Fitting "non certified" avionics as secondary instruments
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read today that Sandel 3500s go in as a minor mod in the USA, apparently - if replacing an existing HSI.
The EFD1000 is having a lot of QA issues. A friend is on his 3rd one in a year. The last one failed totally in IMC.
The G500 is a nice product but £40k or so, by the time one has done all the rest.
The EFD1000 is having a lot of QA issues. A friend is on his 3rd one in a year. The last one failed totally in IMC.
The G500 is a nice product but £40k or so, by the time one has done all the rest.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggest you look at section 3 of the following FAA document. An EHSI should be a Major alteration.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat...FSAW95-09E.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat...FSAW95-09E.pdf
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the fitting of 'handheld' GPS etc in certified aircraft, the CAA explained it (as most of us thought) at an engineer's seminar that if the piece of kit or its mount is permanently attached to the aircraft by screws or rivets then that isn't allowed.
Attaching it by Velcro or suction mount is okay as that is deemed as pilot fitted equipment. If the aircraft is in for maintenance then it can't be released with anything fitted that shouldn't be there.
Obviously any power or other wiring (aerials etc) to supply such equipment have to be an approved mod if fitted to (hard-wired to) the aircraft.
Part of the argument is the lack of crashworthiness testing of the mounts. Personally, I think yoke mounts (which are legal) are potentially dangerous but mounts like the AirGizmo ones are great (but illegal). Funny old world.
Attaching it by Velcro or suction mount is okay as that is deemed as pilot fitted equipment. If the aircraft is in for maintenance then it can't be released with anything fitted that shouldn't be there.
Obviously any power or other wiring (aerials etc) to supply such equipment have to be an approved mod if fitted to (hard-wired to) the aircraft.
Part of the argument is the lack of crashworthiness testing of the mounts. Personally, I think yoke mounts (which are legal) are potentially dangerous but mounts like the AirGizmo ones are great (but illegal). Funny old world.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wigglyamp - I have just heard from the USA that that 8300-10 document is outdated and has been cancelled.
Currently looking.
The current stuff is supposed to be here
A lot depends, apparently, on whether an AFMS is required.
Probably getting too far off topic here, however.
Currently looking.
The current stuff is supposed to be here
A lot depends, apparently, on whether an AFMS is required.
Probably getting too far off topic here, however.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the argument is the lack of crashworthiness testing of the mounts. Personally, I think yoke mounts (which are legal) are potentially dangerous but mounts like the AirGizmo ones are great (but illegal). Funny old world.
So my question is, why are the CAA so pigheaded not to allow mounts like this through a simple field sign off? If anything it makes EVERYTHING safer - less cluttered cockpit, reliable navigation, and I can't see any reason not to allow this?
Maybe someone from the CAA (who read these boards) would care to explain?
(we remove it before each annual. Takes 10 seconds).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't defend the system for a moment but it is the price we pay for being able to jump into our planes and - using our ICAO CofAs, ICAO licenses, ICAO IRs, etc - we can fly 800nm to some god forsaken (but warmer!) hellhole where you have to bribe somebody to sell you avgas, without anybody questioning our right to do so.
Without ICAO, private flying would have been banned in all countries where personal liberty is not a major population / public issue i.e. most of Europe, especially southern Europe.
One can't have one's cake and eat it.
EASA could introduce a sub-ICAO certification regime, usable for flying in the EU only (i.e. not Croatia and other nice places, unless they explicitly accepted it) but that would trash the livelihoods of the countless chimps that work in there on gold plating certification (like disregarding AML STCs), not to mention damaging the business of the big European EASA Part 21 shops who make serious money on the paperwork associated with mods.
It is also easy for them to point to hazards like the dodgy yoke mounts which so many people fly with. These can have serious control obstruction potential.
One can do quite a lot by getting a "certified" signal and power connector brought out somewhere, and then having the required equipment attached "temporarily". You can do satellite phones that way (lots of planes have rooftop Iridium/Thuraya antennae for internet weather; voice is harder due to the required intercom connections), obviously GPSs, even TCAS boxes (this is interesting).
Without ICAO, private flying would have been banned in all countries where personal liberty is not a major population / public issue i.e. most of Europe, especially southern Europe.
One can't have one's cake and eat it.
EASA could introduce a sub-ICAO certification regime, usable for flying in the EU only (i.e. not Croatia and other nice places, unless they explicitly accepted it) but that would trash the livelihoods of the countless chimps that work in there on gold plating certification (like disregarding AML STCs), not to mention damaging the business of the big European EASA Part 21 shops who make serious money on the paperwork associated with mods.
It is also easy for them to point to hazards like the dodgy yoke mounts which so many people fly with. These can have serious control obstruction potential.
One can do quite a lot by getting a "certified" signal and power connector brought out somewhere, and then having the required equipment attached "temporarily". You can do satellite phones that way (lots of planes have rooftop Iridium/Thuraya antennae for internet weather; voice is harder due to the required intercom connections), obviously GPSs, even TCAS boxes (this is interesting).
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal
I appreciate the issue of not being able to legally use an AirGizmo mount in a certified aircraft but please remember that it's not a CAA issue - they have no control over dsign approvals on EASA aircraft. The rule in 21A307 about all parts having to have an EASA Form 1 or equivalnet has killed off what the CAA used to accept as 'No Hazard' equipment. And in EASA-land, there is no simple 'Field sign-off', whilst may of us, even those of us who make our living from EASA design work, would like to see.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rule in 21A307 about all parts having to have an EASA Form 1 or equivalnet
I researched this about 2 years ago and any documentation which carries batch traceability was acceptable, both under EASA/CAA and FAA regimes.
Secondhand parts could not be fitted to a G-reg unless it had an EASA-1 form, which controls the market for parts salvaged from wreckage (basically it means the ex-wreck part needed to be "inspected" and "recertified" (gosh one is supposed to be impressed) by an EASA145 company) but new parts were OK with any suitable papers as mentioned above.
And this remains the practice in GA maintenance today.
Speak privately to anybody doing it and he will tell you that loads of parts are not available with an EASA1 ... screws, etc loads of small parts. New instruments bought from the USA come with an 8130-3 anyway.
An EASA1 form means nothing about performance. It just one means of compliance for batch traceability, and it keeps the EASA145 regime in business.
Class 1 parts (engines and props) were different and needed either an EASA1 or an 8130-4 (FAA Export CofA) but I heard this changed recently since the FAA stopped doing the 8130-4 so the Eurocrats now have to accept an 8130-3 for Class 1 parts also.
Where is the above incorrect?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To echo some posts above. My Robin ATL is an EASA aircraft so I have to remove quite a lot of non approved equipment before each annual /ARC. It has been an interesting technical challenge to make the power connectors, aerial leads, instrument panel fittings, easily removable but mechanically and electrically secure. Fortunately Robin provided a number of c/b protected spare connectors behind the panel. Also I have been able to find GPS and transponder equipment designed to fit in the instrument panel holes. But perhaps the greatest satisfaction for me is intentionally doing something 'illegal' and giving two fingers to the nutters who make the rules.
