What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Anyone operating Glass IFR in Canada?

C

C-GRVT

Well Known Member
Is anyone in Canada operating a glass panel IFR in Canada based on an uncertified glass system? If so, how do you meet the biennial altimeter/encoder/transponder check?
For example, Transport Canada advises that it is not necessary for a shop to "sign off" on the equipment, (which shops will not do on uncertified equipment), but can do the tests, provide me with the test results, and I can, based on those results, sign the equipment off.
However, an avionics shop that I have spoken to says that it will test an altimeter, and provide the results, but is only able to test a mechanical altimeter (which I would remove and take to them for testing). It would not be able to test an EFIS type system.
Am I talking to the wrong shop or type of shop? What are people in Canada doing?
Thanks,
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing
 
Bill
I have a AFS 4500 EFFIS as my main display. I have a back up standard altimeter and also a certified encoder. This allows them to do the standard pitot static check with equipment that has been certified to the required standards. The 4500 alone would not meet that requirement. It turns out that my altimeter was very accurate and I was able to adjust the 4500 to match it.
According to my shop, and others I have spoken with, it is legal to use non TSO'd equipment in Canada but you have to be able to prove that it meets the same standards as the TSO'd equipment. The problem is that, apparently, the only people that have this equipment are the manufacturers of the equipment.
You may be able to get an avionics shop that is comfortable to push the limits but certified encoders are really not that expensive, or heavy, and it is hardly worth the bother.
 
I can add an altimeter

Tom,
I think that is the solution - I can add a mechanical altimeter as a backup instrument and have that checked. I had planned a certified encoder - as you say, not too expensive anyway. You are right, there is no way an ordinary owner can demonstrate TSO equivalency.
Result is a bit of overkill redundancy, I plan on a TruTrak Gemini as a backup horizon which has altitude as well....
So, I take it that you remove the altimeter and have it checked, and reinstall it, and then have a pitot static check done? Or is it all done installed in the aircraft?
Thanks,
Bill
RV-6A finishing
Ottawa, Canada
 
Bill - the true check includes a transponder correlation check, in the aircraft. This means a pitot-static check with an additional test set reading out the encoded altitude sent from the transponder. This is in fact what is really required to meet the letter of the law. I've been considering for quite some time acquiring the necessary test equipment and AMO to do this work but the payback is insufficient to make it worthwhile. Annual calibration costs of the equipment are about $2K so that would take the profit off a lot of tests! Perhaps this is a project which will wait until retirement.

In the mean time, adding TSO'd alitimetry equipment is indeed the easiest route for you to take.
 
I'd go look for another shop. A good shop can do the test on your aircraft, without removing any equipment. Look around.
 
From the COPA guide to Amateur-Builts (quoting the relevant CAR(s)):

IFR Amateur-Builts
Amateur-built aircraft can have the VFR-only restriction removed if they are equipped for IFR flight. The requirement is simple – they have to be equipped as described in CAR 605.18. This CAR specifies the equipment required for any aircraft to be operated IFR. It says:

Power-driven Aircraft - IFR
605.18 No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft for the purpose of IFR flight unless it is equipped with
(a) when it is operated by day, the equipment required pursuant to paragraphs 605.16(1)(a) to (h);
(b) when it is operated by night, the equipment required pursuant to paragraphs 605.16(1)(a) to (k);
(c) an attitude indicator;
(d) a vertical speed indicator;
(e) an outside air temperature gauge;
(f) a means of preventing malfunction caused by icing for each airspeed indicating system;
(g) a power failure warning device or vacuum indicator that shows the power available to gyroscopic instruments from each power source;
(h) an alternative source of static pressure for the altimeter, airspeed indicator and vertical speed indicator;
(i) sufficient radiocommunication equipment to permit the pilot to conduct two-way communications on the appropriate frequency; and
(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.

Amateur-builts do not have to have any certified equipment or instruments, but they have to meet the CAR.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FWIW, I had both my Dynon 100 and the standby altimeter checked by a certified, travelling tester a few months ago. We discovered a broken static fitting in the rear of the fuselage, since it wouldn't hold a vacuum. We repaired that and both the D-100 and the altimeter passed with flying colors.:)

Best,
 
Canadian_JOY said:
Bill - the true check includes a transponder correlation check, in the aircraft. This means a pitot-static check with an additional test set reading out the encoded altitude sent from the transponder. This is in fact what is really required to meet the letter of the law. I've been considering for quite some time acquiring the necessary test equipment and AMO to do this work but the payback is insufficient to make it worthwhile. Annual calibration costs of the equipment are about $2K so that would take the profit off a lot of tests! Perhaps this is a project which will wait until retirement.
Click to expand...

I'm not Intimately familiar with CA rules but here is the process I use on most aircraft in the USA, sounds like the same requirements apply:

1) Remove altimeter and encoder and run a bench check to service ceiling, this way I can easily adjust the encoder to match the altimeter.
2) Remove transponder and do a complete bench check.
3) Reinstall all equipment and perform static leak check.
4) Accomplish integrated transponder check using an altitude simulator test box (replaces the encoder to check all the data lines).

If I'm doing an EFIS system then that must be done in the aircraft the same way an analog alitmeter is checked (CFR 43 app E).

And yes the test equipment was a HUGE investment and the annual certification cost are a bit over 2K a year.
 
Thanks all.
I think the path to assurance of a system that can pass the biennial test is a certified analog altimeter, certified encoder and transponder. I can achieve this by adding a certified altimeter and encoder to what I had planned - a G3X, backed up by a TruTrak Gemini. I'll certainly never be short of altitude information!
Bill Brooks
Ottawa Canada
RV-6A finishing
 
Altimeters

There is no need for you to add a extra altimeter and encoder. All altimeters VFR or IFR when used in the radar environment must meet the same bi-annual test standards.

There should be an altimeter test procedure for the GX-3 in the installation or users manual for adjusting and certifying the GX-3. Also the manufacturer should have a statement somewhere in the documentation about the altimeter performance, same for the Gemini.

Certified or not many EFIS altimeters can be adjusted at 5000' intervals so they will have better performance than a G/A mechanical altimeter.

If your shop is only able to certify a mechanical altimeter on the bench then you need to find a more progressive shop.

I run dual Grand Rapids Sports which easily meet the bi-annual certification requirements and provide encoder data to the transponder, they are tested in the aircraft and used for IFR.
 
IFR biennial test

George,
thanks for your reply - have you done this (complied with the requirement for a biennial test with an uncertified glass panel without mechanical backup)? I must say this is all new to me - one fellow here in Ottawa flies IFR. he takes his mechanical altimeter out and has it tested. Even this puzzles me, I would have thought that a pitot staic test would be needed.
If you are doing it, can you please run me through what is done?
Thanks,
Bill
 
"Certified"

Hi Bill,

Ask the shop to perform the following tests in the aircraft; pitot-static leaks, altimeter calibration (if needed), and transponder test. All the regular tests they would perform with a pitot-static system, mechanical altimeter, and transponder.

You may need to provide calibration procedures and/or other information for them if they aren't familiar with your particular system. Once the calibration (if needed) is done and the system passes the tests they "certify" they did the tests. That's all there is to it.

FWIW,
 
29.92

Hello Carlos,

A quick question for GRT. What altimeter setting does the digital code output to the Transponder from your EFIS units? Always 29.92 or is it based on the pressure setting the pilot has entered and is flying with?

I have a TSO'd SL 70 that accepts either grey code from the TSO'd blind encoder, OR digital code from my Dynon's (a D6 and D10)

My TSO'd/ certified altimeter and my Dynons always agree with each other within 10 feet at any given altitude and altimeter setting.

The issue is that the TSO'd blind encoder and the Dynons base their outputs at 29.92 (as required by the FAA regs) no matter what the current altimeter setting is. Therefore on a day when the actual altimeter setting is very high or low, the Transponder outputs an altitude indication that can be several hundred feet higher or lower than your actual altitude. A day later when the actual setting is 29.92 everything is accurate and ATC is much more at ease.
 
Last edited:
C-GRVT said:
Tom,
I think that is the solution - I can add a mechanical altimeter as a backup instrument and have that checked.
Click to expand...

If you decide on this path, choose the mechanical altimeter carefully. I chose wrongly in the form of a Falcon. It would not pass because of excessive variability error (not offset error). FYI, The GRT WS H1 passed with no issue and no calibration adjustment.
 
ATC handles variance

and is not confused or worried about the variance between current Alt setting and pressure alt. They work with variances and know what your transponder should show if working correctly. Don't think they are ignorant or deficient on this issue.

Re above post: "The issue is that the TSO'd blind encoder and the Dynons base their outputs at 29.92 (as required by the FAA regs) no matter what the current altimeter setting is. Therefore on a day when the actual altimeter setting is very high or low, the Transponder outputs an altitude indication that can be several hundred feet higher or lower than your actual altitude. A day later when the actual setting is 29.92 everything is accurate and ATC is much more at ease."
 
Last edited:
29.92

F1R said:
Hello Carlos,

A quick question for GRT. What altimeter setting does the digital code output to the Transponder from your EFIS units? Always 29.92 or is it based on the pressure setting the pilot has entered and is flying with?
Click to expand...

It sends 29.92. This is what the transponder and ATC is looking for so everyone is using the same reference. ATC knows your flying altitude by adjusting for non-standard barometric pressure.

Regards,
 
Perhaps this will help?

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=657871&postcount=10

It turned up in search results for something else I was looking for... seems appropriate.

I'm nowhere near the avionics stage yet, but I'm definitely interested in the requirements and procedures so I can plan accordingly.

EDIT: I see the OP actually posted further down in the linked thread, so is already aware of it. I'll leave this link for others though, as the threads do seem related.
 
Last edited:
Altimeter Test

Hi Bill

See the link in post # 7 (pertinent info copied below) which I believe gives the regulatory answer for testing the EFIS altimeter system.

"(2) Altimeters which are of the air data computer type with associated computing systems, or which incorporate internally air data correction, shall be tested and inspected in parts or by major components to specifications developed by the manufacturer".

Grand Rapids and presumably the other manufacturers provide this information in their manuals. If the GX-3 does not provide this information then I suggest changing to another brand.

The answer to your question in post #12 is yes, I have complied with the requirement for a biennial test with an uncertified glass panel without mechanical backup twice in the past and it's coming up for renewal next month.

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this area, however in my reading of the equipment requirements for IFR flight in Canada I do not see any requirement for so called "TSO'd" equipment, also the only certification requirements that I find is that the installed equipment (nav, altimeter system, transponder) meets the specified performance requirements.

After a steep learning curve I am very happy with my Grand Rapids equipment and their autopilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top