gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: Experimental IFR w/o a certified |
 |
|
| Quote: | From: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com (rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com)>
George,
I do not have a horse in this race, but I believe you've missed the
point of the original article.
|
Thanks Rick for the correction. I don't have a horse is this race and
apparently if I did it would be lame. (ha ha)
I agree I was not dead on point. Call it a Non sequitur, neither right or
wrong but not on point. However I think I do make some relevant points.
As far as Direct2/Freeflight and Chelton, I did not get we where talking
about this brand spacifically. I am sure they're awesome units. However
if it can meet the FAR's/TSO it should be sold as such. If they make
two models that are physically and functionally the same and you
want or NEED IFR equip, buy the TSO'ed equip. Done deal.
For the doctor to say you/we can evaluate that a NON TSO model is
the same as the TSO'ed model is debatable.
I would call the FAA. As the article states there is even confusion with
the FAA, but if you really want the answer you have to ask the right
people. Of course if you only want to hear and believe the non-TSO'ed
unit is OK, don't bother asking. Just do it and take the PhD CFII word
on it. I would not. I am sure there are pilots shooting GPS approaches
with GPS handheld's because some rocket scientist told them it was
OK. We are talking about the legal nuance and not what you can get
away with.
The good Doctor may be right, but in my experience the FAA is the
only one that counts. I suggest anyone contact EAA legal and ask this
question first than go to the FSDO. Often you need to contact the
FSDO that's in the region that does avionics. You have to talk to right
person. In the end it comes down to what is written down and how it is
interpreted. I could be wrong, but I am conservative and would opt
to CYA and use the TSO'ed equip. Of course if you can afford this
many 10's of thousand dollar equipment why pinch pennies.
There is a TSO'ed designation for reason, even for Com radios. The
ICOM A-200 com has a TSO'ed version and a non-TSO'ed version for
about $100 less. Of course there no need for a TSO'ed Com in an
experimental. So one might say that applies to IFR GPS navigation.
Well some things need to be TSO'ed even in an experimental, like
the Transponder and ELT. I am going add IFR GPS.
If you want IFR GPS navigation get a TSO'ed device, either a:
$2000 early Gen IFR GPS w/ CDI **
-OR-
$6,000-$12,000 later Gen IFR GPS (e.g., Garmin GNS/GNC)
-OR-
$40,000(?) TSO'ed IFR EFIS.
** As far as small monochrome small GPS displays vs. large color
displays, when I fly an approach all I want is what I have used for over
20 years, two needles, the azimuth and glide path. All the color stuff
is great situational awareness, but when it comes to an approach the
thing that counts are those two needles. For me, give me a good
VOR/LOV/GS receiver (which can typ get you 200 and 1/2) for IFR and
a good handheld GPS for refrence only. I prefer using cheaper paper
charts and plates that I
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
