Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

IFR certified a/c - required on C of A?

Wikiposts
Search
Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

IFR certified a/c - required on C of A?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 11:42
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IFR certified a/c - required on C of A?

Question: for an aircraft to be certified for flight under IFR in the UK (assuming also in IMC) does this need to be stipulated on the C of A? I recall reading that the C of A can have a "VFR only" restriction on it. This question relates to a C172.

Also, I was recently reading up on my ATPL notes and JAR-OPS states that two independent altimeters are required for IFR flight, and if navigating out of sight of the ground, two independent VHF radios.

Based on that information, I assume a C172 with one servicable radio and only one altimeter isn't good for IFR/IMC flight...?
Finals19 is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 12:56
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Front of Beyond
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that the requirements for dual altimetes and radios only apply in controlled airspace (eg the airways). The requirements outside of CAS are less onerous, but I can't remember what they are. I'm not quite sure how two radios would help you navigate out of sight of the surface - are you sure that the requreiment is for two radio nav-aids?

As always the answer will be in the ANO or the AIP

Brooklands
Brooklands is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 13:25
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I don't believe IFR needs to be explicitly stated on the C of A, but the C of A incorporates any limitations in the AFM.

In the UK:

Dual altimeters (according to Schedule 4) required for:

* All IFR in A/B/C airspace
* Public transport under IFR except if outside controlled airspace and MTWA less than 1150 kg
* Public transport at night except if MTWA less than 1150 kg

Dual VOR (aaccording to Schedule 5) required for:

* Public transport under IFR
* Public transport under VFR if multi-engine
bookworm is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 13:56
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If your 172 has the words Not Certified for IFR flight, Certified for VFR flight Only, IFR flight not authorised, or VFR Only (in the operating limitations) or other similar language then it is not certified for IFR. If there is no restriction in the POH/AFM then there is no restriction.

To expand on Bookworm's post, the equipment requirements for IFR (Class G) are minimal (altimeter, gyros, a time piece, thermometer, and rate of climb indicator) beyond those required for day VFR. For Class D a radio, transponder, dme, vor are required as well),
mm_flynn is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 14:01
  #5 (permalink)  
Fly Conventional Gear
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I assume that instruments need to be inspected to make sure they are suitable for IFR flight in order for a plane to remain unrestricted? If a plane has non-FM immune radios does that mean that it can't fly IFR in controlled airspace?
Contacttower is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 16:26
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Finals
I don’t mean to be rude but if you have flown in any IMC then you would always want to know your altitude and have a back up to check it and generally speaking the more kit the better.
If your C172 has minimal equipment and you are just starting IMC work then I would think long and hard before going out there. It’s very lonely in the clouds.

George T
George T is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 17:42
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 687
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Of course, you wouldn't need to be in IMC to be flying under IFR
Dan Dare is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 18:06
  #8 (permalink)  
High Wing Drifter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
If a plane has non-FM immune radios does that mean that it can't fly IFR in controlled airspace?
For Comms and less than 5700kg (I think), no. For VOR, as flight in CAS mandates those for carriage, then they must be FM Immune. immune ILS is reqiured for ILS approaches.

Best check for your self: Airworthiness Notice 84 on the CAA site.

Last edited by High Wing Drifter; 3rd Oct 2007 at 20:57. Reason: Change non-immune to FM-immune. Finger trouble
 
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 18:16
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you fly an ILS approach the aircraft must be fitted with an FM immune ILS reciver, if you use the VOR for IFR navigation it must be FM immune, quire simple No FM immunity No IFR navigation with that bit of kit.
A and C is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 18:47
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
if you use the VOR for IFR navigation it must be FM immune, quire simple No FM immunity No IFR navigation with that bit of kit.

Reference?

FM immunity is for IFR in CAS and this refers to equipment carriage; there is no legal prescription on equipment usage.

In Class G you can navigate with a rubber duck in a bucket of water
IO540 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 19:26
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
In Class G you can navigate with a rubber duck in a bucket of water
A "rubber duck"? How can you navigate with a "rubber duck"? Everyone knows that the Usenet navigational standard has been a tuna sandwich for many many years.
bookworm is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 19:31
  #12 (permalink)  
Fly Conventional Gear
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think I've found the answer; obviously in class G you can do what you want (including electing to fly IFR without FM immune radios/nav) except if you want to do an ILS approach inside or outside controlled airspace it must be FM immune. Inside controlled airspace VOR reciever must be FM immune for IFR flight as well.
Contacttower is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2007, 07:13
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let's hit a mountain!

The reason for the FM immunity regulations was that the aviation authoritys in europe had let commercial radio transmitters to broadcast right up to the bottom end of the aviation band.

This may effect the performance of aircraft navigation kit in the VHF range.

It would seem to me that all this talk of the leagality of using non FM immune kit in IFR is just stupid, after all the mountain or tall building that you hit is unlikely to know if it is in class A or G airspace.
A and C is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2007, 08:40
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The FM Immunity requirement is a theoretical thing; I don't believe there has been a single demonstrated instance of interference.

Anyway, it's not easy to fly OCAS in the UK, at the required low levels, while navigating by VORs alone. There are significant gaps in the coverage. If somebody is flying in IMC today they are much more likely to use a GPS, with VOR/DME backup.
IO540 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2007, 08:45
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with you but the real problem is that the ILS LOC is also subject to the immunity problem, 200ft above the ground is not the place to discover that this problem is not "theoretical"
A and C is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2007, 09:45
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A and C
The reason for the FM immunity regulations was that the aviation authoritys in europe had let commercial radio transmitters to broadcast right up to the bottom end of the aviation band.
While, I believe the statement is true (i.e. stations up to 107.9 are used in the UK), it still doesn't quite answer the question of why Europe with an FM allocation of 87.5-108 has a real risk of 'airplanes crashing' while the US using 87.9-108 (107.9 FM is commonly used) doesn't seem to feel there is a risk.

Is it US transmitters are better, N-Reg planes are better wired, American pilots are better at identifying interference, the US just accepts a level of IFR 'debris' falling around the country? or is it European Gold Plating?
mm_flynn is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.