Airways equipped N reg certification

[stiknruda]

Yet another plea for help from a daytime VFR pilot!

I am selling one of my aeroplanes - it's a complex, retrac, airways equipped N reg single.

There is quite a lot of interest in this aircraft BUT there is one question posed by one prospect which perplexes me and my FAA qualified engineer:

Does a factory built N registered aicraft have a defacto IR rating or does it as a particular serial number require constant inspection to ascertain whether the on-board kit is suitable?

And if so - what is the doc that the a/c carries AND where would I go to validate that data, ie: here's where the Feds tell you and here's what pertains to your birdie, Stik!

Thanks all, standing by.......

[unfazed]

As long as it has IR Fit

Generator /Alt
Radio's / Nav aids
AI
Ball (inclinometer)
Clock
Altimeter
Rate of turn indicator
DI
DME

and up to date checks on the following that should be it

VOR test (by pilot every 30 days)
Altimeter checks by engineer every 24 months
Transponder check by engineer every 24 months
ELT check every 12 months
Static system check every 24 months

Unless someone knows anything else ?

Hope this helps

[flyingfemme]

There's no such thing as "FAA Airways".

An "IFR certification" on t'other side of the pond generally refers to the pitot-static check status; two yearly, ISTR.

In FAA land an aircraft must carry avionics and instruments suitable for the planned route.........so if you are over here and want to fly "airways" then you require the CAA-specified fit. Hence the probs with some of the new new plastic-fantastics because they don't carry an ADF as standard - in the US it's not required.

[SkyHawk-N]

I agree with unfazed. Apart from having the required equipment, which the aircraft SHOULD have, an IFR Certification consists of two different tests. One for your pitot-static system (altimeter) (FAR 91.411) and the other is for your transponder/encoder (performed per FAR 43, Appendix F, as required by FAR 91.413).

See http://www.blueangelaviation.com/FAR91.411_91_413.htm

There's also the requirement for a pilot to check the VOR for accuracy within 30 days of an IFR flight. (FAR 91.171)

[IO540]

If the aircraft has an FAA CofA and is not VFR-restricted (like e.g. most SE helicopters are) then it is OK for IFR if equipped accordingly and has the bi-annual pitot-static check etc.

I think the 30-day VOR check is required only if a VOR is mandatory carriage (which it isn't if you have a TSO146 IFR GPS).

However, the full equipment carriage requirements vary according to the airspace flown in and this is for all aircraft registrations. In US airspace you need a VOR, a clock, and some other stuff, DME over a certain altitude, Mode C likewise, and an IFR GPS can in some cases substitute for a DME for an IAP, etc etc. In say UK airspace, in CAS, you also need an ADF, a DME, and some other stuff, and an IFR GPS doesn't substitute for anything. In Switzerland you need an ADF for IFR in CAS but an IFR GPS gets around that. Every country has different equipment carriage requirements, which can be found in its AIP GEN 1.5.

[IO540]

If "nav eqpt appropriate" was all, where does the requirement for a clock come from?

There is an equipment carriage spec too, for IFR.

[Islander2]

My main point is that you cannot rely 100% on GPS for IFR alone and without VOR and therefore your 30 day test your options are somewhat limited if your primary airport were to be below minima as your alternate must have an IAP other that GPS available - plus the situation where you may lose RAIM at a crucial point.
Not necessarily true. You are referring to "old" technology here (TSO-C129A GPS) in what is a fast changing environment! With a suitably installed TSO-C145A or TSO-C146A GPS/WAAS receiver, my understanding is that other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown isn't required, neither is an alternate with a non-GPS approach. See AIM 1-1-20c.

[unfazed]

Looks like we have answered the main question and are now getting into semantics

[Islander2]

Looks like we have answered the main question and are now getting into semanticsSemantics? Hardly! Are you seriously suggesting that the navigation avionics that are mandated by the FAA for planned and alternate approaches are anything less than central to the IFR equipment fit for an N-registration aeroplane?

Also, perhaps you would care to explain why you think it's important for threads not to expand even slightly on the original question?

[IO540]

Since RAIM is presumably still required for a TSO146 GPS, is it sensible to file an alternate which is also GPS-only?

The above is for US airspace only of course... in European airways an N-reg has to carry all the old kit anyway plus whatever the FAA requires for "IFR".

Incidentally there are various nooks and crannies with IFR GPS receivers on European-made planes which have been moved to N. These would not normally have an FAA approved GPS supplement in their flight manual; one has to get this organised through an FAA office and it is a right messy job. The Heathrow FAA office reportedly doesn't want to do it. The European manufacturers normally sort this out on their US sales via their US dealer who gets a custom supplement done out there. Very few European pilots of N-reg have bothered with this, relying instead on the unit being BRNAV approved on the original type certificate, which is good enough for Europe IFR enroute. But it would not be legal flying IFR in US airspace.

The above para is relevant if flying the new GPS approaches, of which there are a number around Europe (not UK yet). An N-reg may well need the custom supplement to fly these. A G-reg needs one too and in that case it is an EASA Major Mod which is something else ........... luckily there isn't (AFAIK) a GPS approach in Europe yet without a conventional (usually an ILS) alternative (see LKPR for example). This is a very grey area.

[Islander2]

Since RAIM is presumably still required for a TSO146 GPS, is it sensible to file an alternate which is also GPS-only?The FAA clearly believe so, otherwise why would they have made such a radical change for WAAS-enabled aeroplanes? Presumably it underlines the astonishing level of reliability that's being achieved with GPS/WAAS (although alongside this change a legal requirement has been introduced for the pre-flight check of WAAS NOTAMS for predicted unreliability or unavailability).