Question for Jim Weir

[Ed Sullivan]

A member of my chapter has asked me as tech councilor what
would be needed to assure that the installation of a Garmin 430 in his
RV-8 would be legal in the eyes of the FAA for flying approaches. This
falls a bit out of my area of expertise. Can you help or direct me to
help.

Ed Sullivan

[john smith]

He is going to have to get the aircraft IFR certified either by the FAA
or a DER. There was a fellow in southeast Ohio that had a Pitts S-2B IFR
certified by a company in New England. This was 15-20 years ago.

Ed Sullivan wrote:
> A member of my chapter has asked me as tech councilor what
> would be needed to assure that the installation of a Garmin 430 in his
> RV-8 would be legal in the eyes of the FAA for flying approaches. This
> falls a bit out of my area of expertise. Can you help or direct me to
> help.
>
> Ed Sullivan
>

[Rich S.]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> He is going to have to get the aircraft IFR certified either by the FAA or
> a DER. There was a fellow in southeast Ohio that had a Pitts S-2B IFR
> certified by a company in New England. This was 15-20 years ago.

I don't think so. If you look at the op lims for the airplane, it should say
something like "Unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument
flight in accordance with FAR 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under
VFR, day only".

FAR 91.205 is available for viewing at Landings.com. The link is quite long,
but is:
http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*66674742!mtd*41!var*20!cgi*/cgi-bin/get_file!buf*66!src*_landings/pages/regulations.html!ref*FAR/part_91/toc.html

As far as I can see, there is nothing in 205 which refers to certification
by the FAA or a DER. Of course, there may be other FAA regulations of which
I am unaware.

Rich S.

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Rich S." wrote:
> "john smith" > wrote ;
> > He is going to have to get the aircraft IFR certified either by the
FAA or
> > a DER.......

> I don't think so. If you look at the op lims for the airplane, it
should say
> something like "Unless appropriately equipped for night and/or
instrument
> flight in accordance with FAR 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated
under
> VFR, day only"....

Rich is absolutely correct - the op limits specify what's necessary, and
all the op limits I've seen (and the ones for my plane) explicitly say
that one can operate at night or IFR as long as one has the appropriate
equipment, as stated above. If the plane already has an airworthiness
certificate, all that's necessary is to instally the equipment and fly
it.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[Dave Hyde]

john smith wrote...
> He is going to have to get the aircraft IFR certified either by the FAA
> or a DER.

Interesting. My RV-4 operating limitations, written by a DAR
and approved by the FAA, say only that my airplane
is prohibited from flight under IFR unless suitably
equipped. When it's suitably equipped it's not prohibited.
All it takes is a radio swap, a pitot-static check, and a
transponder check. My PS and transponder check are current,
my avionics are not.

Dave 'goo' Hyde

[Jim Weir]

With the lone exception of John Smith, who has not a clue what he is talking
about, all the rest of the folks who answered gave you exactly what I would have
said.

Thanks, gang, for the help.

Jim


Ed Sullivan >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-> A member of my chapter has asked me as tech councilor what
->would be needed to assure that the installation of a Garmin 430 in his
->RV-8 would be legal in the eyes of the FAA for flying approaches. This
->falls a bit out of my area of expertise. Can you help or direct me to
->help.
->
->Ed Sullivan

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[john smith]

That's what the guy told me when I asked about it!
Were the rules different 20 years ago?

Jim Weir wrote:
> With the lone exception of John Smith, who has not a clue what he is talking
> about, all the rest of the folks who answered gave you exactly what I would have
> said.
> Thanks, gang, for the help.
> Jim

[Ron Natalie]

"john smith" > wrote in message ...
> That's what the guy told me when I asked about it!
> Were the rules different 20 years ago?
>
No, your answer was as wrong 20 years ago as it is today.
Most likely you missed the fact that your hearsay Pitts owner has an aircraft
with a conventional airworthiness certificate rather than an experimental one.

[Barnyard BOb -]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote:

>
>"john smith" > wrote in message ...
>> That's what the guy told me when I asked about it!
>> Were the rules different 20 years ago?
>>
>No, your answer was as wrong 20 years ago as it is today.
>Most likely you missed the fact that your hearsay Pitts owner has an aircraft
>with a conventional airworthiness certificate rather than an experimental one.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why automatically assume this Pitts is NOT factory
built with a conventional airworthiness certificate?


Barnyard BOb --

[Barnyard BOb -]

>"Ron Natalie" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"john smith" > wrote in message ...
>>> That's what the guy told me when I asked about it!
>>> Were the rules different 20 years ago?
>>>
>>No, your answer was as wrong 20 years ago as it is today.
>>Most likely you missed the fact that your hearsay Pitts owner has an aircraft
>>with a conventional airworthiness certificate rather than an experimental one.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>Why automatically assume this Pitts is NOT factory
>built with a conventional airworthiness certificate?

Ooops.
Please disregard.


Barnyard BOb -- too early to be online