What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Potential Trouble in Australia: Experimental IFR Under threat

Aiki_Aviator

Well Known Member
I have just noticed via the Australian Yahoo groups a new project being completed by CASA that may severly restrict if not kill Experimental IFR flight with all of the major Experimental EFIS makers...

Project CS 13/01: Clarification of certification requirements for instruments and equipment used in Australian aircraft - Consultation history
(Ref: http://casa.gov.au/newrules/projecthistory.asp?session=1452856201&pc=PC_101318&project=CS 13/01)

The nuts and bolts appear to be that all IFR required equipment/instruments fitted to the aircraft must be TSO'd.

I am not a legal person, however, this looks like a major issue to affect IFR capabilities of Experimental aircraft. I would be happy if people who have capability can review and see if there is a problem with this or I a just misunderstanding, however, it did not read that way.

If there is an issue here, given Australia is likely to reflect US standards, the reciprical may be that US adopts the same standard from Australia. This needs to be fought strongly so that this does not occur.

Any and all thoughts welcome.
 
I just read it and it does not look good at all. I have no plans to fly IFR, but this will have quite an effect on those who do. It looked like it was approved today, but Im not sure if it was the study or the rules. I am sure this has all the experimental pilots in your country freaking out. If it has not become law yet, you need to mobilize and get your opinions out there.

Good luck and keep us informed. Those of us in the USA or other countries need to keep our eyes wide open for this type of activity to stop it before it becomes law.
 
I thought that was the status quo -- That instruments required for IFR operations had always needed to be TSO'ed.

That's why IFR folks install GNS430's etc instead of shooting ILS approaches on their Dynons.

Am I off-base here? In practical terms, what does this actually change?

- mark
 
Andrew,

We've been through this in the UK, and haven't yet got to a conclusion. The bottom line is that bolting anything that is TSOd into an uncertified airframe is no guarantee that TSOd performance will result. To put it another way, if your safety analysis points to a hazard with instrument reliability then insisting on TSOd instruments does not go very to mitigate that hazard. In a worldwide survey run by the UK team the reliability of uncertified EFIS was about five times that of a conventional (TSOd or not) vacuum gyro set up.

PM me if you would like more info.

Pete
 
Clarification I think

Hi Newt,

From my understanding the project supposes to clarify what is meant by IFR equipment and may well increase the scope, and secondly seems to infer that if you have any other equipment bolted into the cockpit that is non-IFR TSO'd that should be that you can be fined for having it there if you conduct IFR operations.

I may have it wrong, but that was the suggestion from the doco... After reading it, what would you suggest it referes to....I want to discuss this out as potentioally all Experimental EFIS will become "illegal"
 
Hi Newt,

From my understanding the project supposes to clarify what is meant by IFR equipment

So that sounds okay, and if it's merely "clarifying" it won't actually change anything...

and may well increase the scope,

In terms of what?

and secondly seems to infer that if you have any other equipment bolted into the cockpit that is non-IFR TSO'd that should be that you can be fined for having it there if you conduct IFR operations.

That's not how I read it at all.

It'd only invoke offence provisions if an "... item of equipment or system that is fitted to the aircraft in accordance with a provision of this subpart is not approved."

The subpart only applies to equipment used for IFR.

As I read it, you can bolt whatever you like into the cockpit, as long as the items you need for IFR operations are approved.

Note also that the CASA project is to produce a "clarification of certification requirements", not a new rule. They won't be issuing an instrument containing new certification requirements, they'll be issuing one containing a "general direction to comply" with the certification requirements they've already written, because it has come to their attention that some homebuilders have read ambiguity into the rules that they don't believe should exist.

I don't think there's anything to see here?

- mark
 
Closely related, I received the following NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) from the FAA this morning. It is currently only for Part 121 operations; however we all know which direction this slippery slope is headed:

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would prohibit flightcrew members in operations under part 121 from using a personal wireless communications device or laptop computer for personal use while at their duty station on the flight deck while the aircraft is being operated. This rule, which conforms FAA regulations with recent legislation, is intended to ensure that certain non- essential activities do not contribute to the challenge of task management on the flight deck or a loss of situational awareness due to attention to non- essential tasks.

See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-15/pdf/2013-00608.pdf

Wonder if Foreflight is personal use or flight crew use... Get out the popcorn ? betting this will also be a real fight.
 
Just some clarification

Hi Newt,

Just to make sure the wording is correct:

Quotation:
"91.745 Equipment installation and approval

(1) Subject to subregulation (2), the operator of an aircraft commits an offence if:

(a) the operator permits a flight of the aircraft to be conducted; and

(b) an instrument or item of equipment fitted or carried on the aircraft on the flight in accordance with a provision of this Subpart, is not approved. "

My concern is on the "fitted or carried on" as this could effectively included instruments that are indeed in the panel not being TSO'd equipment and therefore being subject to a penalty.

I am happy to be wrong by the way, it was just my interpretation as I am not clear on the need for clarification due to the fact that the instrumentation listed as required for IFR flight is pretty specific. If it needs clarification then there are other issues that are not seen as yet. Some foundation work may be at play....

Just trying to make sure we don't get somewhere before we know we are going....
 
In Norway...

.... we cannot fly IFR or night VFR with Expermental planes.

We've tried to remove those two restrictions for years, but with no luck so far...
 
Aiki_Aviator:

Might be a question of emphasis. Given the structure of the punctuation, I'm reading it like this:

"91.745 Equipment installation and approval

(1) Subject to subregulation (2), the operator of an aircraft commits an offence if:

(a) the operator permits a flight of the aircraft to be conducted; and

(b) an instrument or item of equipment fitted or carried on the aircraft on the flight in accordance with a provision of this Subpart, is not approved. "

If they wanted it to be interpreted the way you're reading it, I think they'd have inserted another comma, or simply deleted the "in accordance with..." subclause. After all, why would they include the phrase at all if it wasn't supposed to change the meaning the sentence would have without it?

In any case, the fact that the two of us can look at the same text and come up with wildly different interpretations suggests that perhaps CASA is doing the right thing by clarifying it. Let's see what their exposure draft looks like before getting too upset about it :) None of this is going to happen behind anyone's back.

- mark
 
Last edited:
Not Potential problem, SERIOUS PROBLEM

Gentlemen,

This is a very evil piece of work and it affects EVERYONE in Australia, and if they get away with it, look out for even the VFR folk.

So far they have not a legal leg to stand on, but they are manouvering to such a position and we must stamp this out now, or it will kill Experimental in Australia.

Ask Van's, if it were not for the Aussie market they may well have shrunk or closed or wound back considerably. So this affects the suppliers in the USA as well. Dynon AFS et al.

newt
The only TSO gear you need at present is Nav/Com and Transponder. Flight instruments, EFIS or classic 6 pack do not. This is the target. But it has no safety case, and we believe the case is rather for the non TSO as

The bigger problem here is this strikes at the core of what the Australian Government promised and had CASA put in place in 1998. Have a look at the FAA approach, we were modelled on it but it is being screwed with.

Mark my word this is the thin end of the wedge as there are folk in CASA that want experimental gone altogether.

If you are not an SAAA member join now. This is the kind of fight we need your support with.

Anyone who really feels they can contribute, please email me with details at david.brown 'at' saaa.com

Andrew, after you have recovered from beers with my mate Macca tonight, give this deep thought. You may want to contact me tomorrow.:D
 
Interesting that given 78 % of aircraft mishaps are due to human error, politicians would choose to ID equipment TSO as a safety mitigation.
 
@ Newt, I think you will find that Dave is correct with TSO'd items.

Min req for day VFR is
1) An airspeed indicating sytem
2) An adjustable altimeter
3) A direct reading magnetic compass
4) Clock.

All found in CAO20.18 issue8 appendix1

Back on topic, this is going to cost a lot if we need to change out our panels. :mad:
 
That's for VFR.

- mark

No Mark, That is for IFR. I think you are confused. IFR in an experimental the bare min is NAV/COM and Transponder. And this is not actually a CASA requirement, its a ASA requirement as found in the AIP.

For VFR you need an approved (not necessarily TSO) COMM, and your nav requirements are MKI eyeballs a map a compass and a watch. Non of which are TSO req. Mind you the CASA will be wanting a TSO'd watch for VFR at the rate they are going :mad:

If you believe differently, you have been the victim of Old Wives Tales spread by LAME's and flying schools. It is a common misconception.

What we get next ...who knows?
 
.... we cannot fly IFR or night VFR with Expermental planes.

We've tried to remove those two restrictions for years, but with no luck so far...

We had the same restriction here in Chile till last week, I have been fighting again Chilean FAA (DGAC) so they allow us to fly VFR at night and also IFR for two years. But last year an Experimental Boeing 787 flew in our country so I asked to Chilean FAA how do you allow an experimental to fly IFR, at night, RVSM on Chilean Airspace, they said but that plane was made by Boing, I said the law is for everyone so you better let us fly with the same rules or I will call my lawyer.
New Chilean regulation said experimental could fly day and night VFR and IFR on VMC and no need for TSO, but I said I am not going to accept the VMC restriction so I have to fight again for that.
 
Last edited:
Fernando
Congratulations and keep up the fight.
Sounds like you have had a great win for all pilots in Chile.
John
 
Great!

Fernando, great story and we admire your courageous fight for what is right. Congratulations and please keep us informed of your progress.

Best,
 
Fernando, great story and we admire your courageous fight for what is right. Congratulations and please keep us informed of your progress.

Best,

Pierre,

My RV-8 was the last week the first Experimental Plane in Chile with a Limitation Sheet that said "day and night VFR", Hernan Santiba?ez's RV-7 was second and more will came. We are planing first Chilean Experimental flight very soon and will post pics, we know is not to much for you guys but for us is freedom:D
 
Fernando, Great job getting your plane certified for day AND night VFR. I hope that is the start of many more experimental planes being built and flown in your country. Now, have fun!

Pierre,

My RV-8 was the last week the first Experimental Plane in Chile with a Limitation Sheet that said "day and night VFR", Hernan Santiba?ez's RV-7 was second and more will came. We are planing first Chilean Experimental flight very soon and will post pics, we know is not to much for you guys but for us is freedom:D
 
Back
Top