Panel w/o flight instruments?

[andrew phillips]

In the new rvator there is a story of a guy who re-did the panel. Unless I am missing something, he has no flight instruments (compass, alt, a/s, horizon etc.). Is this legal?

[craigvince]

Well, I suppose he gets his tach from the engine monitor, his alt and speeds from his GPS (?) and looks out the window for the rest. He does mention a "swing-out" compass, but I'm not sure what or where that is.

[Robert M]

I spoke with Joe Norris at Oshkosh. He was the first to get the title of AB DAR (Ameature Built Desiganted Airworthines Representitive). He told me that because of the "Special" airworthiness certificates issued to experimental aircraft that a pilot flying Day VFR ONLY needs absolutely nothing in the cockpit or on the panel.

This wold be (IMO) CRAZY - but legal. This also hinges on air space that you may occupy while flying, you may need a Transponder or Comm radio.

[SteinAir]

The things that make you go "hmmmm".....

Seems there may be a slight micommunication with Mr.Norris. He had the first "AB DAR" for function codes 47 and 48 (ELSA and SLSA). Perhaps he thinks he can get by with anything (I doubt that's what he actually thinks) , but if operated under FAR 91, the regs are pretty clear. I'm sure there was just a bit of misunderstanding in how he phrased what he said.

If you look closely you'll see the guy is using a rocky mountain RMI encoder for the ASI/VSI/ALT, etc.. as his primary flight instruments along with 2 GPSes. His main goal was to save weight (which I applaud), but in the process he's created a plane that is 100% reliant upon electricity of EVERY single instrument in his panel and will be fairly non-intuitive to fly from a primary flight instrument perspective unless you're the guy who is used to it.

Anyway, it takes all kinds and each person does what they like. Not my cup of tea, but then again that's the beauty of homebuilding!

My 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein

[Mel]

Required instruments are listed under FAR part 91.205.
91.205 starts out by saying it applies to STANDARD category aircraft. i.e. it does not apply to experimental category. When we issue operating limitations we make 91.205 apply for night and/or IFR.
For daytime VFR, nothing is required. Not prudent, but legal.

[Ironflight]

Uh...Stein?

The topic for discussion here was "panel", and Instruments"...at least, that was the context I understood from the discussion. And in that regard, I agree with Mel . I also agree with you that otehr equipment (such as the ELT) is required - but that wasn't what I understood the thread to be about.

OK gentlemen, at the sound of the bell, you may come back out of your corners!

Paul

[SteinAir]

Hey...Mel's right...sorta....

But, how do you intend to be able show compliance (or intent/ability to comply) with operation of your aircraft as a whole in regards to the rest of the Regs (I.E., VFR altitude requirements, altimeter settings, etc..) without an altimeter?

Cheers,
Stein

[fehdxl]

FWIW, "91.159: VFR cruising altitude or flight level" only applies when greater than 3,000' AGL...so I guess one could fly well below that and be at whatever altitude he/she wishes. If you can tell it's a cow, you're 500' and if you can tell it has four legs, then you're at 300'. If you can tell it's really a bull, well...

BTW, I was teaching a jet driver how to land a C-140 a while back. He was looking at the [few] gages too much. When I covered up the entire panel with the sectional chart and told him to just fly the airplane, his landings rapidly improved. Don't really need instruments...

Just a couple cents worth...

-Jim

[dhall_polo]

This thread kind of surprised me since having learned "TOMATO" as required for day vfr so long ago. Here's a good reference on application of these rules to experimental. Backs up the "nothing is required" assertion.

www.rainierultralightengines.com/forms/Minimum_Inst_Requirements.pdf