Hi,
I think we are not even so far apart with what we aim for.
LeSving wrote:
Also I just don’t like this “we” vs “them” attitude.
Me neither. As I pointed out above. I feel it is one of the reasons why we don’t get anywhere.
LeSving wrote:
I do however think that certification itself is an unnecessary burden for GA that finally will kill all certified GA. There are other ways of assuring the right quality that is much more flexible and much more suitable for GA.
Again, I think we are quite close in our opinions. If I was in the US, I’d be more than interested in the non-certified market, since as you rightly point out, almost all innovation and progress happens there these days.
I would not say that certification per se is not neccessary. BUT: Certification today to the standards of airliners is not necessary and one of the biggest problems GA faces, particularly in Europe but also in the US. The fact that most sold planes today are uncertified because they can’t either afford or technically not reach certification is in my view close to declaring the bancruptcy of the system. If certification can only be achieved by a few monopolists with a big enough pocketbook, then there is something wrong.
We need a simple and straightforward certification process whereby the basic preconditions for an airplane and it’s use are verified. Not more and not less.
For that purpose, I would propose that certification standards are set for the intended use, namely private or commercial air transport.
If today you can fly a Lancair 4P in the US IFR using Dynon avionics, then there is no reason that plane can not reach a private certification, neither the avionic. Either a plane is airworthy and fulfils certain IFR standards, or it is not. The rest is protectionism, obstructionism and unnecessary.
LeSving wrote:
I really don’t get this “utility” nonsense either. Why would anyone care if you need an external reason like “utility” to justify your flying?
Well, quite a few of us actually see more in the purpose of flying than just flying itself. With that comes some sort of utility.
Me for starters, I am not much interested in flying locally, circuits, aerobatics or the likes. I like to travel with my plane. To do that, realistically speaking, you need at least the possibility to do so IFR. Which, in large parts of Europe, excludes most experimentals. So for what I want to do does not correspond to what the rulemakers would allow me to do.
IF we could get EASA to allow the same degree of freedom for the experimental class as the FAA does in the US, then the situation would fundamentally change. In Europe, before that, this market is simply not there or people who do fly these planes are pressed into illegality.
Even better: If (worldwide) certification standards for private operation (VFR and IFR) were to change such that it would no longer be neccessary to circumnavigate a basic certification, then the farce of “assisted building” e.t.c. would no longer be necessary and the very successful kitplane makers could enter the market properly and for everyone.
At the same time, if certification could be reduced to what is really VITAL and basically necessary, we would see a MASSIVE reduction in the cost of new, very attractive airframes, engines, avionics.
LeSving wrote:
What this means is that the only utility we can expect is to travel around and meet up with other pilots like ourselves, create arrangements, meetings, competitions, fly ins, airshows and so on.
Well, that is already quite a lot of utility, don’t you think?
LeSving wrote:
Besides, there are no practical restrictions on experimentals in Scandinavia. They have exactly the same utility value as a certified aircraft, more even, due to performance (so you can get to that fly-in faster, or in more style ) If you want GA to get moving you should start there with your local authorities.
So you have told us a lot of times. As long as you stay inside Skandinavia that is true. The moment you fly out of it, it isn’t. But you have a point, the starting point to stop this is by getting EASA to put their collective feet down on gold plating, obstructionism by local CAA’s and by lifting the restriction of VFR/DAY from these airplanes. This would certainly help.
Certification today to the standards of airliners is not necessary and one of the biggest problems GA faces
But where is the problem? There’s literally hundreds of uncertified designs you can buy, build, fly if you want to. The problem that should be solved is IFR flying for kitplanes and other experimentals, I don’t see why that shouldn’t be possible.
The certification rules might be over the top today, but i think that certification makes sense. As a passenger I’d rather be sure that the airplane i fly in was built by professionals and to a professional standard and with certified materials, parts and avionics.
I for one don’t even trust certified GA avionics much (although they have not let me down yet). But I wouldn’t want to fly IFR with uncertified “Mickey Mouse” electronics. I have no deeper insight into the certification of avionics but it seems logical to me that they are designed to a higher level and more dependable than the uncertified stuff.
Some of the homebuilt types put forward for the UK CAA IFR certification have dropped out, due to handling defects, or dodgy / misleading avionics.
It comes down to one’s attitude to risk. The US Experimental community is very lucky to be able to do what they can do.
But actually you cannot fly IFR in the USA with uncertified avionics. The homebuilt community here wants IFR with e.g. Dynons but that is just dumb because there is no uncert GPS (for example) which can fly approaches so you would end up with an “IFR” aircraft which is crippled on the landing options.
But IFR is of little use if you cannot freely cross national borders, and homebuilts cannot do that even under plain old VFR. The majority of cross-Europe flights still need permissions. In reality nobody cares but… it’s a matter of visibility.
Peter wrote:
“IFR” aircraft which is crippled on the landing
The only reason Dynon and Garmin 796 or G3x GPS/WAAS can’t be used to fly IFR is simple regulation restriction. The technology/capability is no different than the certified gear.
The only reason Dynon and Garmin 796 or G3x GPS/WAAS can’t be used to fly IFR is simple regulation restriction
There are without doubt multiple reasons why uncertified avionics don’t support IFR terminal operations.
Of course you could repackage a GTN750 into a battery powered handheld, but that isn’t going to solve anything.
That’s just avionics. Then you get airframes with poor handling characteristics e.g. non-monotonic control forces, making flight in VMC, never mind IMC, very difficult. For example the small Lancairs have dodgy low speed handling, insufficient aileron authority to counter the propeller torque, etc. There is no free lunch in airframe design, the basics have been known since WW2, and if you want something to go faster for the same fuel flow, you have to chop a load of bits off.
The argument comes down to the extent to which people should be able to kill themselves, their passengers, and (though this is rare) people on the ground. Some people are happy with that. Some are not. And many, especially the numerous children that end up dead, are not well placed to judge the risk.
Peter wrote:
Who owns the IFR databases?
The FAA, in the US.
Peter wrote:
What about requirements like vibration, temperature range, etc?
Is vibration really that much of a problem with modern electronics? Most SMD packages and their mounting are pretty insensitive to vibration, so one only has to be careful with the larger devices (eg. inductor used in the power supply) and the connectors.
Temperature isn’t an issue either, most avionics is certified to -20..55°C, while industrial electronics is -40..85°C.
NB: Uncertified avionics (like Dynon) already displays attitude. What is the liability difference between someone crashing because of wrong attitude information and someone crashing because of wrong navigation information? Also, what is the environmental difference between a piece of kit displaying attitude in the cockpit and a piece of kit displaying navigation data?
The FAA, in the US.
Jeppesen, in practice, worldwide…
I bet you anything that Jepp would not touch the uncertified avionics market with a 20ft bargepole. Quite apart from them realising that the average uncert avionics customer would not pay for the database updates…
Uncertified avionics (like Dynon) already displays attitude.
Sure, but when you power it up it says “VFR use only”. So if you kill yourself drilling a hole in some cloud, their lawyer will explain the ICAO principles behind VFR and IFR, and show that you were a reckless idiot 
Is vibration really that much of a problem with modern electronics?
All true of course but product range differentiation has to be preserved, somehow 
Then you have the “interconnection to the aircraft” issues, if you want portable avionics to be used. Would you want your autopilot servos to be connected via bluetooth? Yesterday I tried to tether my laptop to my phone over BT… used to work!
Peter wrote:
the IFR databases
Garmin G3x support is the EXACT same way as G1000 (updates from the same web portal). Both Dynon and Garmin experimentals can run Jeppeson. The experimental gear is just as robust if not more than the far more expensive certified counterparts. Why so? Because the regulatory process adds the cost.
Dynon and Garmin both have full RAIM-GPS-WAAS for their experimental gear and offer ADS-B in/out and autopilots. The PFD/MFD combo on for the Dynon Skyview and the Garmin G3x are not only identical to the G1000 and other glass panels, but the touch screen navigation is far easier and more ergonomic than the old push-button interfaces.
Peter,
maybe Dynon is a bad example as they don´t have any certified devices.
But how about Garmin. They do have uncertified devices which are to a very large extent identical to the certified one but massively cheaper. The reason being that they do not carry certification cost. Databases and technology is pretty much the same. G900X vs G1000 for instance.
I have had the chance to look at a Dynon equipped Sport Cruiser and was quite impressed with that It had the Skyview system with autopilot.
I think you are asking exactly the right question:
Peter wrote:
Whose certified product range will be undermined if the uncertified products did the same job?
They do the same job but they are not allowed to be used for the same job. THAT is the problem.
The same goes for engines, the same goes for whole airplanes. If airplanes are dangerous, they don´t belong into the sky, no matter whether they are certified or not. In principle, going experimental is doing nothing else but circumnavigating the certification.
Anybody can use the US databases, they are public domain. I have used them in several iOS apps. If you want all updates you subscribe to the database (NFD, national flight database) and you get all updates too.
Jeppesen only has a copyright on the way they format that data, and on the graphics of the approach charts. And they have a deal with the avionics companies, otherwise if the data format was open you could upload it into your 430 yourself …
