Has 6.41 been approved? A couple of people are reporting putting it on EASA airframes, but I have been told that I have to wait for EASA approval.
Timothy wrote:
Has 6.41 been approved? A couple of people are reporting putting it on EASA airframes, but I have been told that I have to wait for EASA approval.
Currently the latest EASA-approved software is V6.21 which was released in September. Use of 6.41 has to wait until EASA have validated the update to the FAA STC.
I know a couple of people who have put 6.41 on their EASA aircraft. What’s the worst that can happen to them?
Just out of curiosity — what does EASA actually do when they approve something that has already been approved by the FAA. Or put another way, what could cause EASA to refuse approval?
They could require additional limitations to be imposed. I’m not personally aware of any issues that have arisen during a validation and have resulted in changes to software upgrades on FAA STCs, but have certainly seen other instances where EASA won’t just accept the FAA STC data and have required physical changes to aircraft (additional standby instruments in helicopters for night VFR).
As to what happens if you fly with un-approved software? Probably not a lot, although strictly your C of A (and hence insurance) will be invalid as all modifications must be approved.
I would have expected the VMC ILS feature would have caused shudders all over both jurisdictions, but what do I know?
Is that feature only in the latest version?
Yes. I suspect that it is the cause of greater interest in getting this version in than has historically been the case.
(In my case it is a different reason, they have fixed a bug in Connext weather, but that is scarcely a crowd puller.)
I think the debate over VMC ILS will be whether it decreases risk by giving an unambiguous route to the threshold in any conditions, while keeping the aircraft as high as possible above terrain throughout the manoeuvre, or increases risk by encouraging people to attempt approaches to VFR runways in IMC.
That is a discussion I have been involved in for many years.
Timothy wrote:
I think the debate over VMC ILS will be whether it decreases risk by giving an unambiguous route to the threshold in any conditions, while keeping the aircraft as high as possible above terrain throughout the manoeuvre, or increases risk by encouraging people to attempt approaches to VFR runways in IMC.
Clearly, it does both. But the problem is surely not the associated risk assessment, which if out-sourced to someone who already has a command of the subject might take a few hours.
A cynic might opine that certain EASA officials and member states have a track record of fighting tooth and nail against anything which carries a risk of saving lives (like the UK IMC rating).
But the sticking point is surely how this technology may affect the income of our dearly-beloved NAAs. Which small airfield will pay tens of thousands of pounds in fees to the CAA to publish and operate an official IAP which is not materially safer than Garmin’s VMC ILS?
So, we think that this new feature will slow the roll-out of LPV to VFR airfields?
