Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

My new panel

Maoraigh wrote:

Am I correct in thinking the C172 wing loading would fail it for IFR (and Night?) if it was an LAA Permit aircraft?

They only suggest that it is unlikely to be approved with a wing loading less than 60 kg/m².
On that basis a Skyhawk SP would meet the requirements at 71.5 kg/m² (1150kg, 16.2m²)

KHWD- Hayward California; EGTN Enstone Oxfordshire, United States

This is a fantastic panel. I want this in my Piper PA28 -181

When you scroll down to the bottom of Advanced Flight Systems website it says it is part of Dynon Avionics. At present a few Dynon products are being installed in certified Aircraft (at least in the U.S.)

If I wait another 12 months do you think the CAA will deregulate this sort of thing and make everybody safer?

Perhaps I should allow the Government to “protect” me and allow me to fly my 40 year Aircraft with a Vacuum pump which fails every 600 hours of flying, to protect my cracked 40 year old rubber vacuum hoses and to protect a 40 year old Artificial Horizon indicator? Oh well, the Government knows best!

Can I move my Piper PA28 to the non-certified regime? I really don’t know the answer to that question but if this was possible I could put in modern Avionics. I don’t rent my Aircraft out and only I fly it.

Comments please!! – Thanks – Archer -181

United Kingdom

Archer, I’m afraid you cannot put your 181 on to the permit scene. It is this ability to self install state of the art equipment at “reasonable” cost that made me choose a permit a/c over certified but you really need to be a competent and willing tinkerer to get the most out of it.

Forever learning
EGTB

The full or fuller story is, as usual, more complicated.

For example no uncertified GPS can fly GPS approaches. See e.g. here Obviously you could load some user waypoints in there and fly the vertical profile manually, but to call it “state of the art” is way off (in terms of modern GPS capability) because it will never do LPV. Jeppesen own the databases and for whatever reason these are not available to uncertified units.

Also if your vac pump fails at 600hrs and your 40 year old hoses are cracked, there is something very wrong somewhere Maybe the vac pump is filling up with bits of rubber from the perished hoses.

If you speak to someone with real hands-on ownership and maintenance experience, and find out where money is really spent in aircraft operation, the picture is not the same as is often made out. For a start, the uncertified regime has virtually no benefit unless the owner is a full time tinkerer and is happy to get his hands dirty, and values his time at zero. Also he needs to be fairly competent, otherwise the whole thing is a waste of time at best and will probably turn into a disaster (a financial disaster if you are lucky). And he needs the facilities (hangarage etc where work is permitted).

Most of the cases of a certified plane costing a fortune to run involve something that has been neglected for 30 years and the new owner is landed with a huge list of defects. I see this all the time… A C150/152 costing 8k at every Annual, etc.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

the uncertified regime has virtually no benefit unless the owner is a full time tinkerer and is happy to get his hands dirty, and values his time at zero. Also he needs to be fairly competent, otherwise the whole thing is a waste of time at best and will probably turn into a disaster (a financial disaster if you are lucky). And he needs the facilities (hangarage etc where work is permitted).

Doesn’t that describe most of the people who are successful in owning any plane, certified or not, in the real world?

With respect to the ‘time valued at zero’ calculation, obviously the number is not actually zero for anybody, even if they’re doing it just to save money. Its really the labor cost saved divided by the personal time used. On that basis its a low but measureable rate of pay. Then speaking for myself and my (certified) planes, I would add the sanity enhancing value of the experience – I enjoy my hours around aircraft. The sum is a pretty good rate of pay, and a good use of my time.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 29 Sep 00:17

Doesn’t that describe most of the people who are successful in owning any plane, certified or not, in the real world?

If a non proactive owner finds a good maintenance company then his/her ownership experience can be good – at a price several times higher than doing it himself.

There are some such companies. Not many…

But that is difficult on the EASA certified regime. Almost impossible, unless you can find a freelance Subpart G signoff (this does exist although it isn’t supposed to).

You and I enjoy working on our planes, hence our views

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter, the same is true for EASA ELA-1 Aircraft like the Archer for instance. You can do anything yourself but need a Part66 CFS to sign for some maintenance and repair tasks. Now that CFS needs to work in a maintenance company but there are plenty very good shops assisting the owners with self maintenance. And in Future Part ML will make it even easier and for heavier aircraft, too.

As for Archer181s question: You can install the Aspen without problems.

Last Edited by mh at 29 Sep 06:46
mh
Inside the sky.
EDXE, EDXF, Germany

Hi Peter and MH

I looked at the Aspen and I can see the advantages that it slides into the upper hole of the panel and of course it is TSO’d…….. but the downside I can see is that it is $9,500 dollars + extra money for synthetic vision + it has a tiny screen compared to the Dynon stuff

My comments about old rubber hoses don’t actually relate to my Aircraft but do relate to many of the PA28’s I learnt to fly in. Flying club Aircraft constantly had avionics and vacuum pump issues so my comments really asked ……………….does the Government in the US and UK really make you safer by stopping modern EFIS being installed?

I do work on my own Aircraft in the form of an owner assisted Annual and I definitely have the ability to install avionics. I do agree with you about valuing my time at zero when messing about with planes but I do this at the weekend and call it “relaxation!!” …………….having said that, lying upside down in a PA28 installing 75% of Power Flarm with strands of copper wire and blobs of solder falling into your eyes is not really relaxation! – Final connections, checking of my work and certification was obviously done by a qualified Avionics Facility.

Thanks – Archer-181

Last Edited by Archer-181 at 29 Sep 21:03
United Kingdom

There are complicated issues here… we are stuck with the cerfified regime because it is covered by the ICAO treaty and these planes can fly unrestricted worldwide, noncommercial VFR and IFR as applicable. Non-certified planes cannot do so by default although there are various concessions – many threads on that here previously. Also non-certified planes cannot in most cases be used for civilian flight training; the national CAAs make sure of that. The problem with shagged out training planes I am well familiar with, having walked out of one school (a UK CAA AOC holder no less) after 20hrs because its Tomahawks were just about falling apart, and I don’t think there is a solution here because most schools will maintain their fleets to the absolute minimum they can get away with. The installation of uncertified avionics to replace the shagged certified stuff would IMHO be like putting lipstick on a pig. And if schools could operate uncertified planes they would not maintain them any better and anyway most of those planes would fall apart much faster in the training regime. One might think it can be fixed but it is unlikely it will ever change. Maybe one day as the old PA28/Cessna fleets get scrapped…? But there is IMHO no reason to believe that modern avionics (say the G1000) will be more reliable than the old stuff, after being parked outdoors for 30 years while abused by students.

There isn’t a cheap solution to removing the vacuum system in an IFR certified plane (most of the PPL training fleet) because you need a backup AI, and if you go 100% electric then you need a product with a battery – e.g. here and here and there are loads of others. None are cheap. And if you have a VFR-only plane it is limited revenue-wise in the training environment; there are other issues with doing that in a certified plane, too.

I moved your other post into a thread more directly relevant, @Archer-181

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Thank you for the reply – really informative and much appreciated!

Archer-181

United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top