RatMan said:
Just wondering, why can't you use them "legally" and why would you want "certified"?
The reason I ask, the process of getting something "certified" (or TSO'ed) is expensive and adds a lot to the price but actually does nothing for the instrument. It may make you feel more confident in the instrument but that's just a feeling and again, does nothing for the instrument.
The instrumentation I have seen in some RV's is actually much better than I have seen in a number of old "IFR certified" C-172s yet these instruments aren't TSO'ed, cost much less and provide better information to the pilot.
I'm not flaming you, just trying to illustrate a point. These aren't traditional certified airplanes, there is no requirement (except maybe a personal choice) for TSO'ed instruments. A lot of builders fly behind experimental engines and trust them, is there really any reason not to fly behind non-TSO'ed instruments and trust them as well?
Rat
Not feeling any flames, not to worry!
I am using non-TSO'd gyros (some people will say I'm crazy to take that chance), gauges, as well as an engine that, although I've used all 'approved parts', I built it up myself so it is considered experimental.
Not a matter of TSO'd or certified, per se. I was referring specifically to the use of equipment during IFR flights. No handheld GPS is approved. Most panel mounts are not either. There is a specific certification/installation to have a "legal" GPS for Instrument flight.
My issue is more with the "appropriateness" of a piece of equipment for the mission. Lycoming engines are the oldest, most primative technology you can imagine, so why are they still in use? Because they're virtually bullet proof. A certified GPS has at least gone through a process that should indicate a level of certainty as to reliability, accuracy and legality for use. Is newer handheld technology better? Probably. Can you be sure it will meet the above three criteria? And trust your life and those of your friends and family to it?
Again, my entire point was for a specific use not even endorsed by the manufacturer. Will people use it for those 'other' purposes? You know they will. It's human nature, and it's there in front of you.
I would have absolutely no reservations about (and regularly do, in fact) climbing into the cockpit of an airplane equipped ONLY with an ASI, altimeter, compass and T&B for typical VFR flight. How many RV builders out there won't consider flying without an AOA or stall warning alert? Would I install a Dynon or other EFIS? Probably, I love cool toys to! Would I be satisfied with a Dynon, GRT or Blue Mountain for IFR flight? Not yet. Not enough experience or history, and in my mind, not suitable for the mission. At least not yet.
And when I see technology of such a high end nature that it's intended use (at least by the manufacturers suggestions) is to basically confirm what you should already be able to identify by looking out the window, I get concerned that it will become a "primary" instrument rather than an aid to situational awareness. Used properly, it's a way cool toy, but there are other 'toys' I need (WANT!) that will give me more bang for my bucks.
