Sorry for the mix of abbreviations, I promise to be more precise in the future ( :-) )
No, it’s a G-Reg.
Yeah. Well, let me paraphrase: Two of us will be satisfied with the EIR, at least they aim for this and picture their travel habits in this way. Since they have been travelling Europe VFR for the past 40 years, I think it is fair to assume they kinda know what they want. (And an EIR won’t be a blind alley anyway).
Let me contend that they don’t know what they want.
Nobody knows how useful the EIR will be really. That’s because the practical implementation details aren’t known yet..
This is even more true in countries like Germany, which so far bans IFR in airspace Golf. With SERA just around the corner, it will really depend on how this will be implemented and handled by ATC. With today’s rules in Germany (no IFR below about 3000 feet AGL outside of instrument procedures), the EIR is / will have almost no “weather utility”. But we don’t know what might happen in the future…
Cessna 210N 1981 Handbook at FL100, 65% Power 167 TAS
For “Real” at FL100 LOP, TAS 160 with 50L/13 GAL
all at ISA
Malte,
G-Reg you probably do not need it but if you are planning to fly IFR it is a VERY good thing to have. And it is also not an extreme thing to install, particularly if you are content with the System 30-Alt. The question is, if there is an STC. If not, it will be very expensive to do if at all possible. I don’t know how stable the HR100 is in the air. But I’d think that for longer trips altitude hold is very convenient. That is why I decided to have one installed, even though my plane is very stable.
The question is, if IFR registration/certification puts another 10k ontop of the price, other aircraft might be way cheaper.
Most probably true. Avionic upgrade is more expensive than anything, so a fully certified IFR plane (at least in places where such a certification exists) is almost always a cheaper bet than upgrading a VFR plane. Yet, the HR100 you pointed out has most of what is needed, a Mode S transponder alone won’t be a very large upgrade.
Well, I think you are propably right about the comfort of a good autopilot when flying IFR. The question aimed a bit on the ability to stretch investments :-)
Plus, many pilots pointed out that you have to be proficient in anything you delegate to the autopilot. So it wouldn’t be that bad not o have the full comfort package in the first steps learning instrument flying :-) At least from a VFR-Standpoint this would be true (like we teach basic navigation before teaching the use of GPS)
Cheers,
So it wouldn’t be that bad not o have the full comfort package in the first steps learning instrument flying :-)
Alt-hold is a basic function. You have to imagine a long cruise where ATC expects you to to fly +-100ft (+50 -0ft for the test), this will take a lot of your attention if you try to do this manual.
Then you get a amended clearance with new waypoints. Try enter it to your GPS, handle ATC and keep track of your altitude.
You will need this when all gets tits up and your workload rises. You are alone in your plane and have to do 100 things to fix a situation.
There is no need for the comfort features like altitude preselect and automatic trim (depends on your AP this can be a dangerous combination – ask Achim), basic altitude hold is a must.
The test standard is ±100 ft, isn’t it? (Except at the MDA of a non-precision approach where it is indeed +50 ft –0 ft.)
I haven’t seen an official figure for what ATC expects (I’d be happy to be given a reference), but I have read that an aircraft is assumed to be at the assigned level as long as the deviation ±300 ft.
+- 100ft is cruise for the test and +50 -0 is for approach (all types) are test standards. Sorry for the confusion.
ATC expectations are different. I got told off near Isle of man for 200ft overshoot once.
A few months back over Belgium I was warned by ATC to be accurate (with AP) as there is opposite traffic. It is impressive to have a jet coming at you with 1000ft separation with a closing speed near 600kts.
I agree. In controlled airspace 300ft is a big error. I have had them notice 100ft.
How can they complain about 100ft, when the resolution of an encoding altimeter to transponder interface is 100ft?
In the UK, 200ft is allowed, IIRC.
