chanik Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 I didn't do a program letter either, working directly with the FSDO. Just the 8130-6 form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Sitting here on my second foggy morning got me to thinking about my question on E-LSA for IMC. I found a bit of details and a service on both the process and potential priveledges of an appropriately rated pilot when flying an E-LSA: Sport Aviation Specialties. Basically, equip the plane to FAR 91.205 and add in an TSOed navigation device like a Garmin sl-30 or GNS 430 and the plane would be FAA legal for IMC. Theoretical argument for me at this point since I haven't found VFR only to be an issue but interesting possibility if my mission changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 The TSO stuff is optional too. http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/tvrvbg/_borders/IFR%20equipment.pdf I think the important thing is to have independent backup instruments as the FARs leave enormous leeway in having a very minimally equipped birs that would still be technically legal in IMC. I have an SP-400 radio found that ixgyro works pretty well as a true artificial horizon on my android. I want that backup even if I'm just VFR and night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 I guess it's the transponder that must be built to TSO standards, although it doesn't haven't to be TSOed. You do have to have ground based navigation. Don't know if I'd go with a portable as my primary but looks like it would be with the regs for experimental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 That's correct, because every transponder needs to be. There are no non-TSO'd ones. Even the ground navigation requirement in the FAR 91.205 went away in 2009. (The website is dated). Now it is just : (2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown. The portable can be used but must be 'mounted' to be legal. So velcro makes you legal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Koerner Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 So... it seems an ELSA can fly at night (if properly equipped and with a properly licensed pilot) and over congested areas (if safe) and IFR (again, if properly equipped and with a properly licensed pilot). How about flights to foreign countries? Do they recognize (allow) ELSA aircraft? I know Canada & the Bahamas allow LSAs, and Mexico didn't bat an eye on a couple of trips I've made to the south. But what if the aircraft said "experimental" on the side? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 All three have the same blanket approval sort of form (seems none of them check for this like the infamous pilot radio license) you can just download for either LSA or amateur homebuilt. They all seem to lump the two catagories together anyway as far as regulatory exceptions go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 I found a bit of details and a service on both the process and potential priveledges of an appropriately rated pilot when flying an E-LSA: Sport Aviation Specialties. Just so you know, Mike Huffman of Sport Aviation Specialties handled my conversion: Sky Arrow from S-LSA to E-LSA. I also took the 16 hour Inspection class from him. Highly recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Interesting thread. I did a little surfing on navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown When using a GPS for IFR, it either needs to be a WAAS unit or have Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM). The Garmin Aera line are all WAAS so presumably would be OK. The 496 can have an accuracy check enabled that could satisfy the RAIM requirement. It would be up to the pilot to convince the FAA the unit conformed to 91.205 (if ramp checked). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Interesting thread. I did a little surfing on When using a GPS for IFR, it either needs to be a WAAS unit or have Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM). The Garmin Aera line are all WAAS so presumably would be OK. The 496 can have an accuracy check enabled that could satisfy the RAIM requirement. It would be up to the pilot to convince the FAA the unit conformed to 91.205 (if ramp checked). Where did you see this? It's not in the FARs; is there a memo from the FAA or something that calls this out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Is there anything 100% definitive and crystal clear? Nope. Van's forum has several threads on this topic and it all boils down to the interpretation of "Navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown". The suitability is, of course, the crux of the matter. The pilot makes that decision but this could be subject to debate if ramp checked by the FAA. TSO-129 requires RAIM and GPS could only be used as supplemental navigation. TSO-146A covers WAAS and allows the GPS unit to be used as primary in all phases of flight. Units don't have to be TSO'ed in the experimental world but the general thought is that the pilot/owner of an experimental might need to show compliance. TSO would be the easiest way to demonstrate compliance but, (I can't find the exact circular) I recall seeing language that navigation equipment needed to be TSO-XYZ or equivalent. WAAS is realtively easy. The FAA website itself in the Navigation Services section says that WAAS allows GPS to be used as a primary means of navigation and WAAS is the heart of TSO-146a (along with a slew of other requirements). A good argument could be made that the 796 complies for all facets of flight. while the Aera 5xx series seem to meet only enroute but not so sure about approach. I also don't know if they have sensitive CDI's which would be required for precision approaches. All that being said, IMHO, I'd be comfortable using the mentioned GPSs as enroute navigation, to punch through a layer or 'lite' IFR but would definitely go with a panel mounted TSO-146A unit when it came to running approaches to minimums. The x96's and 5xx would be great supplemental/backup in this instance. FAA legal and a solid IFR platform may not be same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.