Jacko wrote:
@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.
Not entirely – G3X for experimental supports twin-engine a/c while G3X for certificated a/c doesn’t
But point was that people were asking questions and making statements that would mean different thing for different version…
Not entirely – G3X for experimental supports twin-engine a/c while G3X for certificated a/c doesn’t
Are you sure this is due to some physical (hardware) difference, rather than different configuration (software) settings?
I don’t have a G3X (or, sadly, two engines), but my crippled/certified G5s can be restored to full “experimental” functionality by a few seconds of knob twiddling and button pressing.
Not that anyone would do that, of course…
@gallois suggested:
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.
I agree wholeheartedly. The potential utility of light GA is needlessly crippled by regulators (worldwide, not just in Europe) who feel the need to make it difficult for people to fly legally in IMC. From the UK LAA’s ridiculous TL 2.28 through the EASA’s seven CBIR theory exams to the FAA’s fatwa against unpublished approaches, they just can’t resist the temptation to regulate for regulation’s sake.
It’s not that these regulators are dimwits, or even that they really want to kill light GA pilots by forcing them to fly below cloud. It’s just that they have no idea how most of us actually fly in IMC. We’re not interested in flying holds and published procedures because we hardly ever fly anywhere near that sort of fancy airport. We don’t want to share airspace with CAT because we don’t fly de-iced rocket-ships with oxygen tubes up our noses. We’re not interested in ADF, DME, VOR, LORAN etc. because we don’t want to ruin our take-off and climb performance by carrying all that aerojunk.
We understand the risk that during WW3 the protagonists will instantly atomise the entire US, European and Russian GPS satellite constellations while we’re flying in IMC, and we’re cool with that.
Jacko wrote:
they just can’t resist the temptation to regulate for regulation’s sake
That is their job 
Their job is not to make the regulations, although they have a finger there as well.
Jacko wrote:
We’re not interested in flying holds and published procedures because we hardly ever fly anywhere near that sort of fancy airport
I do that all the time. Not very interested in flying holds and published procedures though
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Obviously this puts it into perspective… quite a few PA28 do not have a hull value of 40-50k$
I don’t see what the hull value has got to do with anything, except the aircraft itself doesn’t need to cost much. 20k for the IR, 50k for the avionics means €70k just to get started with the fun, whether the AC is certified or not, although there are less costly options for avionics. From what I have seen on experimental aircraft, they simply install a GTN, and that’s it.
they just can’t resist the temptation to regulate for regulation’s sake
That is their job Their job is not to make the regulations, although they have a finger there as well.
It seems to be what they see as their job, and the UK CAA, EASA and FAA do certainly propose regulations for officials (or politicians in the more democratic USA) to rubber-stamp; but does regulation really make, in the words of the FAA mission statement, for safer and more efficient airspace?
Unfortunately we lose pilots in Europe once in a while trying exactly this kind of “IFR-flying” in bad weather in the Alps.
Agreed, and this seems predominantly to be a Swiss and German problem – two countries which hardly seem to be leading EASA’s charge to de-regulate certified GA and return a sense of personal responsibility to private pilots.
So is the solution to (mostly German) pilots killing themselves and their passengers by flying into mountains more regulation? Or less? Or just fewer mountains?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
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.
Don’t understand your point!
Isn’t your “prove in flight test” exactly what we call “certification”?
Therefore what is the difference in your argument between a certified device and a device that has “proven” it performs to specification?
Certification in avionics is a wide range of things. Most of it (TSO) is environmental compliance. Some of it is software design procedures.
Jacko wrote:
Agreed, and this seems predominantly to be a Swiss and German problem
Yes – the alps are mainly a Swiss problem (and some Austrian and French) ;-)
And yes: Germans tend to fly more often through this “Swiss problem” to get to the Mediterranean than UK or Swedish pilots. Might be due to regulation – or simply due to geographic distances …
the alps are mainly a Swiss problem (and some Austrian and French) ;-)
I’d add that the Alps are quite a big “Italian problem” too I have certainly spent rather more time in the “Italian problem” in recent years…
The reason Germans travel internationally a lot is because many of them (a) are ok with using English and (b) have lots of money. Germans travel a lot over the Alps because it is just down the road, and they can do it in the usual “club” planes. Quite a few do Mali Losinj as a day trip, for example; I’ve met many down there. For Swedish pilots, ELP is a non-issue (they are mostly very good) but they have a long way to fly. For Brits, it is equally a long way to cross the Alps out of the UK; you need something like a TB20/SR22/etc.
What drives the broad travel patterns is really mostly quite simple.
Second order factors are things like IR adoption which also needs good ELP. In France, historically, you could get an IR in French only but that’s no longer possible, so together with the French cultural preference to holiday in France, there you go. Conversely Germany has a high IR adoption for various reasons – especially the JAA/EASA IR, which Brits avoided like the black death, going mostly FAA/N-reg – and that enables international travel.
I think, referring to the OP, that France benefits less from an IR / IFR capability than most other countries in Europe. It has
Pic from the EuroGA airport database map:
Peter wrote:
Certification in avionics is a wide range of things. Most of it (TSO) is environmental compliance. Some of it is software design procedures.
It all comes down to “prove it works”. Obviously even w/o certification you don’t want to have your new box interfere with radio communication or even mess ups the entire electrical system of the plane.
And the “software design procedure” requirements (or the entire concept of design or manufacturing authority) is actually to reduce certification burden rather than to increase it: The idea is than instead of actually demonstrating the device works in every situation that might occur in some point in time it is enough to demonstrate that it has been designed thoughtfully and thoroughly. That is a huge advantage.
I was more commenting on the idea that you can “prove in flight test” instead of certification. Often if someone says “prove in flight test” they really mean nothing close to a prove but rather a “I turned it on once and it happen to show something that did not look completely wrong”.
We must not forget, that IFR equipment is not only used for way finding or approach (so only killing ourselfs and perhaps few people on the ground if this ground comes close to us quite unexpected in case of a malfunction) but also for separation where we might kill people in other planes as well.
