PDA

View Full Version : Question on airplane's IFR capability


Slav Inger
July 11th 03, 01:31 PM
I'm planning on transitioning from a PA-28-181 to Diamond models (DA20C1
and then to DA40). I'd like to use the DA40 for longer trips and DA20
for putzing around the airport practicing IFR approaches, possibly in
IMC. There isn't a question as to DA40's IFR capability, but I'm
running into a bit of an issue with the DA20. The smaller DA20's
equipment is top of the line and meets the minimum IFR equipment list
per FAR 91.205. Here's the rub: I'm being told that it isn't IFR
capable because it doesn't have the static wicks on the trailing edges
of the wings. I have never ever heard of wicks being a requirement for
IFR flight. So what's the deal here, does the claim "airplane isn't IFR
legal even though it meets the minimum IFR equipment list" have any
validity? Curious,

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

Ben Jackson
July 11th 03, 02:26 PM
In article >,
Slav Inger > wrote:
>Here's the rub: I'm being told that it isn't IFR
>capable because it doesn't have the static wicks on the trailing edges
>of the wings.

All electronic instruments in a plastic (ie nonconductive) airframe.
Doesn't sound like a good recipe to me!

Can you get a DA20 IFR certified at all? I didn't even think it was
an option.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

Robert Moore
July 11th 03, 03:11 PM
Slav Inger > wrote
> So what's the deal here, does the claim "airplane
> isn't IFR legal even though it meets the minimum
> IFR equipment list" have any validity? Curious,

The Airplane Flight Manual will list the approved
operations, Day, Night, IFR, etc.

Bob Moore

David Megginson
July 11th 03, 03:19 PM
Slav Inger > writes:

> I'm planning on transitioning from a PA-28-181 to Diamond models (DA20C1
> and then to DA40). I'd like to use the DA40 for longer trips and DA20
> for putzing around the airport practicing IFR approaches, possibly in
> IMC. There isn't a question as to DA40's IFR capability, but I'm
> running into a bit of an issue with the DA20. The smaller DA20's
> equipment is top of the line and meets the minimum IFR equipment list
> per FAR 91.205. Here's the rub: I'm being told that it isn't IFR
> capable because it doesn't have the static wicks on the trailing edges
> of the wings. I have never ever heard of wicks being a requirement for
> IFR flight. So what's the deal here, does the claim "airplane isn't IFR
> legal even though it meets the minimum IFR equipment list" have any
> validity? Curious,

Composite aircraft need some kind of a metal mesh built into the
airframe so that they can handle a lightning strike without completely
delaminating. The Katana will never usable for IFR because it has no
such mesh. The Star, I think, has that mesh, as do other IFR
composites like the SR20/22.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

Ron Natalie
July 11th 03, 04:23 PM
"Robert Moore" > wrote in message . 8...
> Slav Inger > wrote
> > So what's the deal here, does the claim "airplane
> > isn't IFR legal even though it meets the minimum
> > IFR equipment list" have any validity? Curious,
>
> The Airplane Flight Manual will list the approved
> operations, Day, Night, IFR, etc.
>
For later model planes it will. Older aircraft weren't required to
be certificated specifically for these operations (nor have AFM's).
In that case, as long as you meet the equipment and inspection
requirements, you're legal (same for homebuilts).

John T
July 11th 03, 05:14 PM
"Slav Inger" > wrote in message

> I'm planning on transitioning from a PA-28-181 to Diamond models
> (DA20C1 and then to DA40). I'd like to use the DA40 for longer trips
> and DA20 for putzing around the airport practicing IFR approaches,
> possibly in IMC.

It's my understanding that the -20 is VFR only. You could always use it to
practice approaches in VMC...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

Slav Inger
July 11th 03, 05:46 PM
John T wrote:
>
> It's my understanding that the -20 is VFR only. You could always use it to
> practice approaches in VMC...
>

That's true, but I prefer to practice in more or less realistic
conditions, like low VFR or "high" IFR. I was hoping I'd be able to do
this in the DA20 which is much less money than the DA40...

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

John T
July 11th 03, 08:32 PM
"Slav Inger" > wrote in message

>
> That's true, but I prefer to practice in more or less realistic
> conditions, like low VFR or "high" IFR. I was hoping I'd be able to
> do
> this in the DA20 which is much less money than the DA40...

I know the feeling - even though I look for solid IMC. :)

However, when I'm expecting IMC, I'd much rather spend the extra money for a
late model plane with the right equipment than skimp for a less-than-ideal
plane (say, a '99 C172S vs an '86 C172P). In your situation, I wouldn't
even consider taking the -20 into IMC.

Besides, that plane can be real...fun in turbulence. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

Slav Inger
July 11th 03, 09:35 PM
John T wrote:
>
> However, when I'm expecting IMC, I'd much rather spend the extra money for a
> late model plane with the right equipment than skimp for a less-than-ideal
> plane (say, a '99 C172S vs an '86 C172P). In your situation, I wouldn't
> even consider taking the -20 into IMC.
>

I'm definitely not interested in breaking any regs or jeopardizing
safety, so if it won't do IFR, it won't do IFR - I'll have to look for
other ways to do what I want to do.

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

Paul Baechler
July 12th 03, 12:50 AM
In article >,
"Ron Natalie" > wrote:

>"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 8...
>> The Airplane Flight Manual will list the approved
>> operations, Day, Night, IFR, etc.
>>
>For later model planes it will. Older aircraft weren't required to
>be certificated specifically for these operations (nor have AFM's).
>In that case, as long as you meet the equipment and inspection
>requirements, you're legal (same for homebuilts).

Not necessarily. There are older aircraft that are prohibited from IFR
operations. Two that come to mind are the Culver Cadet and the Bell 47.

--
Paul Baechler

Peter Gozinya
July 12th 03, 03:48 PM
The DA20 series is not IFR certified because it does not have adequate
protection against a lightning strike. When Diamond built them, they
did not build in any means to dissipate a lightning strike (e.g., wire
mesh embedded in the composite structure). You cannot legally file an
IFR flight plan listing a DA20 as the aircraft to be flown.

The DA40 has lightning protection integrated with the airframe and is
certified for IFR.

HTH...

Pete

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:31:33 -0400, Slav Inger
> wrote:

>I'm planning on transitioning from a PA-28-181 to Diamond models (DA20C1
>and then to DA40). I'd like to use the DA40 for longer trips and DA20
>for putzing around the airport practicing IFR approaches, possibly in
>IMC. There isn't a question as to DA40's IFR capability, but I'm
>running into a bit of an issue with the DA20. The smaller DA20's
>equipment is top of the line and meets the minimum IFR equipment list
>per FAR 91.205. Here's the rub: I'm being told that it isn't IFR
>capable because it doesn't have the static wicks on the trailing edges
>of the wings. I have never ever heard of wicks being a requirement for
>IFR flight. So what's the deal here, does the claim "airplane isn't IFR
>legal even though it meets the minimum IFR equipment list" have any
>validity? Curious,
>
>- Slav Inger
>- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

Google