Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Why do I need a THIRD radio if I want GNS430w + GNS530w (dual GNS certification issue)

KN62A… if someone has a well priced one I’d be for it. I have a KN64 which has to go in order to get IFR I need to 62A. Thankfully they are pin compatible.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney driver.

I may be able to help you with this, I have a KN62a ( to fit a KN63) that I have just removed from my aircraft and had intended to fit it into another of my aircraft however of the money is right I would do a part exchange for your KN64.

To return to the common mode failure topic.

I am currently flying an aircraft with three identical com radios, five identical DME’s, two identical VOR/ILS units, two identical GPS , and the whole thing tied together with two identical FMC’s. Hundreds of this type are on the EASA register.

I can only think that the person trying to keep a third old VHF in a new dual Garmin panel is living in the dark ages both in terms of attitude and regulation.

Five DME’s? Jeez, what panel is that fitted to?

ESSB, Stockholm Bromma

This one, or possibly this one

But seriously I think 2 or 3 of them are FMS-controlled, to get background position fixups for an airliner INS.

Last Edited by Peter at 28 Aug 10:50
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

That’s right Peter, three of the DME’s are dedicated to the FMS to keep the IRS position as accurate as posable the other two follow the manual selection of the VOR/ILS but do feed this to the FMS.

The G1000 is dual everything but they are common as well. I don’t have a backup if I lose both com radios. Dual ADCs which must share a common failure mode. Dual PFDs etc.

Sounds like an idiotic decision taken a long time ago that has just been taken as the rule since. Hopefully the recent changes at EASA and the CAA will avoid this sort of thing in future.

EGTK Oxford

The engineering side of the UK CAA was run by engineers who took a pragmatic veiw to things, EASA is replacing these people with administrators who have no technical understanding and just administer the rules as they see them. That is why we get so much nonsence out of EASA, the people are not stupid, they just have to administer something they don’t fully understand…………. Add a little misunderstanding in translation from EASA English to the local language to add further spice to the nonsence !

Dual ADCs which must share a common failure mode

Should not be if they have their own pitot and static sources, alternators and buses.

Of course there is the AF447 scenario but hey the pilot has to be at least slightly awake and has to have at least a little bit of aircraft systems knowledge

The weak point in a G1000 is the LCD and the associated circuitry – the drivers, and the backlight inverter which is probably the most common failure even on high-end laptops (top end Thinkpads) whose build quality is similar to the G1000.

The engineering side of the UK CAA was run by engineers who took a pragmatic veiw to things

Yet, the UK CAA did not allow dual GNS installations either.

Despite all that’s been said here and elsewhere over the past 10 years or more, the JAA and later EASA dual GNS rule remains totally unexplained since all the way back to year 1999 some airframe mfgs got 2xGNS under their TC, and they did it without any special provisions. You need only one exception to disprove a rule. Much as it is tempting to think so, I don’t actually believe the TC holders did it by booking some Cologne officials into an upmarket whorehouse (of which Cologne has a plentiful supply – they are set up as saunas and are a booming business in Germany).

Last Edited by Peter at 28 Aug 13:39
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

So is the next euroga fly in going to be to Cologne………… To visit …….errrr EASA ?

Five DMEs:

[pic added on A&C’s request]

Last Edited by Peter at 28 Aug 14:49
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top