VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.






VAF on Twitter:
@VansAirForceNet


Go Back   VAF Forums > Education > Visual Flight Rules
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-13-2022, 04:51 PM
Freemasm Freemasm is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Orlando
Posts: 950
Default Minimum Instrumentation, VFR

Forgive my laziness, I'm wicked low on time.

I'm xitioning from certified world and thinking ahead in my build. The FARs that everyone learned for VFR flight required Altimeter, AS, and a magnetic compass. I assumed this was any aircraft. I notice a lot of panel plans and functioning glass panel aircraft without one/all of these individual instruments. Easy to argue the glass will accommodate the AS and altimeter reqmnts. The mag compass, not so much. Can't believe these are day VFR aircraft only. I have no desire to argue the merits.

So much conflicting What do the applicable FARs state? It seems to have been written so that to cover gyro failures; keeping a level of redundancy; vac gyros backed up by electric instrument or a systemless compass. Glass only is acceptable? IFR redundancy is another level, of course. Seems contradictory, especially regarding the compass. My apologies if this has been covered.

Last edited by Freemasm : 04-13-2022 at 05:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-13-2022, 05:15 PM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 11,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freemasm View Post
Forgive my laziness, I'm wicked low on time.
I'm xitioning from certified world and thinking ahead in my build. The FARs that everyone learned for VFR flight required Altimeter, AS, and a magnetic compass. I assumed this was any aircraft. I notice a lot of panel plans and functioning glass panel aircraft without one/all of these. Can't believe these are day VFR aircraft only. I have no desire to argue the merits.
So much conflicting What do the applicable FARs state? My apologies if this has been covered.
§91.205 is pretty clear on requirements. §91.205 does not apply to Experimental Amateur-Built Aircraft flown day/VFR. For Night and/or IFR operations, the requirements are the same for EAB and certified aircraft.

You may be confused by the term "Magnetic Compass". That term is not used in the FARs. The proper term is "Magnetic Direction Indicator".
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century. Over 1,000 certifications accomplished. Discount for Veterans, Law Enforcement, Fire Fighters.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1, Lifetime EAA.
Recipient of EAA Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>

Last edited by Mel : 04-13-2022 at 05:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-13-2022, 05:31 PM
Freemasm Freemasm is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Orlando
Posts: 950
Default

@Mel.

So all of these IFR machines I've seen without a whiskey compass (magnetic direction indicator) are legal?

MTF arguments aside; single glass, dual glass but single electrical system architecture, etc. seems contradictory to the FAR original implied intent regarding system redundancy. Sorry. Trying to learn and minimize future expensive rework/mistakes.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-13-2022, 05:39 PM
Auburntsts's Avatar
Auburntsts Auburntsts is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freemasm View Post
@Mel.

So all of these IFR machines I've seen without a whiskey compass (magnetic direction indicator) are legal?

MTF arguments aside; single glass, dual glass but single electrical system architecture, etc. seems contradictory to the FAR original implied intent regarding system redundancy. Sorry. Trying to learn and minimize future expensive rework/mistakes.
A magnetometer coupled with a display meets the FAR requirement for a magnetic direction indicator hence no need for a whiskey compass. Not aware of any FAR requirement for redundancy in avionics or instruments. Not saying redundancy isn’t a good thing, just that there’s no regulatory requirement that I know of, at least for part 91, E-AB Ops.
__________________
Todd "I drink and know things" Stovall
PP ASEL-IA
RV-10 N728TT - Flying!
WAR EAGLE!

Last edited by Auburntsts : 04-13-2022 at 05:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-13-2022, 05:43 PM
Scott Hersha Scott Hersha is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,521
Default

A magnetic direction indicator doesn’t exclusively mean a “whiskey compass”. An electronic magnetometer fills this requirement, and does so much more precisely than the old fashioned wet compass.
__________________
SH
RV6/2001 built 2000/sold 2005
RV8 Fastback/2008 built/sold 2015
RV4/bought 2016/sold/2017
RV8/2018 built/Sold(sadly)
RV4/bought 2019/sold2021
RV6/August 2022 build - Flying
Cincinnati, OH/KHAO
DEC2022
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-13-2022, 06:22 PM
RV7A Flyer's Avatar
RV7A Flyer RV7A Flyer is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 2,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freemasm View Post
@Mel.

So all of these IFR machines I've seen without a whiskey compass (magnetic direction indicator) are legal?
Ahyup. Been hashed out about a zillion times here.

Quote:
MTF arguments aside; single glass, dual glass but single electrical system architecture, etc. seems contradictory to the FAR original implied intent regarding system redundancy. Sorry. Trying to learn and minimize future expensive rework/mistakes.
Good design principle, but not required. "Original implied intent" ain't got nothin' to do with it.
__________________
2022 Dues paid!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-13-2022, 06:59 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 8,689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburntsts View Post
Not aware of any FAR requirement for redundancy in avionics or instruments. Not saying redundancy isn’t a good thing, just that there’s no regulatory requirement that I know of, at least for part 91, E-AB Ops.
+1. For aircraft with Standard A/W certificates, most of the IFR redundancy requirements are buried in their type certificate requirements.
Strictly speaking, the FARs limit EAB aircraft to day, VFR only, and don't specify ANY required instruments! The Phase 2 operating limitations you will get when your aircraft gets its A/W certificate will usually, these days, grant you a waiver of those FARs and allow you to fly at night and/or IFR, but only if you also equip per FAR 91.205. And, yes, there are no rules that speak to redundancy. It's left to each operator to determine the level of risk (with regard to backups) that they're comfortable with. I think most, but not all, people who fly IFR also install back up equipment.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-13-2022, 07:27 PM
David Z David Z is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
Posts: 974
Default

There is a Canadian requirement for redundancy. Not that it's applicable to aircraft outside of Canada, but some food for thought.

Quote:
CAR 605.18
...
(j) sufficient radio navigation equipment to permit the pilot, in the event of the failure at any stage of the flight of any item of that equipment, including any associated flight instrument display,
(i) to proceed to the destination aerodrome or proceed to another aerodrome that is suitable for landing, and
(ii) where the aircraft is operated in IMC, to complete an instrument approach and, if necessary, conduct a missed approach procedure.
In practice it means two seperate navigation sources AND two screens to display the navigation information.
__________________
RV8
Empennage Passed Pre-close Inspection
Wings mostly done
Fuselage assembly, it's a riveting job!
83126
Dash 8 day job is financing the RV8
Donation till September 2023
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-13-2022, 08:17 PM
Freemasm Freemasm is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Orlando
Posts: 950
Default Showed my ignorance on this one

I had made a lot of assumptions based on limited experience/observation. Originally a mag compass for DVFR then an added vacuum DG for IFR. Vacuum AI and an electric TC. When I installed an earlier model Aspen years back, you had to keep the vacuum AI. I assumed dual source redundancy was a requirement. It just makes sense to me.

The Garmin literature I've read appears to be the same mindset with Boxes cross checking themselves and each other. Two ADAHRSs (one or two can be a G5's) even for their suggested VFR config. Yes, I's aware they're trying to sell equipment. If there is a Garmin (or other) requirement for electrical architecture redundancy, I haven't read it yet. Maybe they're assuming the device BU batteries fill this need. The more I dig, the more questions that pop into my brain. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-14-2022, 07:14 AM
Auburntsts's Avatar
Auburntsts Auburntsts is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freemasm View Post
I had made a lot of assumptions based on limited experience/observation. Originally a mag compass for DVFR then an added vacuum DG for IFR. Vacuum AI and an electric TC. When I installed an earlier model Aspen years back, you had to keep the vacuum AI. I assumed dual source redundancy was a requirement. It just makes sense to me.

The Garmin literature I've read appears to be the same mindset with Boxes cross checking themselves and each other. Two ADAHRSs (one or two can be a G5's) even for their suggested VFR config. Yes, I's aware they're trying to sell equipment. If there is a Garmin (or other) requirement for electrical architecture redundancy, I haven't read it yet. Maybe they're assuming the device BU batteries fill this need. The more I dig, the more questions that pop into my brain. Sorry.
No need to apologize. You ask good questions. Bear in mind that legal and safe aren’t necessarily synonymous. In the end, it’s about how much risk are you willing to assume? Failure tolerant electrical architectures, redundant systems, and training all go a long ways to reducing risk, but risk mitigation does come with a cost. The trick is finding the happy median and one size does not fit all.
__________________
Todd "I drink and know things" Stovall
PP ASEL-IA
RV-10 N728TT - Flying!
WAR EAGLE!

Last edited by Auburntsts : 04-14-2022 at 07:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:51 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.