I have just watched a You Tube demonstration of the Garmin G3X in French.
The language is of no significance here.
The guy is flying an instrument approach to minimums on auto pilot. The flight takes place in France and the aircraft is a JMB.
Despite low cloud the approach appears remarkably steady.
I am confused by the fact that as far as I am aware the JMB aircraft is neither an certified EASA or for IFR.
Yes of course, staying VMC as they do it is perfectly legal.
Yet other than the fact that there is no anti or de ice equipment, as an IFR platform an aircraft equipped in such a manner would appear ideal for many PPL/IR pilots.
Perhaps enabling such aircraft to do so might begin to reverse some of the decline in GA, make it safer, and encourage more pilots into the IR scene.
What do others think?
If everything works fine, flying a GPS approach on AP (doesn’t matter if ti is an actual approach or just a fake approach calculated by the avionics) is simple in actually most efis equipped ULs. The challenge with IFR flying, however, is not when everything works fine but when system fails. Therefore IFR certification is a lot about reliability and backup.
And one must not forget that due to the low mass of microlights/ULs it is actually much more difficult to hand-Fly an approach in actual weather (= turbulences) within legal limits. I really doubt that I would be able to ever get an JMB legally down to earth in IMC by hand when half scale deflection on final mandates a go around ….
So which element in this case would not be suitable for the type of IFR flying many ppl’s do
the Garmin avionics? the autopilot (I don’t know which is used in this case)? or the aircraft? Or is it the combination?
gallois wrote:
I have just watched a You Tube demonstration of the Garmin G3X in French…. an aircraft equipped in such a manner would appear ideal for many PPL/IR pilots.
The G3X is neither an autopilot nor an IFR navigator. You need separate units for both, and when you got that you don’t need the G3X at all. Certainly it makes for a very nice PFD/MFD.
The G3X does include a VFR GPS navigator which is able to fly the final approach part of RNP approaches.
Actually I am more commenting on the fact
1) The guy flew a JMB which is either a ULM or in the VLA or whatever category
2) He was demonstrating IFR approaches to minima using the autopilot to minima in this aircraft.
3) The approach he flew under clouds which one would have expected to be turbulent was a stable approach or that’s the way it seemed.
4) The video was made to demonstrate the use of the Garmin G3X in IFR flying.
5) The lightest IFR aircraft I know of which can be certified in Europe is the Liberty XL
My question really revolves round whether or not more can be done to encourage pilots to take up the IR, CBIR EIR BIR IMC in and perhaps reverse the reported decline in GA in large parts of Europe .
Lets look at your points a bit more closely:
gallois wrote:
2) He was demonstrating IFR approaches to minima using the autopilot to minima in this aircraft.
They were flying the entire approach much too high! As you can see e.g. at 4:44, they are less than 4 miles out and clearly more than half scale above glide slope. So it is not an approach to minimum but a clear go around. In IMC that would have never been a successful approach.
gallois wrote:
3) The approach he flew under clouds which one would have expected to be turbulent was a stable approach or that’s the way it seemed.
You can clearly see in the video that this is a stable stratus cover so no turbulences and wind (as shown on the G3X) less than 4kt. So not really demanding
gallois wrote:
4) The video was made to demonstrate the use of the Garmin G3X in IFR flying.
Yes, and as long as the G3X works you are fine – when the G3X go black, you are dead – the only backup instrument in this plane is an altimeter.
gallois wrote:
My question really revolves round whether or not more can be done to encourage pilots to take up the IR, CBIR EIR BIR IMC in and perhaps reverse the reported decline in GA in large parts of Europe
Would that really make private pilots to fly substantially more? While one should at least fly 20 hrs. / year to stay kind of proficient in VMC (and many pilots miss this goal), it should be at least 40hrs. for IFR in IMC. Would an IR-Ticket motivate so many people to fly substantially more? Don’t know …
He flew the approach on autopilot to a 400’ minimum for the approach. He distinctly says so.
But you are still missing my point. So I’ll try again. There are very few PBN aircraft available to PPL’s who wish to move to one of the IR categories, especially to rent and particularly at a price the majority of leisure pilots would wish to pay. They could of course become an owner but many simply do not wish to commit to the outlay for the purchase and upkeep of their own aircraft.
The starting price of a PBN equipped aircraft is high.
To buy an older aircraft may be more likely to be within their budget but if they want to move on and install PBN equipment, is, by all accounts, going to cost tens of thousands of pounds.
There are of course good value in both avionics and aircraft with some of the twins on the market. But of course there are the running costs and getting the MEP IR.
In the meantime, if reports are correct, many pilots gain their PPL and stop immediately or soon after either because they do not want or cannot afford to challenge themselves with extending their flying experience.
Reports also suggest that GA is declining in many areas. But we also know that UL is declining, if at all, less quickly. So I am suggesting that maybe there is a happy medium between the more affordable UL/VLA/LSA types of aircraft, equipped in such a way as to allow PPL’s to take advantage of a Basic Instrument Rating in a more affordable manner.
gallois wrote:
4) The video was made to demonstrate the use of the Garmin G3X in IFR flying.
Sorry, but the video did not demonstrate the use of the Garmin G3X in IFR flying! The G3X does have a built-in GPS and it can (partially) fly instrument approaches, but it is not approved for IFR. For IFR flying you need a separate IFR-approved navigator. Similarly, the G3X does not have an autopilot. The aircraft in the video seemed to use the GFC500 which you can just as well use with a Garnmin G5. So the fact that a G3X was used was incidental.
But you are still missing my point. So I’ll try again. There are very few PBN aircraft available to PPL’s who wish to move to one of the IR categories, especially to rent and particularly at a price the majority of leisure pilots would wish to pay. They could of course become an owner but many simply do not wish to commit to the outlay for the purchase and upkeep of their own aircraft.
The outlay in this case would be the IFR navigator. You can use one with old mechanical instruments and indicators – or with a Garmin G5 if you want something more modern but less costly. The least costly PBN upgrade would be something like a Garmin GPS175 navigator.
The great thing with the G3X (and I do agree that it is a great thing) is that you get a full-size EFIS as a budget price. But you don’t need that for IFR.
Malibuflyer wrote:
They were flying the entire approach much too high! As you can see e.g. at 4:44, they are less than 4 miles out and clearly more than half scale above glide slope. So it is not an approach to minimum but a clear go around. In IMC that would have never been a successful approach.
He selected the LOC 11 approach, so there was no vertical guidance. Instead he used the VS and VNAV modes. But I agree.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Therefore IFR certification is a lot about reliability and backup.
Sums it up perfectly!
