Loophole for cheap a/p

[Joshua Blackh4t]

I know this is going to breach a law somehow, but, interested to see if anyone knows a loophole.

So, after looking at the portapilot (which doesn't work on a mooney) i got to thinking.

At exactly which point does an item go from installed to portable, and in that case legal.

Lots of our planes still have the wing leveller bellows, even if the p.c. isnt working. So the bellows are legal, and a working a/p is not necessary.

Can we connect the 2 hoses to a 'portable' device that takes power from the cig plug, has its own vacuum pump, own ahrs and wifi to a gps, and controls the plane with bellows. 5 minute install and great single axis A/P.

It could be made for less than 1amu.

Someone find me a loophole, I'll go get a arduino board and a gryo chip (made for a drone), 2x valves and a vacuum pump.

 

 

 

[Jsno]

What is the FAA AC 91.21 1d use of portable electronic devices aboard aircraft?

 

 

 

 

Section 91.21 was established because of the potential for portable electronic devices (PED) to interfere with aircraft navigation or communication systems, and prohibits the operation of PEDs not installed aboard U.S.-registered civil aircraft while operating under instrument flight rules (IFR).

[Joshua Blackh4t]

How does that fit with garmin portables like an aera 660?

Or an ipad running foreflight?

[KSMooniac]

Sorry, there is no such loophole for certified aircraft. Anything touching the control system is a major alteration in the FAA's eyes and that triggers all sorts of required substantiation.

I thought we were on the verge of a new wave of approved autopilot systems for many models, but the FAA got pantsed by Boeing with the Max fiasco and now almost nothing is getting approved in a timely fashion.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

How does that fit with garmin portables like an aera 660?
Or an ipad running foreflight?

None of those drive navigation equipment or controls. They're advisory only.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

[Joshua Blackh4t]

But if we use the bellows then its NOT touching the controls. Not directly

 

 

 

[KSMooniac]

But if we use the bellows then its NOT touching the controls. Not directly
 
 
 

It absolutely is. The bellows are part of a previously certified system that control the airplane.

If you believe in the idea that much, you can create a plan and present to the FAA, create a project with them, move your plane to the Experimental category for R&D and give it a try. Your plane would not be usable for normal everyday uses, though, until it is returned to a certified state.

Or you can build an experimental plane and develop it there, much like TruTrack did.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Jsno said:

What is the FAA AC 91.21 1d use of portable electronic devices aboard aircraft?

 

 

 

 

Section 91.21 was established because of the potential for portable electronic devices (PED) to interfere with aircraft navigation or communication systems, and prohibits the operation of PEDs not installed aboard U.S.-registered civil aircraft while operating under instrument flight rules (IFR).

You should have quoted the next line, which captures FAR 91.21(b)(5):

Section 91.21 permits the use of specified PEDs and other devices the operator of the aircraft has determined will not interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft. 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Joshua Blackh4t said:

I know this is going to breach a law somehow, but, interested to see if anyone knows a loophole.

So, after looking at the portapilot (which doesn't work on a mooney) i got to thinking.

At exactly which point does an item go from installed to portable, and in that case legal.

Lots of our planes still have the wing leveller bellows, even if the p.c. isnt working. So the bellows are legal, and a working a/p is not necessary.

Can we connect the 2 hoses to a 'portable' device that takes power from the cig plug, has its own vacuum pump, own ahrs and wifi to a gps, and controls the plane with bellows. 5 minute install and great single axis A/P.

It could be made for less than 1amu.

Someone find me a loophole, I'll go get a arduino board and a gryo chip (made for a drone), 2x valves and a vacuum pump.

Like many of the regs, there is some grey area.

The most annoying part, though, is that the FAA NORSEE (Non-Required Safety Enhancing Equipment) certification rules were specifically made to make it much easier to get equipment certificated without so much delay and expense to the manufacturers.   At the time NORSEE was being initially promoted by the FAA, autopilots were cited as a specific example of the sort of thing that would qualify under NORSEE.

But that didn't seem to happen.   The NORSEE certification rules still exist, but I don't see a big selection of autopilots out there, and none that appear to have been certificated under NORSEE.

So the winds do not seem to favor providing autopilots for GA.   The FAA has got to keep us safe!   That's why many of us hand-fly everywhere.    Apparently it's safer. 

 

[Marc_B]

Cheapest autopilot is a good copilot!   (the disconnect switch is through your audio panel)

[Joshua Blackh4t]

26 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

Cheapest autopilot is a good copilot!   (the disconnect switch is through your audio panel)

Heck no, they are more expensive than a gfc500 with all the trimmings....

The only reason i can afford a plane is because i have no copilot

[HRM]

1 hour ago, KSMooniac said:

...move your plane to the Experimental category for R&D and give it a try. Your plane would not be usable for normal everyday uses, though, until it is returned to a certified state.

I thought you couldn't 'go back' after going R&D experimental.

[KSMooniac]

I thought you couldn't 'go back' after going R&D experimental.

You can, if you return the plane to a certified/conforming airworthy state, along with an accompanying inspection and airworthiness certificate showing that.

Experimental R&D or Exhibition doesn't allow normal GA use to go fly whenever you wish, cross country, etc. That forces an applicant to finish a project and get an STC to approve the changes, or remove the non-conforming mods and return to the previous state,.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

[DCarlton]

I’ve wondered what regs you would be breaking if you temporarily installed, in your personal airplane, a hypothetical digital device to drive heading on your Brittain PC system that could be easily switched off or unplugged.  I suppose one could argue that’s R&Dish.  

[N201MKTurbo]

I always thought about building a device like that so you could use a portable GPS to drive your autopilot. I was going to put a low power localizer transmitter in it so all you had to do was dial up its frequency and the GPS would steer the airplane around. No connections at all.

[201Steve]

4 hours ago, EricJ said:

The FAA has got to keep us safe!   That's why many of us hand-fly everywhere.    Apparently it's safer. 

Pilot error, pilot error, pilot error! They have to protect their fall guy!

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, HRM said:

I thought you couldn't 'go back' after going R&D experimental.

The whole purpose of R&D Experimental is to go back, I’ve done it several times.

You go Experimental for the express purpose of developing something, then whether or not it was successful, you remove the item, a conformity inspection is done and the aircraft returns to its original Type Certificate.

Developing an Auto Pilot would in my opinion be almost exactly what R&D Experimental was meant for, but you’re going to have to write a program letter etc and get it approved etc.

I did it working through MIDO / ACO as we were a manufacturer, I assume a non manufacturer would do it through FSDO?

But I do think its intent is to manufacture a product, but maybe you could approach it as a one time STC? Either way a Certified one would be a whole lot less work

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I always thought about building a device like that so you could use a portable GPS to drive your autopilot. I was going to put a low power localizer transmitter in it so all you had to do was dial up its frequency and the GPS would steer the airplane around. No connections at all.

Very clever!

[Joshua Blackh4t]

5 hours ago, M20Doc said:

FAA would have no say in the OP’s desire for this, his airplane appears to be registered in Australia.

Yeah, Australia is a bit different, but most things the faa approves our authorities agree with.

So frustrating that its so obviously possible and safe and not legal. But, thats aviation.

Its a pity that Brittain isn't open anymore. The opportunity is great even if the market is limited. 

[mike_elliott]

22 hours ago, Marc_B said:

Cheapest autopilot is a good copilot!   (the disconnect switch is through your audio panel)

my ex-autopilot was far from cheap

 

[outermarker]

I thought the reg said for IFR operations. So, VFR operations are ok?