Jump to content

Experimental Avionics in Certified Planes


Recommended Posts

currently, you can install any non certified avionics package you want in your aircraft, as long as all of your primary instrumentation is certified. hopefully in the near future the change to part 23 will allow the non tso'd avionics to be used as primary with the proper certificate change and log book documentation. you could also go the route of trying to get a field approval for the non tso'd equipment, but the in the past FAA has pretty much said the will not approve any.

the link listed above has part 23 recommendations that make a lot of sense for general aviation, unfortunately they are not the ones doing the rewrite to part 23, and the bill that was passed gave broad interpretation on what is required other then stream lining part 23 certification of aircraft, so who knows what we will end up with.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was specifically thinking about the numerous autopilots that are 1/3 the price of the Stec.  Not to bash Stec but 14K for a pretty basic autopilot seems a bit excessive....

 

What is even more disturbing about the certified systems have been the price increases. In 1998 my STEC 60-2 with autotrim cost $11k to install. It is over double that now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

currently, you can install any non certified avionics package you want in your aircraft, as long as all of your primary instrumentation is certified. SNIP.........

 

Is there a source for this? I was told the FAA will not approve anything that is not certified. 

i.e. the reason you must use a dock to mount your portable GPS........ the GPS is not installed in the plane the dock is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to install the Garmin G3X system with autopilot, 8K for the system plus installation would be well worth it for my plane, 40K+ for the same capabilities with certified equipment is just insane.

I can't imagine how you would get an non-certified autopilot that is connected to the flight controls signed off in a certified aircraft.

It is nearly impossible to get a used certified autopilot approved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I was understanding was that with the new Part 23 you could be able to put non certified parts in certified planes.....something about if the aircraft is old and for personal use only.....my fingers are crossed.....but not holding my breath. 

 

What you are quoting Erik is the Part 23 proposal that is going through the review process today. Like the revised driver license medical, it may or may not become a reality. What is reality is that there are a number of guys flying around in experimental airplanes in the system designed for certified airplanes using non-certified avionics. Now if that is not an oxymoron, I am not sure what it.

 

(28)

 

The pilot in command of this aircraft shall notify air traffic control of the

experimental nature of this aircraft when operating into or out of airports with an operational

control tower. When filing IFR, the experimental nature of this aircraft shall be listed in the

remarks section of the flight plan.

 

Instrument Flight

Like all aircraft, an amateur-built experimental aircraft must be properly equipped before it can be operated under IFR rules [91.205]. This is confirmed in FAA Order 8130.2D Chg 1, para 134, which states that: "(7) [During "Phase 1" Flight Test Period] the aircraft is to be operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), day only. (8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with § 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. ...(28) The pilot in command of this aircraft shall notify air traffic control of the experimental nature of this aircraft when operating into or out of airports with an operational control tower. When filing IFR, the experimental nature of this aircraft shall be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan."

 

 

Wonder how many of the experimental guys are actually following 91.205 and requirements for IFR?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a source for this? I was told the FAA will not approve anything that is not certified. 

i.e. the reason you must use a dock to mount your portable GPS........ the GPS is not installed in the plane the dock is.

sorry should have been a little clearer on that statement, you do have to do a 337 for the change, and your local FSDO can decide that they will not approve the installation, there is also a blurb in the FAA AC23-1311-1B  Limiting the equipment that is able to be installed as situational awareness only, that is where the Portable GPS falls in. unfortunately all this is subject to interpretation by the local FSDO's that is why certain items are allowed to be installed in one area while right next door the local FSDO says it is not allowed to be installed. with the 337's going right to OK, you may be able to slip some installations by, but if you get ramp checked they may want you to remove it prior to returning the aircraft to an airworthy condition... I have heard of this happening when being ramp checked on a cross country because of different interpretations of the FARS. they are more lenient on SA type instruments for engine monitoring then they are for navigation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine how you would get an non-certified autopilot that is connected to the flight controls signed off in a certified aircraft.

It is nearly impossible to get a used certified autopilot approved.

I know, the only chance is if the EAA's recommended changes are incorporated in the part 23 rewrite. As for the certified used autopilot, their cost plus installation and any STC fees usually end up making it worth just installing new. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

91.205 (a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs ©(3) and (e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate 

 

I am surprised the Experimental/Amateur-Built can get away with using this to legally fly IFR.  First off, it specifically limits the section to certified aircraft. That alone would disqualify Experimental/Amateur-Built. 

Second, the equipment listed would have to meet the TSO standard and be certified by nature of the limitation imposed by the first paragraph (a)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

91.205 (a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs ©(3) and (e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate 

 

I am surprised the Experimental/Amateur-Built can get away with using this to legally fly IFR.  First off, it specifically limits the section to certified aircraft. That alone would disqualify Experimental/Amateur-Built. 

Second, the equipment listed would have to meet the TSO standard and be certified by nature of the limitation imposed by the first paragraph (a)

and we wonder why it take so long to get anything done thru the FAA with all the contradictions and interpretations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my experimental these are written into the operation limitations.  My operation limits says it is approved for VFR day, unless otherwise equip. Some operation limitations mention 91.205. It depends what the DAR writes for operation limits when he issues the airworthiness certificate.   There is no requirement for the equipment to be manufactured under a TSO.

 

http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%20for%20IFR%20operations.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder how many of the experimental guys are actually following 91.205 and requirements for IFR?

The vast majority, I think.  The requirements in 91.205 are not that strict, and it would be silly to try to fly IFR without them anyway.

 

As for the use of 91.205 to apply to experimental aircraft.  The operating limitiations just say to use the equipment list specified by 91.205.  They don't make the experimental aircraft certified otherwise.  And 91.205 just says that it applies to certain types of aircraft, nothing excludes other types of aircraft.

 

The equipment doesn't have to be TSO'd because the TSO requirements are in part 23, not part 91.  In fact, there are glass panel kits available for experimental aircraft that cost less than a used set of certified steam gauges,

 

And the price of autopilots is totally insane.  Even by aviation standards.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

1st apologize for reviving an old topic. But I'm still not sure I truly understand all this. Coming back to certified world after experimental for a bit. 

Why do I have to buy certified/STC/TSOed equipment if it is not replacing primary equipment?

for example if I buy an EDM 830 I'm not allowed to remove my rpm map or cht gauge. 

If I buy an Aspen EFD for $10,000 I still have to keep my 6 pack.

So what is keeping me from installing a Dynon Skyview system and keeping my 6 pack and instrument gauges as the "primary"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you buy the Aspen EFD, it replaces the AI and DG/HSI, you just have to keep the AI as backup. Buy the dual Aspen, it can go away, the second Aspen is backup to the first.

What's keeping you from "installing" a Dynon is the FAA. Big difference between "installing" something and "mounting" it for removal without using tools.  :lol:  The first is heavily regulated by aircraft make & model, equipment manufacturer, equipment type and STC process (and enforced), the second is much simpler, faster and less expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mccdeuce said:

1st apologize for reviving an old topic. But I'm still not sure I truly understand all this. Coming back to certified world after experimental for a bit. 

Why do I have to buy certified/STC/TSOed equipment if it is not replacing primary equipment?

for example if I buy an EDM 830 I'm not allowed to remove my rpm map or cht gauge. 

If I buy an Aspen EFD for $10,000 I still have to keep my 6 pack.

So what is keeping me from installing a Dynon Skyview system and keeping my 6 pack and instrument gauges as the "primary"

It is interesting that with the single Aspen you are required to keep a backup attitude indicator. Install at an experimental Dynon in place of your attitude indicator and you don't need a backup.

Long ago before JPI came up with their large EDM series instruments, I worked on a Bonanza with a Micro VM 1000 system.  It was placarded "for reference only, refer to original gauges"

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FAA is getting so modern.  They started in the Stone Age. They make headway slowly. They have a long way to go...

Having an outdated chart on board used to be against the regulations.

Installing additional hardware was assumed to be a hazard to the installed equipment.

We are seeing lower cost things like back-up equipment that can be attached to the primary pitot static system and to the ship's electrical system as well.

Digital devices are now the preferred systems for their additional proven strengths and reliability.

The certification process is also better known and testing and documentation is nearly as complex as it used to be...

The competition with iPads is pretty helpful.  You can bring your cockpit home with you... sort of. :)

The digital age is coming of age.

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

I was thinking of having a dynon D2 on velcro ready to be put over the AI in case the pump or whatever drives it (still a mystery in AL) fais, i then have an instant backup.   EASA will probably scream blue murder but my life is worth more thsn their paperwork.  As it is a temporary install and does not replace the primary except in case of failure i think i have a good legal viewpoint.

As for Aspen, hmm well over here, we can cover the whole panel in Aspen but we still have to have the ASI, altimeter.  On the aspen we have to have the predictive tapes turned off as well. (Thats only for airline pilots obviously).   I feel it is a bit ridiculous that Jim in his office in the FAA or Juan in the EASA are making regulations about things that will improve safety but are limiting the abilities of the devices and thus putting the safety of the Pilots at risk.   

I personally feel that what the FAA et al should do is say "ok you can have this device and install it, but you MUST attend this 3 day or whatever length course so you know EXACTLY how to use it and have been signed off as competent for it.  After all that is what happens with the IR and PPL we are taught how to use whats in the plane ans demonstrate we know how to use them in the test. 

As for experimental v part 23 ........balderdash.   If i fly an Epic or Lancair i can fill it with all sorts of garmin gizmos and it is like an airliner.  I will be that it will be flown hard IFR and all the equipment is non tso, so why cant this be allowed in Part 23,  its daft.  

If you were to lose your vacuum pump or your attitude indicator you should cover the AI to prevent confusion.  If you place four small pieces of Velcro around it and had a small piece of aluminum with matching Velcro this could be your cover.  If you also had a nice Dynon "cover" in the side pocket you could choose which to use.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.