IFR Aircraft

[squincher]

What makes an IFR aircraft? I would have thought any aircraft with standard instruments would be capable of IFR flight, but I see a lot of sale listings for VFR aircraft.

 

[DGlaeser]

IFR radios, especially an IFR GPS -$$$$ (vs a VFR GPS -$$) are usually the big difference.
Any EFIS has all the required flight instruments, and backup instruments are highly recommended (but not required by regulation) for IFR. Most IFR planes have 2 comm radios, a ‘VFR only’ plane may only have 1.
See FAR 91.205.

If ‘steam gauges’ are used instead of an EFIS, the standard ‘6 pack’ is what you need (the VSI is not required but again recommended).

Active notification of alternator (and vacuum if installed) is another highly recommended item for IFR.

91.205 is the minimum requirement, after that it is your tolerance/desire for risk management.

 

[flyingron]

If you have an older aircraft, you need to be equipped per 91.205 and have the requisite inspections.

If you have a newer aircraft, it must not be limited by its operating limitations to VFR as equipped and have the requisite inspections.

 

[bfmetcalf]

Look up in the FAR/AIM 14 CFR 91.205

https://www.faraim.org/faa/far/cfr/title-14/part-91/index.html#seqnum91.205

So basically, the below items. Also, the pitot/static system needs to be inspected at a set interval to be certified.

(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Airspeed indicator.
(2) Altimeter.
(3) Magnetic direction indicator.
(4) Tachometer for each engine.
(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.
(6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.
(7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.
(8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.
(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.
(10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable landing gear.
(11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made.
(12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water and beyond power-off gliding distance from shore, approved flotation gear readily available to each occupant and, unless the aircraft is operating under part 121 of this subchapter, at least one pyrotechnic signaling device. As used in this section, “shore” means that area of the land adjacent to the water which is above the high water mark and excludes land areas which are intermittently under water.
(13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching device, or other approved restraint system for each occupant 2 years of age or older.
(14) For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an approved shoulder harness or restraint system for each front seat. For small civil airplanes manufactured after December 12, 1986, an approved shoulder harness or restraint system for all seats. Shoulder harnesses installed at flightcrew stations must permit the flightcrew member, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight operations. For purposes of this paragraph—
(i) The date of manufacture of an airplane is the date the inspection acceptance records reflect that the airplane is complete and meets the FAA-approved type design data; and
(ii) A front seat is a seat located at a flightcrew member station or any seat located alongside such a seat.
(15) An emergency locator transmitter, if required by § 91.207.
(16) [Reserved]
(17) For rotorcraft manufactured after September 16, 1992, a shoulder harness for each seat that meets the requirements of § 27.2 or § 29.2 of this chapter in effect on September 16, 1991.
(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) Approved position lights.
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:

 

[Palmpilot]

The POH must also not prohibit IFR flight.

 

[Bell206]

What makes an IFR aircraft?

To add to the above, provided there are no IFR operating limitations per 91.9 and the aircraft is equipped per 91.205 then it can operate under IFR.

but I see a lot of sale listings for VFR aircraft.

In my experience, those type aircraft are usually only equipped to fly VFR vs have a limitation preventing IFR.

 

[somorris]

What makes an IFR aircraft? I would have thought any aircraft with standard instruments would be capable of IFR flight, but I see a lot of sale listings for VFR aircraft.

There are quite a few aircraft that do have standard instruments, maybe most of the instruments you would need for IFR flight, but don't have adequate navigation equipment.

 

[MarkH]

If you have an older aircraft, you need to be equipped per 91.205 and have the requisite inspections.

If you have a newer aircraft, it must not be limited by its operating limitations to VFR as equipped and have the requisite inspections.

Let me start by saying: This is pedantic as hell, but in some cases it may be an important distinctions.

LSA operating limitations do not limit the planes from operating IFR, it limits the operation in IMC. This allows instrument training in LSAs, and instrument flying in LSAs as long as you don't fly into a situation where visibility is below VFR allowable.

It is, in my opinion, one of the worst clarification failures of the LSA airworthiness rules.

 

[flyingron]

Even the part 21 aircraft often have limitations on DAY VFR/NIGHT VFR/IFR. While there has been some dispensation about operating these IFR in VMC for training purposes, by the letter of the law it is illegal to fly them under Instrument Flight Rules even on a CAVU day. Being in VMC doesn't get you out of the IFR rules.

 

[texasclouds]

GRABCARD and inspections.

 

[Albany Tom]

Off topic, but why isn't there a instrument rating add-on for light sport? The electronics don't weigh much of anything these days. Is it just that the controllers don't want to deal with practice approaches at 60 knots? (I can actually see that as a thing.)

 

[Salty]

Off topic, but why isn't there a instrument rating add-on for light sport? The electronics don't weigh much of anything these days. Is it just that the controllers don't want to deal with practice approaches at 60 knots? (I can actually see that as a thing.)

The whole point of light sport is supposed to be to be a simpler path to get into the air. If you want to do more complicated stuff, you get a private. You can fly a (properly equipped) light sport under instrument rules if you are an instrument rated private pilot, but you need either a medical or basic med.

With light sport it’s easy to confuse aircraft and airmen regulations, but they are separate things. A private pilot can fly a light sport above 10k if they have a medical or basic med, but they have to stay below 10k (and follow all the other light sport rules for airmen) if their medical is expired.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Off topic, but why isn't there a instrument rating add-on for light sport? The electronics don't weigh much of anything these days. Is it just that the controllers don't want to deal with practice approaches at 60 knots? (I can actually see that as a thing.)

I agree with @Salty about the pilot path. The requirements for the instrument rating are so significantly higher than just VFR private, that sport to private would be a non-event in comparison. So go ahead and do it Can probably arrange to do a combined checkride,

But I also think that, at least in part, it's also because, while the avionics systems are very capable (I think the current Skyview HDX may well equal the G1000 for capability) even the most modern light sport aircraft are themselves on a looser certification path and not certified for IFR flight.

 

[Arnold]

What makes an IFR aircraft? I would have thought any aircraft with standard instruments would be capable of IFR flight, but I see a lot of sale listings for VFR aircraft.

What is legal and what is comfortable are two different things. In addition to the avionics mentioned in prior posts I am uncomfortable if temps are at or near 5C/40F due to icing potential in IMC conditions. At the very least I want a heated pitot tube.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Let me start by saying: This is pedantic as hell, but in some cases it may be an important distinctions.

LSA operating limitations do not limit the planes from operating IFR, it limits the operation in IMC. This allows instrument training in LSAs, and instrument flying in LSAs as long as you don't fly into a situation where visibility is below VFR allowable.

It is, in my opinion, one of the worst clarification failures of the LSA airworthiness rules.

Perhaps pedantic as hell but I think the distinction is limited.

It's not clear but arguably, the FAA guidance embodied in FSIMS ¶5-49 - which came about because of the then unique position of the Diamond DA-20 - is limited to instrument flight training, not general IFR operations. That aside, there is the question of whether an airplane which cannot be flown 400' below an overcast with 100 miles visibility, let alone through a cloud, has much practical IFR use beyond the training environment.

Maybe refer to is as a "sort of IFR aircraft"?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I suspect the "VFR aircraft" listings fall into two categories. Certification and equipment.

There may be regulatory or TC or AFM limitations on IFR operations. Although it seems to be taught as the be-all-and-end-all, 91.205 just lists a group of necessary but not sufficient requirements. For example, IFR certification requires a certain level of lightning protection (the DA20 example), not mentioned at all in the regulation taught by the single worst group of aviation mnemonics in existence (yes, that's a rant).

These days I suspect there's also a practical equipment component to listings. A matter of good disclosure. One of the flight schools at my home base just acquired a 1978 Warrior II. Really nice airplane but single nav/com, modern transponder, and a mounted portable GPS. Legal for IFR flight? Absolutely. But I wouldn't consider it to be anything more than a VFR airplane.

 

[NoHeat]

"sort of IFR aircraft"?

Night flight is like that, sometimes, for me. Most recently in nearly-empty western Nebraska, with an overcast and a new moon.

Regulations aside, I cannot imagine that flight without an attitude indicator and rate of turn indicator, at a minimum.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Night flight is like that, sometimes, for me. Most recently in nearly-empty western Nebraska, with an overcast and a new moon.

Regulations aside, I cannot imagine that flight without an attitude indicator and rate of turn indicator, at a minimum.

LOL! Kind of:

sort of IFR aircraft vs
sort of IFR aircraft​

 

[Albany Tom]

The whole point of light sport is supposed to be to be a simpler path to get into the air. If you want to do more complicated stuff, you get a private. You can fly a (properly equipped) light sport under instrument rules if you are an instrument rated private pilot, but you need either a medical or basic med.

With light sport it’s easy to confuse aircraft and airmen regulations, but they are separate things. A private pilot can fly a light sport above 10k if they have a medical or basic med, but they have to stay below 10k (and follow all the other light sport rules for airmen) if their medical is expired.

I suppose that may be the intent for introducing LS, but not sure that's really how it's worked out. I went light sport first, simply because I wanted to learn tailwheel first, and the aircraft I was flying didn't have either lights or gyros. Later on I picked up my private. The main difference to me is the lack of night and instrument training. The rest is really pretty much the same. The main advantage of LS for a lot of people is that they don't have to ever get a medical. I had a class 3 anyway, as I initially thought I'd go straight to a private, but that's probably an unusual case.

I think light sport has been pretty successful, in safety and in utilization, so I makes sense to me to extend it a bit. Older PPL's can switch to basic med, but that doesn't help people coming in new, who are safe to fly, but don't want to deal with the expense of a process designed to be rigorous enough for an Airbus captain just to fly a carbon cub. I think most people that can learn how to land a low wing loading aircraft in a crosswind can learn how to fly instrument, and that they wouldn't be any more of a hazard than someone with a PPL doing the same thing in a 182.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I suppose that may be the intent for introducing LS, but not sure that's really how it's worked out. I went light sport first, simply because I wanted to learn tailwheel first, and the aircraft I was flying didn't have either lights or gyros. Later on I picked up my private. The main difference to me is the lack of night and instrument training. The rest is really pretty much the same. The main advantage of LS for a lot of people is that they don't have to ever get a medical. I had a class 3 anyway, as I initially thought I'd go straight to a private, but that's probably an unusual case.

I think light sport has been pretty successful, in safety and in utilization, so I makes sense to me to extend it a bit. Older PPL's can switch to basic med, but that doesn't help people coming in new, who are safe to fly, but don't want to deal with the expense of a process designed to be rigorous enough for an Airbus captain just to fly a carbon cub. I think most people that can learn how to land a low wing loading aircraft in a crosswind can learn how to fly instrument, and that they wouldn't be any more of a hazard than someone with a PPL doing the same thing in a 182.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't disagree with a lot you say but I think the bolder part misses an important point - that only about 10-20% of instrument flight is about skill in flying instruments. 80-90% is about operating in a fairly tightly controlled system where pilot errors have immediate impact. I don't doubt a sport pilot can be capable but I don't see the FAA removing some level of medical certification and jumping through the tiny hoop of upgrading to private as a gateway into that system.

 

[Salty]

I don't disagree with a lot you say but I think the bolder part misses an important point - that only about 10-20% of instrument flight is about skill in flying instruments. 80-90% is about operating in a fairly tightly controlled system where pilot errors have immediate impact. I don't doubt a sport pilot can be capable but I don't see the FAA removing some level of medical certification and jumping through the tiny hoop of upgrading to private as a gateway into that system.

It makes no sense. If it weren’t for less privileges with a lower bar lsa would serve no purpose. The argument here is why private needs a medical in the first place.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It makes no sense. If it weren’t for less privileges with a lower bar lsa would serve no purpose. The argument here is why private needs a medical in the first place.

I don't/didn't disagree, especially since upgrading to private from sport is so easy.

"Sense" is often in the mind of the beholder. I just don't see it being done,

 

[Albany Tom]

It makes no sense. If it weren’t for less privileges with a lower bar lsa would serve no purpose. The argument here is why private needs a medical in the first place.

From a pilot perspective, it's less privileges. From a risk management side, I believe it's mainly the weight and speed limit that they care about. The lighter the wing loading and the lighter the aircraft, the less noise it makes if the pilot screws up and drops it out of the sky. It's about consequences more than anything else, not earned privileges.

I agree that 3rd class medical isn't a good thing, but the FAA is highly risk averse, so they're going to take baby steps, if any, always. Sport pilot was a baby step, so was basic med. My argument is that as long as the risk isn't demonstrated to be all that high, we can continue to push for fewer restrictions - more privileges with sport, basic med w/o class 3 first, etc. *Should* we have to keep pushing for small incremental changes? Doesn't matter much, that's how it works. We live in a country where fear drives a lot of decisions.

 

[Salty]

From a pilot perspective, it's less privileges. From a risk management side, I believe it's mainly the weight and speed limit that they care about. The lighter the wing loading and the lighter the aircraft, the less noise it makes if the pilot screws up and drops it out of the sky. It's about consequences more than anything else, not earned privileges.

I agree that 3rd class medical isn't a good thing, but the FAA is highly risk averse, so they're going to take baby steps, if any, always. Sport pilot was a baby step, so was basic med. My argument is that as long as the risk isn't demonstrated to be all that high, we can continue to push for fewer restrictions - more privileges with sport, basic med w/o class 3 first, etc. *Should* we have to keep pushing for small incremental changes? Doesn't matter much, that's how it works. We live in a country where fear drives a lot of decisions.

I disagree with you. Having people flying around in IMC in light sport aircraft is not progress in my view. I’d prefer focusing on lowering the medical requirements for private. Flying in imc in a light wing load aircraft is far more dangerous than flying a heavier single engine aircraft without a third class medical. JMO

I have enough LSA time in “sporty” weather to know I don’t want to be in a cloud in one.

 

[Albany Tom]

I disagree with you. Having people flying around in IMC in light sport aircraft is not progress in my view. I’d prefer focusing on lowering the medical requirements for private. Flying in imc in a light wing load aircraft is far more dangerous than flying a heavier single engine aircraft without a third class medical. JMO

I have enough LSA time in “sporty” weather to know I don’t want to be in a cloud in one.

I get that. It does take some judgement respect that different aircraft have different limits. But there are plenty of calm nights with poorly defined horizons that would be perfectly safe to fly in a lightweight aircraft. Under those conditions I'd much rather be with an IFR pilot and IFR light sport aircraft than a VFR pilot in a Bonanza. And I don't think we need to just focus on one area...to me it makes sense to try to advance things on a broad front. Maybe a night flight add-on for LSA would be a first step. Steal a page from the British on that one. I don't think relaxing one type would affect the other. Then if 3rd class for PPL goes away, they can phase out light sport entirely. It would be mostly pointless, like recreational.