Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Confused Garmin G3X demo in French (enabling uncertified aircraft to fly IFR)

Malibuflyer wrote:

our hypothesis seems to be that the cost of IFR equipped planes are so high, that pilots rather only fly VFR. That is a strong thesis as there are men other reasons that come to ones (at least my ;-)) mind much quicker, e.g.:

One out of two factors which make IFR flying in Europe a thing that not many people will attack. The other has been mentioned here, the ridiculously difficult and long way to an IR.

The FAA IR is pretty hassle free and more based on a practical approach than the 7 exams plus 45 hours e.t.c. mandated in Europe, however there is definitly light at the end of that tunnel with the BIR, which however then again only will be valid in EASA airspace as it is not an ICAO rating. The better way would have been to do a step approach whereas a BIR can be upgraded to a CB IR after a certain amount of experience has been gained without 7 exams e.t.c.

The equipment side of things is the other bit. By definition, you can only use certified avionics which are a) expensive beyond any reason and b) often years behind the uncertified stuff due to the age long certification process. Even with the newer EASA rules that you “only” need to carry the equipment needed for the actual flight, which basically eliminates ADF and in some cases DME, the lowest reasonable equipment for a IFR equipped airplane will set you back more than the cell value. This is ridiculous and a huge handicap.

The question in my mind is, why, for private operation, equipment is not simply judged by capability and flight test to determine whether it can be or can’t be used for IFR. and for what. For example: You can legally fly an approach using a legacy VOR with a single axis AP, but you can not legally couple a fully RNAV capable uncertified device to any autopilot even for single axis ops (e.g. LNAV with VNAV being flown manually) and then prove in flight test, that the device performes to specification.

It gets even more ridiculous if it is true that e.g. in the US non-certified airplanes CAN fly IFR with non certified avionics while certified ones can’t. Same thing: Why not make it so that any installation can be used after proof of functionality? In the end, it is anyway always the pilot who has to keep the airplane out of the dirt, not the fancy systems.

One consequence of all this is that we see dozens of devices clipped to control yokes or kneepads or elsewhere with cables stuck in cigarette lighters instead of clean and proper installations. I refuse to believe that this is safer than uncertified devices installed properly and whose reliability has been proven for decades.

If a G3X can be coupled to an AP, then this should be possible provided, as with any installation, it is flight tested and it’s scope of operation is clearly defined. So if I get this right, the G3X can do the lateral part of a GPS approach but not the vertical one, which has to be done manual. Well, that is the same capability that, say, a legacy GNS430 has which has no vertical guidance on LPV approaches. So what is the problem? An ILS approach anyhow needs to be flown using ILS signals, so they have to come from elsewhere, but it can do LNAV approaches or overlay approaches for LLZ or VOR or NDB approaches.

IMHO, in order to get the IR to be the next logical step after a PPL or even be able to get people educated in one step to a PPL/BIR we need airplanes which come with a thought out and affordable avionic solution, which fulfills the minimums given by law by which ever means available, those means getting approved for operation by capability rather than certification. This would allow a lot of very interesting equipment to be used for these kind of purposes and it would put pressure on the monopoly manufacturers to get their stuff priced so that they can compete.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 26 Sep 10:23
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

in the US non-certified airplanes CAN fly IFR with non certified avionics while certified ones can’t

This is not true. The avionics must be certified, but the display (screen) may not be. It’s exactly the same in Europe and in the USA (at least in Norway and the USA). As a matter of fact, the avionics need not be certified. Nothing in a non-certified aircraft needs to be certified. The fact is that according to airspace requirements, IFR avionics has to prove adherence to those performance requirements. There is no practical way to do that except getting certified avionics. Certification or not, is not the issue. To prove performance according to a standard is. In theory you can build a unit yourself, test it according to the standard and install it. But, testing alone costs what? € 2-3 M? and it’s only good for that single device you have built.

It’s the same with 8.33 radio and transponders. There is no need for the radio to be certified according to any aviation standard. It has to prove accordance to the 8.33 radio standard. Again, there is no practical way to do that except getting a certified unit. A ground unit will work just fine for instance, but why get a ground unit?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

The avionics must be certified, but the display (screen) may not be.

Well this alone can be a huge difference. Look at a Dynon display system vs a G500 or Aspen 2000.

If I get it right, you would need to get your primary navigational avionics to be up to spec, but not the display units, neither the autpilot?

What I am aiming at, looking at what is available and what it has to fulfil, what would be the cheapest current solution to provide for an IFR legal cockpit layouot, which also does the required things for reasonable IFR capability, which, at least for me, involves a 2 axis AP with at least HDG/NAV/LOC and ALT/VS/GS coupling (you can get GPSS via external means), a proper PFD/ND and backup instruments.

Right now, looking at only the device prices, I am looking at roughly 100k for a certified solution including installation.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

It depends on what capability you want and how much you like throwing money at eye candy.

For a homebuilt, to be legal IFR for enroute and approaches, you need a certified navigator but the “PFD” probably doesn’t have to be certified. A KLN94 will do, if you don’t need LPV

But if you want to display a Jepp terminal chart (and there no no other terminal chart available for panel mount products AFAIK) then you need a certified PFD.

The autopilot doesn’t need to be certified. You just don’t want a “toy” one like the Trio or Trutrak ones which have no pitch trim and can’t fly an ILS, or even a compass heading; these are essential things for IFR.

So, if debating the “Annex 1 saving by going uncertified” comparison, it should not be anywhere near 100k no matter how you shake it. Actually it is the difference between some non-TSO box, and a used GTN430W. This is also a good thread… And this one.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Mooney_Driver wrote:

I am looking at roughly 100k for a certified solution including installation.

2xG5 (certified) = 5K, Bendixking Aerocruze 100 kit 5K, Garmin 175 4K. Garmin NAV radio 5K. Total ca 25-30 with installation, providing we keep old vacuum AI and DG as backup.

EETU, Estonia

Peter wrote:

But if you want to display a Jepp terminal chart (and there no no other terminal chart available for panel mount products AFAIK) then you need a certified PFD.

what about Garmin Flitecharts? Are they available for their non certified panel mounts?

Maps is something I would consider part of the EFB anyway, which usually is on a tablet computer. And I understand there are many different producers for those.

Peter wrote:

The autopilot doesn’t need to be certified. You just don’t want a “toy” one like the Trio or Trutrak ones which have no pitch trim and can’t fly an ILS, or even a compass heading; these are essential things for IFR.

I’ve been looking at the certified Dynon Skyview just for an idea. Frankly, that system looks quite interesting for what you can get, if I got the numbers right, about $16k for PFD, Engine package, 2 axis AP with separate control panels. You need a GNS/GTN or IFD box to run the navigation part however, so that makes the parts list near 25k. Installation about the same again?

The Skyview AP is a pretty impressive piece of kit, the only thing it lacks is autotrim. It does IAS Mode and it will follow an ILS plus just about everything else. It still is not certified for a lot of planes though, but they are coming up. I’ve seen the first Mooney equipped with it, apparently in a STC certification program.

ivark wrote:

2xG5 (certified) = 5K, Bendixking Aerocruze 100 kit 5K, Garmin 175 4K. Garmin NAV radio 5K. Total ca 25-30 with installation,

Aerocruze 100 is the former Trutrack, right? Not available for a lot of models still and even if, quite lacking in features for IFR. Otherwise, I see 25 k in equipment only? Installation in my experience is about par to the dollar, so about 50 k for all?

Actually, I see that there is an Aerocruze 230 now, which has a lot more features and is a slide in replacement for the KFC150… so probably not a tru track but quite interesting also concerning model list. Massively more expensive though.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 26 Sep 13:34
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Right now, looking at only the device prices, I am looking at roughly 100k for a certified solution including installation.

An avionics shop near me recently installed 2*G5 (EADI+EHSI), GTN650Xi (navigator), GFC500 (autopilot, two axis with electric trim) and a GMA345 (audiopanel) in a PA28 for less than $40k+VAT, parts and labour.

And this is a shop that, in my experience, does high-quality work.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 26 Sep 14:37
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

in a PA28 for less than $40k+VAT, parts and labour.

Great to hear. VAT would be what? 20%.

Obviously this puts it into perspective… quite a few PA28 do not have a hull value of 40-50k$

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Great to hear. VAT would be what? 20%.

25% in Sweden.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

@arj1 wrote:

Sorry, confused which version of G3X Touch people are talking about here – “for certificated aircraft” or “for experinmental aircraft”.

The difference between these two products is the accompanying paperwork. In the case of the G5, for instance, the extra cost of the “certificated” product buys a black envelope containing a single sheet of paper – and nothing more.

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

We were discussing this half-scale rule today as we prepared an aeroplane for dynamic prop balancing. We concluded that it although it may be a valid safety rule for CAT and the tiny minority of GA which is crippled by poor landing performance, it is no more than a proficiency exercise for the vast majority of light aeroplanes flying into typical instrument runways.

An ordinary Cessna 1xx or Jodel, or whatever can set down and stop in 150 m if the driver is paying attention. The main runway at Prestwick is 3 km long and the landing fee is the same whether we use the first or last 150 m.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top