Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Transponder/Static System Check IFR vs. VFR

PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:

Is it for full testing ? (All Avionics plus pitot static ?)

In this case, at (620 + 220) 840€ + VAT for both tests (C182 G1000)

@PetitCessnaVoyageur

As the full test “test global” includes the pitot-static check you shouldn’t have to pay for both tests (unless you get ripped off) !

As said earlier, I paid 575€ + VAT 6 months ago. It was 475 + VAT 2,5 years ago.
I’ve had quotes > 1000 € + VAT for this job.

Despite paying for the tests, 2 months later I climbed for the first time to FL150 and the altitude encoder was showing FL145 (while it was spot-on at FL140)…
It seriously makes you wonder if the tests were really done…

Anyway, the real “issue” I see is that so far we had a two year periodicity and now it’s being reduced from two years to one year.
I’m far from convinced that this change of periodicity was triggered by a too high number of safety events .
So it goes totally against the EASA GA objectives which says “Work towards a simpler and more proportionate framework for aircraft maintenance…”

I’m not against making the rules regarding GA more strict if it’s necessary. But a new maintenance rule should be based on a necessity to fix a safety issue.
But from here, it looks like they just put a 1 year / 100h periodicity because this is the periodicity of the MIP.

Last Edited by Guillaume at 17 Feb 21:06

Jesse wrote:

I don’t understand, do you care to explain.

The MIP says you should do operational checks on the pitot-static system and transponder every 100 hrs.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Guillaume wrote:

Despite paying for the tests, 2 months later I climbed for the first time to FL150 and the altitude encoder was showing FL145 (while it was spot-on at FL140)…
It seriously makes you wonder if the tests were really done…

Such a big error, in such a small altitude difference is not likely to be caused by an out of tolerance / adjustment issue. It could very well be an failure on the encoder or wiring.

Guillaume wrote:

Anyway, the real “issue” I see is that so far we had a two year periodicity and now it’s being reduced from two years to one year.

You don’t have to go the MIP route? Sometimes the MIP can be more strict than current national regulations.I really fail to see the real benefits, and I think they are often over exaggerated.

One other example, was where AOPA-NL published, that AOPA had won the lobby against the AD2006-0265 encoder AD, and that the revoke of this AD would save owners lots of money. I responded to this as well, as it didn’t make sense. This AD required testing of the altitude encoder. Testing of the altitude encoder was allready part of testing on Dutch aircraft, before the AD, and still is afterwards, just like UK, Belgium, France, Germany and I guess most others. As the actual testing was allready done, the AD didn’t add cost when it came into force, and didn’t lower cost when it was revoked.

Altitude encoder issue should be sorted before the next flight. As indicated before, there is a good reason that all new transponder show the flight level, it is part of transponder design. Now you can at least check altimeter and flight level (remember 1013,25 mB) and recognize issues.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Airborne_Again wrote:

The MIP says you should do operational checks on the pitot-static system and transponder every 100 hrs.

In that case it is more strict then national regulations. The are other points as well. As in previouse post, I sometimes wonder what true benefits are for MIP, especially in those countries where national regulations allow on condition. I think all these regulations are much closer then often indicated. Similair as that testing between different countries isn’t that different.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Jesse wrote:

Such a big error, in such a small altitude difference is not likely to be caused by an out of tolerance / adjustment issue. It could very well be an failure on the encoder or wiring.

That’s exactly what I thought. My encoder (SSD120-30N-RS232) is still spot on from GND to FL140. I ruled out the wiring issue as it’s RS232 wired and values at other FL are very accurate / steady. The discrepancy starts from FL140+. I know this encoder can re-calibrated at each FL with a laptop. Maybe that would help ?
Thanks for the advice

Jesse wrote:

You don’t have to go the MIP route?

MIP brings a lot of good stuff too. Most CAA mandates TBO. Being able to IRAN a 300 hours in service propeller instead of an overhaul when reaching the 6 years limit saves quite a lot money. I already had to scrap three blades due to blade grinding during the overhaul (on a 2 blade prop). Propeller blades (used or new) are not cheap.
I’ve plenty of other examples in mind but that’s not the point.
IMHO, the MIP is great except this “transponder operational check” which should be mandated every two years (I’m not in favor of no check!).

Jesse wrote:

As the actual testing was allready done, the AD didn’t add cost when it came into force, and didn’t lower cost when it was revoked.

Actually, for F-reg aircraft, the AD cancellation added costs. While the AD used to target only “gilham wired” transponder for obvious reasons, the new “test” set-up after the AD cancellation was mandatory for every transponder / encoder.

Last Edited by Guillaume at 17 Feb 23:37

Could it be related to this?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Could it be related to this?

That is what I thought that could be likely, it can not be the case however as Guillaume indicates he uses serial RS-232 instead of parallel gray code / Gillham code.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

All the SSD120 encoders produce gray code output even if they also provide RS232 output. Depending on the transponder, it may or may not accept RS232 as input and may require the gray code parallel interface.

KUZA, United States

I am doing IR training and want to fly IFR in my F-reg and I’m going through the regulations. I have an approved maintenance program and it’s managed through a CAMO and is not ELA1 (1243 kg MTOW).

Regarding the bi-annual IFR checks, I believe this makes me fall outside the applicable aircraft given in P-14-15 of the DGAC document translated below. Can anyone confirm this is correct?:

Applicability:
All aircraft other than balloons not subject to a reliability program (*) and:
 operated in commercial air transport.
 operated in IFR.

(*) Reliability program as provided for in M.A.302 (f), developed and implemented by
Part M under Part G which manages the airworthiness of the aircraft

EIWT, Ireland
49 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top