IFR Panel, but not certified

[Mark D]

I've been seeing aircraft for sale listed as VFR planes, but the panels look to be IFR. Just curious what I might be looking at to get it certified, or if I even need to if I'm using the plane to get my IFR endorsement.

 

[Bell206]

Just curious what I might be looking at to get it certified

There is no separate aircraft "certification" requirement for IFR. In order to operate IFR, the aircraft must have the required equipment installed as listed in the FARs which must be functional and current.

 

[Challenged]

§91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections.​

(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR unless—
(1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected...

My avionics shop charges ~ $300 for these inspections, but I hear that's high and some places may do it for ~ $100 or so.

 

[flyingron]

There is no separate aircraft "certification" requirement for IFR. In order to operate IFR, the aircraft must have the required equipment installed as listed in the FARs which must be functional and current.

That's not quite true. Older aircraft only need to be suitably equipped, but newer aircraft often has operating limitations that specifically preclude IFR or other than "DAY VFR" operations. You need to read the TCDS and the other aircraft documents to find out under what conditions you may fly it IFR.

 

[Bell206]

You need to read the TCDS and the other aircraft documents to find out under what conditions you may fly it IFR.

Granted. But the original question was in reference to "certification" of an aircraft panel. There is no aircraft certification process when equipping an aircraft which operated VFR to operate IFR. As for limitations, that is what they are, limitations but not certifications. Most people think when they upgrade an aircraft to IFR capable they must "certify" it which is not the case.

 

[Mark D]

Granted. But the original question was in reference to "certification" of an aircraft panel. There is no aircraft certification process when equipping an aircraft which operated VFR to operate IFR. As for limitations, that is what they are, limitations but not certifications. Most people think when they upgrade an aircraft to IFR capable they must "certify" it which is not the case.

Hence my confusion on what I need in a plane to get my IFR endorsement. I've been researching more and more since I posted this question, and am understanding it better.
Thanks for all the replies!

 

[PaulS]

Hence my confusion on what I need in a plane to get my IFR endorsement. I've been researching more and more since I posted this question, and am understanding it better.
Thanks for all the replies!

Mark, I'm getting trained now for IFR. I think the answer lies in the type of aircraft you anticipate flying when you are done. If you plan on owning a six pack plane with 2 vors and no gps or autopilot, then get trained in that. If on the other hand you want a Cirrus or something else with the latest Garmin G1000 or similar and auto pilot, then get trained in one of those. Switching between them is going to require even more training.

 

[Timbeck2]

Don't you need a minimum of three approaches for the check ride? How many approaches is two VORs going to get you?

 

[steingar]

An aircraft has to be inspected every 24 months as stated by the other poster. However, these days I think if the panel doesn't sport a dedicated IFR GPS, the odds of doing any useful IFR flight are going to be limited. Fewer and fewer airports have ILS, and even fewer have VOR approaches. And the VORs are actively being taken out of service. And an IFR GPS will only get you so far, the approaches don't let you get very low until you have an IFR GPS with WAAS, but that gets spendy.

 

[Timbeck2]

But don't you need glideslope for ILS?

 

[Timbeck2]

That's okay Walt. I'm too new to the other side of the ILS to ask intelligent questions. I still don't understand though. My understanding of a VOR that has two needles is an ILS. If that sounds weird, refer back to sentence number two of this post.

 

[Badger]

1. ILS*
2. LOC*
3. VOR

*Assuming one of the VOR receivers can tune to a localizer freq.

and assuming the indicator is adequate

 

[tspear]

I've been seeing aircraft for sale listed as VFR planes, but the panels look to be IFR. Just curious what I might be looking at to get it certified, or if I even need to if I'm using the plane to get my IFR endorsement.

Depends on the equipment. Way back, some Nav/Com equipment (including Garmin) could be bought via STC as VFR only. It was then to be placarted as such. To be IFR, depending on the equipment may actually require a little paperwork, in other cases you may need to upgrade the equipment. Assuming my foggy head remembers the details correctly, the difference between the VFR and IFR STC was cash, antenna, cable and power requirements.

Tim

 

[flyingron]

Sorry, Walboy, still wrong (even if you change TRANSMITTER to RECEIVER).

There are indeed 40 ILS channels. Most modern radios will tune the VHF receiver to the frequency you dialed in. Even then, it has to switch the discrimination from the VOR to the LOC modulation. It's more than just "sensitivity," The modulation is completely different. Such radios also will tune the internal (UHF) glideslope receiver to the corresponding glideslope frequency (they're paired).

Older planes may or may not handle LOC in a VOR radio and may or may not have a internal GS receiver or an external one slaved.

You can technically fly the ILS checkride with a single VOR/LOC/GS receiver (and corresponding indicator).

 

[iamtheari]

I have seen planes with what appeared to be good IFR equipment such as a Garmin GNS 430W installed, but I bought the FAA records on CD and saw that the paperwork on the installation had "VFR ONLY" written across it. This tells me that something about the installation fell short of the FAA's standards for instrument flight. It could be an unapproved antenna cable or it could be a required annunciator not being installed in the pilot's line of sight. And thus, it could be a cheap fix or a very expensive one. My rule was to pass on such planes and buy one that was already IFR-ready and fit my mission.

As far as getting the instrument rating (which is more than an endorsement by a wide margin), the ACS has an Appendix 7 that covers the equipment required for the practical test. It starts with a reference to 14 CFR 61.45. The short bullet list includes: flight instruments necessary for instrument flight, radio equipment required for ATC communications, ability to perform instrument approaches, and for GPS equipment it must be instrument certified and contain the current database.

As to the three different types of approaches, an LPV approach is considered adequate for the precision approach required during the practical test (but not for planning an alternate airport, which differs based on whether there is a precision approach procedure or not). When I took my practical test, the glideslope at the airport where I took it was out of service due to runway construction (the threshold being displaced several thousand feet meant the glideslope would be a great way to land on top of a bulldozer). The three approaches I was asked to demonstrate were an LPV as the precision approach, a LOC, and a VOR flying under a partial panel.

My reading of 14 CFR 61.45 is that your plane need not be IFR-capable for the check ride. It must have the equipment for each area of operation required for the practical test and no prescribed operating limitations that prohibit its use in any of the areas of operation required for the practical test. I guess a plane could theoretically have an operating limitation that prohibits simulated instrument flight or something that would stop you from doing the check ride, but I think all instrument rating check rides are flown under day VFR so you shouldn't need an IFR-approved plane.

 

[denverpilot]

I have seen planes with what appeared to be good IFR equipment such as a Garmin GNS 430W installed, but I bought the FAA records on CD and saw that the paperwork on the installation had "VFR ONLY" written across it. This tells me that something about the installation fell short of the FAA's standards for instrument flight. It could be an unapproved antenna cable or it could be a required annunciator not being installed in the pilot's line of sight. And thus, it could be a cheap fix or a very expensive one. My rule was to pass on such planes and buy one that was already IFR-ready and fit my mission.

Long long ago, wasn't there also a requirement for a test flight, before the "approved" methods came out? I would suspect that a lot of those were 430s, not 430Ws, or were upgraded later, and the initial 337 (before you could just follow the Garmin guidance) was filed, but after the flight test was done, nobody (had to) send anything to FAA.

You probably assumed too much about the installation being wrong, without looking at the aircraft logs.

 

[CC268]

Don't you need a minimum of three approaches for the check ride? How many approaches is two VORs going to get you?

I did mine with only two VORs.

ILS
LOC
VOR

 

[denverpilot]

I did mine with only two VORs.

ILS
LOC
VOR

Same here. Also had a DME at the time. It failed on the flight home from the checkride. Not kidding. LOL.

We've since moved on to the GTN 650 in the panel, of course, but yeah... DME failed an hour after the Instrument checkride... hahaha... missed a minor bullet on that one, not that it would have been any big deal!

 

[CC268]

Same here. Also had a DME at the time. It failed on the flight home from the checkride. Not kidding. LOL.

We've since moved on to the GTN 650 in the panel, of course, but yeah... DME failed an hour after the Instrument checkride... hahaha... missed a minor bullet on that one, not that it would have been any big deal!

Yea I didn’t even have DME...however our new GNC255 does give DME info. My examiner let me use it as a DME to shoot the LOC into KCGZ. The FSDO has no issue using it as a DME as long as it was in VFR only of course

 

[PaulS]

You guys had a vor? All I had was a bowl of water, a cork and a sewing needle I had rubbed on a magnet.

 

[EdFred]

I have seen planes with what appeared to be good IFR equipment such as a Garmin GNS 430W installed, but I bought the FAA records on CD and saw that the paperwork on the installation had "VFR ONLY" written across it. This tells me that something about the installation fell short of the FAA's standards for instrument flight. It could be an unapproved antenna cable or it could be a required annunciator not being installed in the pilot's line of sight. And thus, it could be a cheap fix or a very expensive one. My rule was to pass on such planes and buy one that was already IFR-ready and fit my mission.

My 430W upgrade had the VFR only limitation on it until I went up with the avionics tech after the install and we flew over certain waypoints and verified whatever needed to be verified. He then pulled the sticker off that said VFR only and made the entry in the logbook.

 

[flyingron]

You had a cork and needle? All I had was a cat and duck!

 

[Timbeck2]

I think we're wallowing in semantics here. I don't see how one can fly an ILS approach with one or two of these. (VOR)

However, you can fly the ILS with either one of these. (CDI,HSI)

 

[murphey]

You guys had a vor? All I had was a bowl of water, a cork and a sewing needle I had rubbed on a magnet.

Wasn't a cat required?

 

[midwestpa24]

One aircraft that comes to mind is the PiperSport line. If I recall correctly (and that gets harder and harder as I get older), the aircraft were placarded Day VFR only, even though they had a glass panel and full avionics suite. The day restriction had to do with the location of the white rear facing nav-lights being blocked when viewed from the rear, due to their placement on the wingtip.

 

[Clark1961]

Wow, new levels of nit-pickyness for today on POA. Where will it be by this afternoon? "no localizer or ILS approaches for you unless you can accurately describe nav and glideslope receiver and antenna design considerations"

 

[CC268]

Meh I’ve used CDI/VOR interchangeably I guess. I’ll call it CDI

 

[iamtheari]

I think we're wallowing in semantics here. I don't see how one can fly an ILS approach with one or two of these. (VOR)

However, you can fly the ILS with either one of these. (CDI,HSI)

The first of those is also a CDI. Probably I will get nit-picked for saying this, but a VOR is a ground facility. You have a VOR receiver in the plane that receives the VOR signal and translates it into something that a display unit can show the pilot. The display unit could be an RMI, CDI, HSI, or other form (such as a graphical depiction on a HUD).

A localizer signal is different from a VOR signal. All VOR receivers and display units I have flown behind are capable of receiving, interpreting, and displaying deviations from a localizer. I have never flown with an RMI, so maybe (probably) it can't.

A glideslope signal is different from any of these but is basically like a localizer rotated 90 degrees.

A DME signal is another different one.

There are standard VHF frequencies for localizers as opposed to VORs. Many (most? all modern, for some value of 'modern'?) VOR receivers automatically figure out if you have tuned a localizer frequency and set themselves up to receive the localizer signal. There are also standard frequencies for glideslope signals to match them up with localizer frequencies. Many (most, all modern, whatever) VOR receivers that can receive localizer signals will also automatically figure out the appropriate glideslope frequency for the localizer frequency you have tuned. The same goes for DME, where a good VOR receiver will automatically tune a DME receiver to receive the DME frequency associated with the VOR or localizer frequency that you have tuned.

Then they display all this stuff on a CDI if that is what your plane has installed.

And then pilots start calling the receiver and display unit combination that automatically figures out whether you have picked a VOR or localizer frequency, automatically tunes the glideslope receiver, and automatically tunes a DME receiver, then displays everything for you, all from you just twisting knobs to select a frequency, a "VOR."

And they say their plane has "two VORs" when in reality it has precisely zero VOR ground stations on board, one VOR-only receiver, one VOR/LOC/GS receiver, one CDI with a single needle, and one CDI with two needles.

And then you have long arguments on POA about what a VOR is.

 

[flyingron]

The indicator needs to be matched to the receiver. Some receivers put all the VOR processing in the receiver. Some put out a signal that requires the indicator to resolve it. Some have yet another unit between the indicator and the receiver. HSI's, glass indicators, and RMIs all tend to use the same interface. Some indicators work the same way, some do not.

You're unlikely these days to find a VOR recevier that can't automatically switch to LOC when tuned to the appropriate frequency, but they did exist in the early days.
The LOC is purely a LEFT RIGHT signal based on the strength of two modulated signals from the antenna. The VOR sends two signals, one which varies in phase with direction. The previous poster is correct that the GlideSlope signal is pretty much the same modulation as the LOC (but sideways) but it is on a UHF frequency.

Just because the plane has an indicator for a glideslope doesn't mean there is a glideslope receiver backing it up.

 

[Shepherd]

You guys had a vor? All I had was a bowl of water, a cork and a sewing needle I had rubbed on a magnet.

And you had to keep a candle burning under the water in the winter to keep it from freezing.

 

[denverpilot]

I think we're wallowing in semantics here. I don't see how one can fly an ILS approach with one or two of these. (VOR)

However, you can fly the ILS with either one of these. (CDI,HSI)

Those look complicated. I’m scared. Al those needles and flags and things.

Will you hold my hand?

 

[tspear]

Those look complicated. I’m scared. Al those needles and flags and things.

Will you hold my hand?

No. You fly a Cessna, I could never be seen with someone who flies a Cessna.

Tim (could not resist)

 

[denverpilot]

No. You fly a Cessna, I could never be seen with someone who flies a Cessna.

Tim (could not resist)

It’s okay. I’ll wear a bag over my head. It is Instrument flight after all...

 

[Timbeck2]

I think I get it now. One can fly an ILS approach using two VOR receivers granted that every navigation radio in their airplane is called a VOR.

 

[PaulS]

And you had to keep a candle burning under the water in the winter to keep it from freezing.

Couldn't afford a candle, had to pull my pants down and hold it between my thighs pressed to my nether region to keep it from freezing.

 

[PaulS]

Those look complicated. I’m scared. Al those needles and flags and things.

Will you hold my hand?

Just follow the magenta line, or if you are really lucky, keep it in the magenta boxes, my son.

 

[Shepherd]

Couldn't afford a candle, had to pull my pants down and hold it between my thighs pressed to my nether region to keep it from freezing.

TMI.
Seriouly.
TMI

 

[denverpilot]

TMI.
Seriouly.
TMI

I figured he was just a UND student flying out of Grand Forks. LOL.

Then again, even that wouldn’t work there. North Dakota could freeze the testicles off of Hillary.

What was I saying again? Oh look... mammatus clouds over the house! Looks like some lovely IMC weather to go up in!

 

[Cruzinchris]

"and for GPS equipment it must be instrument certified and contain the current database." Guess I will pull the Garmin 300XL out of my plane since the database is old.

So, do you need GPS equipment for an instrument checkride?

 

[Clark1961]

So, do you need GPS equipment for an instrument checkride?

No...what other equipment are in the aircraft? Gotta be able to do a precision approach and two non-precision approaches...and do a landing....and some airwork...and stuff.