What certified GPS equipment is needed for IFR

[jveatch]

We have an RV-12 with dual Skyviews. What certified equipment is needed to allow IFR precision GPS approaches? SL-30? GTN-650? 430W? The last discussion I saw on this issue was a couple of years ago. What is the current situation?

 

[swatson999]

The selection of an approach-certified GPS navigator is, in some respects, independent of whether you have a SV or not. SV is, for approaches, merely acting as the display of lateral and vertical navigation.

What you really are asking, I think, is which IFR navigators will *interface* with a SV.

A GTN or GNS navigator certainly will work. Others may as well.

 

[jakej]

Avidyne too

 

[kellym]

We have an RV-12 with dual Skyviews.  What certified equipment is needed to allow IFR precision GPS approaches?  SL-30?  GTN-650?  430W?  The last discussion I saw on this issue was a couple of years ago.  What is the current situation?

You raise a question with multiple facets. RV-12 is usually certified in one of the light sport categories, so you first have to check if the operating limitations allow IFR if equipped in compliance with 91.205(d). Assuming altimeter and static system certification...you mention the SL-30, which is strictly a VHF nav-com, no GPS. Yes, the Dynon display will serve as an indicator for an ILS. But in the same sentence you mention precision GPS approaches...which implies IFR approved WAAS GPS. Each one has requirements for placement of the unit or install of an annunciator. I don't know if the stock RV-12 Dynon dual screen layout will or won't allow placing the GPS close enough to the pilot's line of vision to meet the requirements. So you need to assure that the STC requirements are met, as well as AC-138 requirements. Not to mention that a pilot flying under Sport Pilot rules cannot fly IFR. So private pilot with at least BasicMed physical is needed.

 

[n456ts]

You raise a question with multiple facets. RV-12 is usually certified in one of the light sport categories, so you first have to check if the operating limitations allow IFR if equipped in compliance with 91.205(d). Assuming altimeter and static system certification...you mention the SL-30, which is strictly a VHF nav-com, no GPS. Yes, the Dynon display will serve as an indicator for an ILS. But in the same sentence you mention precision GPS approaches...which implies IFR approved WAAS GPS. Each one has requirements for placement of the unit or install of an annunciator. I don't know if the stock RV-12 Dynon dual screen layout will or won't allow placing the GPS close enough to the pilot's line of vision to meet the requirements. So you need to assure that the STC requirements are met, as well as AC-138 requirements. Not to mention that a pilot flying under Sport Pilot rules cannot fly IFR. So private pilot with at least BasicMed physical is needed.

E-LSA's can be IFR equipped. There are a few cases when the operating limitations were incorrectly issued preventing IFR use, however, any DAR can correct that. There is no such thing as an STC for an LSA. They're not type certificated. Plenty of private pilots fly LSAs. It's a pilot limitation, not an aircraft.

 

[jnmeade]

15.2 Primary Field-of-View. Primary optimum FOV is based on the vertical and horizontal
visual fields from the design eye reference point that can be accommodated with eye rotation only.
With the normal line-of-sight established at 15 degrees below the horizontal plane, the values for
the vertical and horizontal (relative to normal line-of-sight forward of the aircraft) are +/-15
degrees, as shown in figure 1. This area is normally reserved for primary flight information and
high priority alerts. Table 3 also provides examples of information recommended for inclusion in
this visual field. In most applications, critical information that is considered to be essential for safe
flight, with warning or cautionary information that requires immediate pilot action or awareness,
should be placed in the primary FOV.

From the AC No: 23 .1311-1C

 

[GalinHdz]

We have an RV-12 with dual Skyviews.  What certified equipment is needed to allow IFR precision GPS approaches?  SL-30?  GTN-650?  430W?  The last discussion I saw on this issue was a couple of years ago.  What is the current situation?

Nothing has changed in IFR equipment requirements in years. Those discussions are as accurate today as they were back then.

The selection of an approach-certified GPS navigator is, in some respects, independent of whether you have a SV or not.  SV is, for approaches, merely acting as the display of lateral and vertical navigation.

What you really are asking, I think, is which IFR navigators will *interface* with a SV.

A GTN or GNS navigator certainly will work.  Others may as well.

EXACTLY!!!

 

[kellym]

[

E-LSA's can be IFR equipped.  There are a few cases when the operating limitations were incorrectly issued preventing IFR use, however, any DAR can correct that.  There is no such thing as an STC for an LSA.  They're not type certificated.  Plenty of private pilots fly LSAs.  It's a pilot limitation, not an aircraft.  [/quote]
No one said that a private pilot couldn't fly it, but it could be a sport pilot, who is restricted. I'm well aware that it could be an E-LSA with Ops lims that allow IFR. It could also be S-LSA, which is trickier, because the "manufacturer" must be involved. It could also be E-Amateur built. That is why there is not one set answer.
While there are not STC's for experimental aircraft, you still have to meet TSO performance requirements. The STC gives you simple guidance to do that with a lot less effort than figuring out the TSO yourself. Being experimental only grants you certain short cuts to meeting those requirements.
How could you defend not being able to see alert messages, or the switch from terminal to approach mode, etc. etc. because the placement didn't meet TSO requirements?
While there are lots of things you can do within the letter of the regs, some will only be done for a handful of aircraft...like obtaining Cat II approach approval for a single engine piston aircraft, for very good reason.
One

 

[n456ts]

No one said that a private pilot couldn't fly it, but it could be a sport pilot, who is restricted. I'm well aware that it could be an E-LSA with Ops lims that allow IFR.

You seemed to pretty heavily imply it! 

It could also be S-LSA, which is trickier, because the "manufacturer" must be involved.

No.  The ASTM standards prevent S-LSA's from being equipped IFR at this time. 

It could also be E-Amateur built.  That is why there is not one set answer.

Being AB or E-LSA doesn't effect anything relative to this.

While there are not STC's for experimental aircraft, you still have to meet TSO performance requirements. The STC gives you simple guidance to do that with a lot less effort than figuring out the TSO yourself. Being experimental only grants you certain short cuts to meeting those requirements.
How could you defend not being able to see alert messages, or the switch from terminal to approach mode, etc. etc. because the placement didn't meet TSO requirements?
While there are lots of things you can do within the letter of the regs, some will only be done for a handful of aircraft...like obtaining Cat II approach approval for a single engine piston aircraft, for very good reason.
One

:  No one is attempting or suggesting anything not allowed.  I'm not sure what you're reading.

 

[kellym]

Being AB or E-LSA doesn't effect anything relative to this.

:  No one is attempting or suggesting anything not allowed.  I'm not sure what you're reading.

You want to simplify things that are not that simple. For instance, the ELSA RV-12 is equipped with a Rotax engine that is prohibited from IMC by its manufacturer's documents; unless someone has modified the aircraft to have a different engine.  An amateur built might not even have a Rotax.
So yes, you could equip an ELSA version with all that is needed for IFR, but then what...are you going to limit it to IFR practice approaches in VMC? Are you going to file IFR with remarks, no IMC allowed? Or are you going to ignore the Rotax prohibition and fly it IMC anyway? Modify your POH to remove the prohibition? How do you justify that if you survive a crash from IMC? Or are you going to spend the money to buy a certified Rotax engine with IFR approval?
How much money do you want to spend to modify an aircraft that is inherently designed to be VFR only? Are you going to do anything to address the pitot location and lack of pitot heat? Equipping for IFR and IMC is not in the same league as equipping an LSA for night VFR. Installing the avionics for IFR is the easy part. Having engine and airframe equipped to handle the issues of flying in cloud, with potential for icing and other little details is a bit more complicated.
I see a thread on Vans Air Force on this same topic. Some desire to utilize the priority an IFR flight plan gives. Maybe that works for days it is clear and 100, but if you accept an IFR clearance ATC expects you can and will fly in IMC if it is encountered, and isn't going to be amused by your requests to avoid cloud entry.
If on the other hand the desire is to have the avionics capability to escape unintended flight into IMC, perhaps that is a different discussion than equipping to routinely fly IFR.

 

[johnsteichen]

I have flown IFR with both GNS 430W and GTN 750 feeding skyview EFIS. got full lateral and vertical coupling to the dynon autopilot. ( LPV and LNAV +V) None of these required an annunciator for certification. Earlier Bendix 89b did require one.
That is my understanding.

 

[swatson999]

I have flown IFR with both GNS 430W and GTN 750 feeding skyview EFIS. got full lateral and vertical coupling to the dynon autopilot. ( LPV and LNAV +V) None of these required an annunciator for certification. Earlier Bendix 89b did require one.
That is my understanding.

I believe the requirement for an annunciator is met by the SV EFIS.  That is, SV *is* the annunciator....ETA: a 430 or 650 has its own built-in annunciators, but I believe SV can be used, as well when the Garmin is driving the HSI.

But, see section 2.5.1 of the 430 installation manual for annunciator requirements.  Basically, if the GNS is located more than a certain distance away from the  pilot's FOV, then an external annunciator IS required (which, IIRC, the SV can be used to meet said requirement).

(Also, assuming we're talking E-AB here, there is no "certification" for the installation).

 

[jnmeade]

I'm interested in the statement that Rotax can specify certification limits for their engine in an experimental aircraft. Can someone please point me to the supporting reference so I can see the wording myself? The more specific the reference the better, please.

 

[Raymo]

I'm interested in the statement that Rotax can specify certification limits for their engine in an experimental aircraft.  Can someone please point me to the supporting reference so I can see the wording myself?  The more specific the reference the better, please.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=FAA+Rotax+Training+Requirements

 

[jnmeade]

The google search that was offered didn't seem to provide the specific citation I was hoping for.

If we are sharing non-legal opinions here is a Dan Johnson post of April this year which concludes that E-LSA may fly IFR legally.

https://generalaviationnews.com/2017/04/17/can-you-fly-ifr-in-an-lsa/

 

[GalinHdz]

The google search that was offered didn't seem to provide the specific citation I was hoping for.

If we are sharing non-legal opinions here is a Dan Johnson post of April this year which concludes that E-LSA may fly IFR legally.

https://generalaviationnews.com/2017/04/17/can-you-fly-ifr-in-an-lsa/

An E-LSA can legally file and fly IFR if the Operation Limitations allow it. If the Operation Limitations don't allow it, then you can't. Same as for ANY experimental aircraft.

 

[n456ts]

I'm interested in the statement that Rotax can specify certification limits for their engine in an experimental aircraft.

They can't. Full stop. It's experimental.

Just a side note on Rotax in general. Several times they have overstepped their authority on S-LSA. Trying to force Rotax provided training and force hose replacements at set intervals. The FAA then had to clarify that Rotax didn't have the authority to do so.

I didn't intend to pull this off subject, I just can't stand wrong information. The OP has a good place to start with their Garmin research.