Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

VFR-only certification, and moving these to IFR, certifying the RV, etc

Peter wrote:

strikes are not infrequent if you actually fly IFR and not just pretend-IFR in VMC

Yes, indeed, and much more often than people usually assume.

Last Edited by MichaLSA at 10 Mar 16:39
Germany

here

here

IMHO the 2nd one is BS (produced by some consultancy) because

  • strikes are not infrequent if you actually fly IFR and not just pretend-IFR in VMC
  • plenty of certified planes would lose comms in IMC due to charge shedding via droplets off the training edges (DA40, SR20) and some saw total crashes of avionics
  • plenty of “plastic” homebuilts had poor performance from COM & NAV kit (although some of that could be due to poor ground planes)

but nobody wants to look a gift horse in the mouth

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Risk is the product of probability (or likelihood) and consequence. Neither are easily defined and are mostly relative values of some sort plotted on X and Y axis, in a rather quazi scientific manner IMO, still interesting and worth while to get a better understanding of the actual risks (at least relatively). The Norwegian CAA has ordered every club/organization to do a risk analysis this spring. I have been to one such session, and it was much better than at least I anticipated it to be.

IFR in a homebuilt. What is the risks? First we have to define likelihood. How likely is it that a GA pilot would fly a homebuilt in the first place, and then how likely is it he/she would fly IFR in that plane. Then, how likely is it he/she would fly IFR in seriously bad meteorological conditions that the plane cannot handle? Lastly, what is the likelihood an accident will occur which is described exclusively to the specific aircraft (in that bad conditions)? The consequence in an accident is high (death is not unlikely). Every single pilot that I know or know of that flies IFR in a homebuilt is:

  • Commercial/military pilot with tons of hours. Some are current, some are retired.
  • Fly IFR only in VMC on nice summer evenings, typically to “get home” fast.
  • They do it in fast and maneuverable machines, typically an RV.

What all this boils down to is how likely it is for a GA pilot to wander off into weather conditions, IFR, in which the aircraft obviously cannot handle? How likely is this poor judgement of airmanship to occur? The likelihood is very small IMO, and if he/she were flying a certified C-150, would that have improved the matter, or changed anything at all?

Poor airmanship doesn’t magically improve with a certified aircraft. Airmanship exists exclusively between the ears of a pilot.

Anyway, the likelihood is very, very small. The consequence is high. The risk becomes extremely small. No reason to do anything, other things become more important due to much higher likelihood (like VFR into IMC or landing accidents, the usual stuff). If we wanted to improve anything, it would be something between the ears of the pilot, the very few ones that this actually affects. All in all it’s a silly thing to bother about.

I understand the LAA stuff above as the result of a long process with bureaucrats. The wing loading restriction seems to me to be a very silly thing with zero consequence for anyone actually wanting to fly IFR in a homebuilt. Technically one can certainly find reasons for this restriction, but in terms of actual risk, it’s as good as nonexistent.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Ibra wrote:

I think @Emir can share his experience but he flies in lot of weather

I simply thought that my flight path was sufficiently far from CB and I was wrong Plus I had older version of winglets without bonding which ended up with a bit of scorch and new winglets.

Last Edited by Emir at 10 Mar 14:15
LDZA LDVA, Croatia

CS-23 is for certification. If nothing particular is there, why should there suddenly become issues for non certified aircraft?

You are right it seems possible to get LAA permit to fly and remove “VFR restriction” with very low wing loadings (but I am not aware of a single case)

LAA TL227

Melted gliders is just another old woman’s tale kind of stuff

Yes it rare but it happens, if you fly glider beneath or inside convective clouds you should expect it, however, between us the primary risk is loss of control (due to turbulence) not losing controls (due to lightning)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/542300e540f0b613420009cf/dft_avsafety_pdf_500699.pdf

Last Edited by Ibra at 10 Mar 12:17
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

Melted gliders is just another old woman’s tale kind of stuff IMO

One occurence: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/542300e540f0b613420009cf/dft_avsafety_pdf_500699.pdf

Nympsfield, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

This is despite plenty of gliders having gone down with melted control cables etc. Details in the link.

Can’t find any details in the link… Melted gliders is just another old woman’s tale kind of stuff IMO. Had another search of CS-23, and cannot find anything there regarding IFR that is NOT about instruments and related systems. Flying in known icing conditions is one, but that’s a whole separate issue in any case. The most relevant I could see was the defog system must be able to defog the windows in a worst case scenario descending fast from high alt (cold soaked) condition.

CS-23 is for certification. If nothing particular is there, why should there suddenly become issues for non certified aircraft?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

This came up further back.

It is not obvious how a non-bonded “plastic plane” can ever do IFR safely, but that has not stopped e.g. the UK LAA doing it, after publishing a doc stating that this risk is extremely small This is despite plenty of gliders having gone down with melted control cables etc. Details in the link.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I think wing loading to cope with turbulences in clouds comes in CS23 certification for IFR

This does not apply to gliders as they are only certfied for VFR but can still operate inside clouds, I heard 2 occurrences of light strikes, in both pilots bailed out from melted glider

Has it ever happened in a GA plane?

I think @Emir can share his experience but he flies in lot of weather

Last Edited by Ibra at 10 Mar 11:07
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

I thing I do know is that the aircraft must be able to withstand a lightning strike

For big, heavy airlines that would make sense I guess. But for a GA plane to even get in close proximity of a thunderstorm, it’s the winds that are the danger. They could rip the wings of, or at least move you around like a leave, making you lose control. The possibility of delamination due to a lightning strike sounds very much theoretical. Has it ever happened in a GA plane? Isn’t this only a requirement for static electricity to not create different potentials, thus it is the same regardless if IFR or not?

The reason I’m asking is that I have seen this come up from time to time, but cannot remember to have actually read anything about it which is special for IFR. Not saying it isn’t, but it would be nice to know where exactly this comes from.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
109 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top