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

Airborne_Again wrote:

The aircraft in the video seemed to use the GFC500 which you can just as well use with a Garmin G5.

Note: The GFC500 can be controlled from the G3X which happens in this aircraft, but just as well using the separate GMC507 mode control panel.

I think the situation gallois is describing is covered here in the UK by our LAA, who have an IFR certification process for permit aircraft. An IFR permit aircraft with a modern tech stack and a pilot with an IR(R) rating is a great combination for pilots who only want to fly IFR in the UK.
But legally it’s useless outside the UK as you’re not approved to use it.

He flew the approach on autopilot to a 400’ minimum for the approach. He distinctly says so.

He might have said (sorry, my French is not as good), but he clearly didn’t. He very badly flew a kind of hand-crafted V-IFR procedure by putting some kind of VS-mode onto an 2D-approach (thanks Airborne) and either completely misconfigured the G3X to show a vertical guidance that is too low (extremely dangerous) or flew the entire procedure much too high and failed to go around although he clearly should have it it was IFR.

What he demonstrated is almost exactly the opposite to proper IFR-flying – but unfortunately what many esp. UL-pilots think IFR-flying is about: Configuring the TV in front of you to show some kind of magenta line (or even boxes to fly though as in the very first version of Sublogic Flight Simulator) and trying to hit these boxes. Unfortunately we loose pilots in Europe once in a while trying exactly this kind of “IFR-flying” in bad weather in the Alps.

There is no doubt that in principle a G3X can be used for IFR-flights – if (and only if) one combines it with the proper navigators and proper backup instrumentation. The backup AI/AS/Alt in my plane cost 8k – for an instrument I (hopefully) never use! But it is the most reliable on the market and in case I need it my life depends on it!

NicR wrote:

I think the situation gallois is describing is covered here in the UK by our LAA, who have an IFR certification process for permit aircraft. An IFR permit aircraft with a modern tech stack and a pilot with an IR(R) rating is a great combination for pilots who only want to fly IFR in the UK.

But even so, the LAA would demand (E)TSO’d nav equipment for IFR, would it not? The G3X is not (E)TSO’d.

gallois wrote:

5) The lightest IFR aircraft I know of which can be certified in Europe is the Liberty XL

Well, now there is alos the p2002 JF MKII. No idea about the acquisition costs, though

The G3X Touch AML lists quite a few certified planes that it can be installed in. I don’t think installing a G3X (or a Dynon SkyView for that matter) removes their ability to be flown IFR, if so certified initially and properly equipped.

Sorry, confused which version of G3X Touch people are talking about here – “for certificated aircraft” or “for experinmental aircraft”.
And to fly IFR both would require some certified source of nav data, either VOR, NDB or GPS.

gallois wrote:

we haven’t discussed how we could open up IFR only why we can’t.

Agree, we didn’t discuss that. But to have a a meaningful discussion on this, imho we would first need to discuss the root causes of why we see so little IFR in recreational GA in Europe compared to the US.

Your 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.:
- Structure of GA pilots in Europe is different from the US. As GA is much more means of transportation there, there are more people that uses their small GA plane as actual mean of transportation (e.g. to get to a project site in another state)
- Average GA mission is different in the US with a higher share of mid to long distance flights. That is due to the different size of the country (and still at least emotional barriers to fly “international” in Europe). Many of the typical GA IFR flights in the US would be done by train in many European countries.
- IFR flying is easier in the US in many parts of the country. Of course, SoCal, Tristate area, etc. are not less complex than Amsterdam, London, Zurich, etc. but in vast parts of the country the airspace structure is less complex.
- Flying in general is cheaper in the US (also but not alone because of lower fuel prices). There is a higher share of people that can afford to fly the number of hours to stay IFR proficient in the US than in Europe. As said before: A pilot that can barely afford 20hrs. VFR per year would not fly 40hrs. IFR even if the plane would not be more expensive.

No we can discuss what to do:

- Tear down all of the European railways and many of the highways
- Remove the borders in Europe – not only legal borders but also “emotional borders”. That would also imply tearing down language barriers. Therefore make everyone in Europe speak German ( ;-) just because it is the most common mother tongue in Europe today).
- Create more “Pan-European Businesse” i.e. SMEs that do business in more than one European countries so that their owners have the need to fly.
- Fill in 500km of empty land between Paris and London, Brussels and Amsterdam, Munich and Zurich, etc.
…