Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Transponder/Static System Check IFR vs. VFR

590€ without VAT.

Last Edited by Guillaume at 15 Feb 11:06

Ah, I think I understand. There is the operational pitot-static system check, this is a plain and simple functional test and this is the one prescribed by Part-M for ELA aircraft. Then there is the «IFR» pitot-static system check, as required by FAR 91.411 for IFR flight in the USA. This test seems to be required too in EASA memberstates, if an aircraft is used for IFR. The max. deviation at low altitudes is +-20ft in the test.

Alright, thanks everyone.

ArcticChiller wrote:

There is the operational pitot-static system check, this is a plain and simple functional test and this is the one prescribed by Part-M for ELA aircraft.

How do you want to do an operational pitot-static system check? Generally it would require calibrated pitot static tester and calibrated transponder test set to be able to perform these kind of test? Be sure you understand your national regulations on this. Even under a MIP you are required to follow these testing as indicated by your CAA.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

ArcticChiller wrote:

There is the operational pitot-static system check, this is a plain and simple functional test and this is the one prescribed by Part-M for ELA aircraft. Then there is the «IFR» pitot-static system check, as required by FAR 91.411 for IFR flight in the USA.

Yes and also (implicit in your description) there is no pitot static system check required for N-registry aircraft operated VFR. That’s IFR only.

Jesse wrote:

How do you want to do an operational pitot-static system check?

To the best of my knowledge, no aircraft I have ever flown as PIC has ever had a pitot static system check. Transponder checks (for IFR and VFR) aren’t a huge deal, $95 or something in my hangar every two years, but they actually add very little for me personally because I could ask ATC my Mode C altitude any time I like.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 16 Feb 15:02

Isn’t there a confusion between pitot/static test AND global test (whole radio-communication set) ?

In Freg land, both are every 2 years for IFR aircraft.
As I said global test was 620€ w/o VAT
Pitot static was 220€ w/o VAT.

Can anyone explain to me which of those tests are mandatory under Nreg ?
Could be a significant advantage.

In a general way, what do you think @Jesse about repeating those tests every two years ? Is it efficient care in your opinion ?

The mandatory N-reg avionics test is the static test every 2 years, for IFR.

If anyone believes there are extra tests (Part 91 operation) I would like to see the reference.

In the UK, this is normally charged at about £60 per item so if e.g. you have 2 altimeters and a transponder, you pay £180. I used to pay £500 to IAE at Cranfield but that included somebody driving down to Shoreham. Nowadays I fly to a firm in Bournemouth.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Jesse wrote:

“How do you want to do an operational pitot-static system check? Generally it would require calibrated pitot static tester and calibrated transponder test set to be able to perform these kind of test? Be sure you understand your national regulations on this. Even under a MIP you are required to follow these testing as indicated by your CAA.”

I don’t know how to do an operational pitot-static system check, but that is what is says under M.A.302(i) for ELA1. Generally, the question is if a pilot should worry about this check in order to fly IFR, or if he/she can assume that this test has been done if the airplane is within the 100h/annual cycle. I’ll double check with the CAA.

Last Edited by ArcticChiller at 16 Feb 16:47

Silvaire wrote:

Transponder checks (for IFR and VFR) aren’t a huge deal, $95 or something in my hangar every two years, but they actually add very little for me personally because I could ask ATC my Mode C altitude any time I like.

The transponder checks according FAR 91.413 are on transponder operation. It requires verification of transmitter power output, frequency tolerance, receiver sensitivity etc, verification of uplink formats (including altitude).

Pitot static test according FAR 91.411 are for altimeter and altitude encoder, and the relationship between them. The altitude encoder has a tolerance to the primary altimeter, not the “standard”. The primary altimeter has a tolerance to the standard.

For IFR under FAA you would require both 91.413 and 91.411.

Silvaire wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, no aircraft I have ever flown as PIC has ever had a pitot static system check. Transponder checks (for IFR and VFR) aren’t a huge deal, $95 or something in my hangar every two years, but they actually add very little for me personally because I could ask ATC my Mode C altitude any time I like.

They don’t want that in Europe, and likely not under FAA as well, as all new (mode S) transponders are required to show the flight level they actually are transmitting.
It doesn’t make to much sense either, because you can only verify the relationship between primary altimeter and altitude encoder. You can not test your altimeter using this method.

ArcticChiller wrote:

Ah, I think I understand. There is the operational pitot-static system check, this is a plain and simple functional test and this is the one prescribed by Part-M for ELA aircraft. Then there is the «IFR» pitot-static system check, as required by FAR 91.411 for IFR flight in the USA. This test seems to be required too in EASA memberstates, if an aircraft is used for IFR. The max. deviation at low altitudes is +-20ft in the test.

Alright, thanks everyone.

Not correct, in most countries it is either altimeter, altitude encoder, and transponder for VFR, or test everything (as in the Netherlands for example).

PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:

Isn’t there a confusion between pitot/static test AND global test (whole radio-communication set) ?

That could be, it difference between countries. In the Netherlands you will have to test everything evey two years, there is no difference between VFR and IFR.

PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:

Can anyone explain to me which of those tests are mandatory under Nreg ?
Could be a significant advantage.

Actually their isn’t much difference. Setting up the test equipment, paperwork and removing the test equipment again takes most of the time. Expect somewhere between 1,5 and 2,5 for testing on the average aircraft. With 1,5 being a basic VFR only Piper Cub, and 2,5 hours being a fully loaded Socata / Cirrus with all redundant equipment. This basically comes to a 230 – 315 Euro including 21% VAT for most aircraft. Expect extra charges if repairs are needed or in cases of leakage.

PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:

In a general way, what do you think @Jesse about repeating those tests every two years ? Is it efficient care in your opinion ?

While most don’t seem to agree on this, I think it is money well spend. For example poor coax cables are detected before they become an issue. Another benefit is the ability to test flag circuits, which isn’t possible on any other way then with test equipment. It is important your avionics flag off data which they present, but is incorrect. Especially in IMC this could be deadly.

For me, ignoring these kind of test, is a bit like flying for 100 hours or more with the same oil, because you might be allowed to do so. While you might be allowed to do so, it wouldn’t be in the long term interest. In my opinion the MIP is below the bare minimum you should do.

ArcticChiller wrote:

I don’t know how to do an operational pitot-static system check, but that is what is says under M.A.302(i) for ELA1. Generally, the question is if a pilot should worry about this check in order to fly IFR, or if he/she can assume that this test has been done if the airplane is within the 100h/annual cycle. I’ll double check with the CAA.

This being specific work, I wouldn’t assume that they are done at 100 hours or annual but verify this. An mechanical only workshop or mechanic is likely either call someone, or don’t perform the work, and have you going somewhere for this testing.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Jesse wrote:

They don’t want that in Europe, and likely not under FAA as well, as all new (mode S) transponders are required to show the flight level they actually are transmitting.

I don’t know who ‘they’ are, but I do know the FAA regs that apply to my operations. Also that I don’t (and likely will never) have Mode S on my plane, only Mode C. I don’t buy pitot static tests, and neither does the owner of any VFR aircraft I know. I am only speaking about N-registered aircraft and the US, where most such aircraft operate and where uniform, well established practice for pitot static and transponder testing exists and works well. Conjecture about these rules is not common in the US, and for N-registered aircraft, because it unnecessary.

Jesse wrote:

It doesn’t make to much sense either, because you can only verify the relationship between primary altimeter and altitude encoder. You can not test your altimeter using this method.

My altimeter functions pretty well at any of the airports to which I operate between sea level and 7000 feet elevation, with or without alternate static air selected. That’s good enough for both me, the owner, and the regulations applied to my aircraft. The altimeter is also in close agreement with the Mode C output happily reported back to me by ATC, and checked every two years for about $100 USD plus 30 minutes of my time to open and close the hangar doors.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 16 Feb 21:50

Silvaire wrote:

I don’t know who ‘they’ are

ATC, as there was clearly a reason why the flight level must be displayed on newer transponders.

Silvaire wrote:

Also that I don’t (and likely will never) have Mode S on my plane, only Mode C. I don’t buy pitot static tests, and neither does the owner of any VFR aircraft I know. I am only speaking about N-registered aircraft and the US, where most such aircraft operate and where uniform, well established practice for pitot static and transponder testing exists and works well.

That can be, but will not work in Europe. It seems topic starter flies an EASA Reg now, and therefor should follow national regulations from his CAA, even when using MIP.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top