS units are very explicitely labeled as
IFR usable or VFR only. In this case, it's the GPS manufacturer that
is doing the "certifying". This has more to do with the features of
the GPS than anything.
Robert
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "dljinia" <dljinia@y...> wrote:
> Guys,
> I think you're missing the point of my earlier post. (Isn't
> electronic communication wonderful. I seem inept at communicating
my
> true meaning.) I understand that hand helds GPS's are not
> certifiable for IFR approaches and I even agree. I've shot a
couple
> of approaches to minimum's and didn't exactly like it even with a
> cockpit full of certified nav's agreeing on where I was and where
the
> ground was.
>
> I'm not dis-agreeing with the statement about non-TSO'd instruments
> being legal (because I don't know), it just seems that hand-held
> GPS's in experimental's follow the same logic as being able to use
> non-TSO's nav's. If I can put a non production certified nav and
call
> it "certified by the plane manufacturer" for IFR; why can't I
stretch
> the logic and do the same for GPS's, solid state nav's, etc.
>
> That's probably the root of my problem. Trying to apply logic to
> what is approved and what is not.
>
> BTW.. thanks for all the great info and links to further info.
>
> Doug
>
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "LT Chris Hayle" <dchayle@h...> wrote:
> > Handheld's are not certified for approaches, just for VFR
> navigation, the
> > logic being that they don't want you fumbling around in the
cockpit
> during
> > the approach after you dropped it under the seat. Even IFR
enroute
> panel
> > mounted units have to be approach certified.
> > -Chris Hayle
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: robert_paisley [mailto:robert@p...]
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:04 PM
> > To: RV7and7A@y...
> > Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: IFR in RVs
> > The GPS definitely has to be IFR certified.
> > Robert
> >
> > > Interesting thought, if you don't have to use TSO's
instruments
> as
> > > the basic 6, and keeping in the thought process of "certified
by
> > the
> > > manufacturer", What keeps you from using a non-industry
> certified
> > > hand held GPS for approaches (besides maybe common sense)?
Is
> this
> > > logic consistent with the "approved my the manufacturer of the
> > plane"
> > > discussion below? (just fyi, I don't have intentions of
> shooting
> > an
> > > approach with a hand held to minimums even if it's legal)
> > >
> > > Doug
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> > Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> > www.vansaircraft.net
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/