@Mooney_Driver, is it worth asking them? EASA/Eurocontrol think differently, please see the link above.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Für Lufträume, in welchen 8.33 kHz Kanalabstand verlangt ist, müssen beide VHF COM über 8.33 kHz Kanalabstand verfügen
The question is what the Swiss-EASA agreement says.
Switzerland is the wrong example when looking at EASA rules 
How does it work for Greenland, are they under EASA? as IFR require UHF radios even for NCO
I guess it’s an “airspace requirement” rather than “certification requirement”?
I very much doubt if Greenland require UHF comms, I have flown countless times over Greenland IFR and never had UHF equipment.
Wow! After reading through this thread, my head is seriously spinning. It seems like the requirements (a) are different for every country (b) change constantly and (c) make no sense.
So… my plane has a 530W, and also a 430 (non-W) though I don’t keep its database up to date. No DME (the previous owner replaced a KNS80 – stop laughing – with the 430). No ADF – it stopped working a while back and I saw no sense in getting it fixed, so I used its panel hole for a backup AI.
From what I understand, nobody has ever, ever been punished for not having ADF/DME/sextant/Viking polarised light thingy etc, even in countries where they are legally required. And (despite some special pleading around some weird DME setups) there is no practical reason why you would ever need them.
I’ll be based in France and probably that is where most of my flying will be, though Italy is practically in the traffic pattern at LFMD. Thoughts on what (a) I would legally need to do and (b) what I should actually do?
Thanks…
Hi johnh!
My take is that ADF is needed only if you plan to use procedure that clearly say “ADF required” or “not available without ZZZ NDB”.
DME is needed more often, plus check if your airports’ procedures require DME. All I could find in GEN 1.5 for France:
2.1.1 Longitudinal precision
To fly in upper airspace and in some specified lower airspace sections, all aircraft shall be equipped with a distance measuring equipment (DME) or with a device giving a longitudinal precision at least equivalent.
AIUI you should first check your aircraft for whether or not there are any placards saying eg. VFR only.
Secondly the POH/AFM to see what it says. A DA40 for instance has 3 lists of equipment needed, 1 for VFR 1 for Night VFR and the third for IFR. IIRC the IFR calls for a 2nd radio and pitot heat. In a thread here on whether or not a 2nd radio was compulsory I asked this very question to which I think it was @Airborne _Again wrote that one should follow the AFM.
In France it is compulsory for IFR to have a mode S transponder. Otherwise for non commercial operations for IFR you only need the equipment necessary for the flight and procedure. Eg if you are going to fly an NDB procedure then you need an ADF. If a DME is part of the procedure you are going to fly you need a DME on board. This by the way also includes the requirements for the missed approach but many ignore this bit especially if the approach is a RNP approach.
gallois wrote:
In a thread here on whether or not a 2nd radio was compulsory I asked this very question to which I think it was @Airborne _Again wrote that one should follow the AFM.
I might have said that. :-) Basically, a 2nd radio is not required for IFR in light (CS-23) aircraft. If a particular type certificate actually does say you need two radios, then you do need two radios. I don’t think that simply the mention of a 2nd radio in a list in the POH automatically makes it a requirement unless the list is in the limitations section.
Johnh
In the past in Europe the penalty for not having DME has been death.
This is not due to any fault with the aircraft systems as the GPS range that has been substituted for DME has been correct.
The European practice of using the same ident letters for multiple radio aids at the same airport is the problem when the pilot pulls the wrong radio aid out of the database for use as the DME distance for the approach.
This can’t happen in the USA as radio aids with identical idents are geographically separated by at lease 500 miles and so any finger trouble with GPS waypoint selection gives an implausible result.
Those who fly in Europe and use GPS to derive DME distance are playing with fire as it is only pure arrogance that makes them think they can’t make this mistake when under pressure. It is indeed the European version of the doctor killer reputation of a perfectly good aircraft and all because they think they are too smart to not need to spend a few thousand euro on a DME. ( Oh ! and what makes this worse is good second hand units are available from the USA at a fraction of the new price ).
This of course is a human factors problem…………. not a technical issue.
If you have the typical set up in the USA, where owners sensibly clean up their panel when they upgrade, of avionics consisting of an IFR GPS WAAS, NAV COM (8.33) and Mode S through your ADSB IN/OUT transponder, you are practically OK for operations to airports with RNP and ILS approaches. A significant portion of these airports have a radar service, so on an ILS, if you do not have a DME, you should request a range check at the GS check point published on the plate. The other advantage of a radar environment, is you would fly ‘an advised by ATC’ missed approach, as you would not be able to fly the associated NDB missed approach procedure.
This leaves you exposed in the event Radar is not available, or goes out of service while en route. You would then need to carry out a let down, which could use the approach facilities, but to IFR let down minima (1,000 feet AGL/OCH within 5 nm).
If you chose to fly an NDB/DME or LOC/DME approach without NDB and DME, in approach minima conditions you might reasonably expect ATC to issue an MOR. At Oxford, for example, you may need to request a tailwind ILS on runway 19 if tailwind limits allow, and not be able to use the NDB DME on runway 01.
Why EASA/CAA UK do not allow GPS overlay procedures based on an IFR GPS procedure database (ie not diy) is a mystery, given that the FAA with a higher safety record has allowed them for decades.
