U.S. Experimental requirements for IFR

[peter-h]

Here in Europe there is a lot of debate about whether they will ever allow aircraft which do NOT have an ICAO CofA to fly under IFR.

This is banned everywhere in the world (in essence) except in the USA.

There are some optimistic noises being made now, however...

I wonder what sort of requirements they have in the USA?

Do you need to have IFR (certified) avionics for it?

To fly say LPV, do you need a "W" type GPS?

To fly an ILS, can you use a handheld radio which displays the LOC and GS (they do exist).

On "plastic" aircraft, do you need to have the static bonding required on the certified ones?

 

[tonycondon]

most experimental amatuer built planes here that i know of just have a note in their operating limitations which say they have to be equipped per 91.205 for night vfr or ifr operations. Otherwise the IFR transponder inspection requirement must be met and other than that you are good to go.

 

[flyingron]

Do you need to have IFR (certified) avionics for it?

With the exception of area navigation (GPS mostly these days) there's no requirement to "IFR certify" avionics even in normally certificated aircraft.

To fly say LPV, do you need a "W" type GPS?

There's no such thing as a LPV approach unless you're using a WAAS box.

To fly an ILS, can you use a handheld radio which displays the LOC and GS (they do exist).

Like the Sporty's SP-400? you can probably use them legally in any US aircraft. The bigger issue is how well they would work.

aircraft, do you need to have the static bonding required on the certified ones?

Nope, and that's really not an IFR thing but more a problem with flying in areas of lightening or convective static accumulation.

 

[airguy]

Like the Sporty's SP-400? you can probably use them legally in any US aircraft.

I believe you must have a approved panel-mount receiver to accept a glideslope approach under IFR.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I believe you must have a approved panel-mount receiver to accept a glideslope approach under IFR.

Certainly not as a primary means of navigation. As a secondary means anything goes.

 

[flyingron]

I believe you must have a approved panel-mount receiver to accept a glideslope approach under IFR.

91.205 just says the aircraft must be equipped. So you have to argue whether carrying a handheld is "equipped". I might tend to agree with you that it is not. However there is nothing more special about a "glide slope approach" than any other phase of IFR navigation here. If you can't use the handheld to fly the glideslope, you can't use it to track a VOR enroute either. Again, there's no special approval for IFR for a VOR/LOC/GS installation.

 

[poadeleted20]

91.205 just says the aircraft must be equipped. So you have to argue whether carrying a handheld is "equipped".

It isn't. There is case law on point. It must be installed with the installation recorded in the maintenance records/equipment list.

 

[poadeleted20]

Otherwise the IFR transponder inspection requirement must be met and other than that you are good to go.

There is no difference in the 91.413 transponder certification requirement for IFR vs VFR. What you need for IFR that you don't need for VFR is completion of the 91.411 altimeter/static system test, and that applies for all aircraft including those flying on an Experimental airworthiness certificate.

 

[Velocity173]

This should help. It's an IFR requirement guide put out by EAA. I have two experimentals and both equipped for IFR. I have some certified TSO (Garmin 480)stuff and some non-cert (Blue Mountain) stuff. Wouldn't recommend BM but Dynon makes glass cockpits at a fraction of certified.

 

[Jim Logajan]

For what it is worth, I found the following two chief counsel interpretations regarding non-TSO EFDs in experimentals:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...nterpretations/data/interps/2009/Rourke-1.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...nterpretations/data/interps/2009/Rourke-2.pdf

 

[Henning]

There's no such thing as a LPV approach unless you're using a WAAS box.

Maybe I'm confusing this with another approach, but I was under the impression that there was a barometric way to meet the requirements as well, it's just that nobody is building a non WAAS box to do it.

 

[tonycondon]

There is no difference in the 91.413 transponder certification requirement for IFR vs VFR. What you need for IFR that you don't need for VFR is completion of the 91.411 altimeter/static system test, and that applies for all aircraft including those flying on an Experimental airworthiness certificate.

oh yea, i often get those mixed up. thanks.

 

[Palmpilot]

most experimental amatuer built planes here that i know of just have a note in their operating limitations which say they have to be equipped per 91.205 for night vfr or ifr operations. Otherwise the IFR transponder inspection requirement must be met and other than that you are good to go.

For the benefit of our UK colleague, the complete citation for 91.205 is 14 CFR 91.205, which means "Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91, section 205." It can be found at the following link:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...v8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.3.7.3&idno=14

In general, FAA regulations can be found at the following links:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

(The latter one is said to be more up to date.)

 

[flyingron]

Maybe I'm confusing this with another approach, but I was under the impression that there was a barometric way to meet the requirements as well, it's just that nobody is building a non WAAS box to do it.

Nope, you don't get the LP part without augmentation. Baro can only help with the V.

 

[tonycondon]

i'm pretty sure peter flies an N number plane all over Europe, figured he'd know the reference to 91.205. thanks for the links though.

For the benefit of our UK colleague, the complete citation for 91.205 is 14 CFR 91.205, which means "Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91, section 205." It can be found at the following link:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...v8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.3.7.3&idno=14

In general, FAA regulations can be found at the following links:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

(The latter one is said to be more up to date.)

 

[ejensen]

This should help. It's an IFR requirement guide put out by EAA. I have two experimentals and both equipped for IFR. I have some certified TSO (Garmin 480)stuff and some non-cert (Blue Mountain) stuff. Wouldn't recommend BM but Dynon makes glass cockpits at a fraction of certified.

Grand Rapids technology - GRT - has good equipment too.

 

[Ken Ibold]

It isn't. There is case law on point. It must be installed with the installation recorded in the maintenance records/equipment list.

But then there's the question of what constitutes "installed." The FAA has, in the past, gone on record as saying they refused to define it on purpose. Generally, they have concluded that hardwired power and screws to mount is "installed," but that hasn't been a consistent interpretation.

 

[Doggtyred]

But then there's the question of what constitutes "installed." The FAA has, in the past, gone on record as saying they refused to define it on purpose. Generally, they have concluded that hardwired power and screws to mount is "installed," but that hasn't been a consistent interpretation.

If you can remove it from the aircraft without use of tools, you are asking to be a test case for enforcement...

 

[Ken Ibold]

If you can remove it from the aircraft without use of tools, you are asking to be a test case for enforcement...

Yes, that's a reasonable rule of thumb. But there is no official FAA guidance that supports that -- at least none that the FAA would provide at the time I did that article.

 

[Jim Logajan]

But then there's the question of what constitutes "installed." The FAA has, in the past, gone on record as saying they refused to define it on purpose. Generally, they have concluded that hardwired power and screws to mount is "installed," but that hasn't been a consistent interpretation.

"Wherever we turn we find that what are called good laws are apt to be called so because men see- that they promote a result that they fancy desirable, and do not see the bill that has to be paid in reactions that are relatively obscure. ... the only thing that can be assumed as certainly to be wished is that men should know the rules by which the game will be played." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes (Collected Legal Papers)