IFR in Experimentals

Mornin' everybody. As y'all know, we were just signed off last Friday and are day/night VFR equipped. I also intend/intended to file and fly IFR when the 40 hour restrictions are flown off. My page of limitations states "No IFR". The DAR did approve of aerobatics however. I thought that many of you guys fly IFR. How do I get the OK to do IFR?
Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I am sure someone else will chime inwith a lot more details (I have read numerous threads on this on the Yahoo boards before...), but my limitations read something like "....Day/Night VFR only unless equipped for Instrument flight per part 91....".

In other words, as long as I have the mandated IFR equipment and it is properly certified, I'm good to got get wet. At least that's how I interpret it.

Paul

Certified TSO'd IFR equipment installed by a qualified avionics shop is good to go. Non TSO'd stuff installed by the builder is OK to use, but it must be tested that it works by putting the AC back into Phase I testing and actually demonstrating that it works, then signing it off in the log book. As long as you can verify that it works and verify calibration, you can use anything you want in an experimental. That's not saying it's a good idea, though. And you're insurance company may have some issues regarding these things.

Roberta

Now, Roberta... tell me this.

What exactly needs to be done during the second "Phase One" Testing that hasn't already been at least "tried" during the preceeding 40, 80 or 1,000 hours?

Are they just looking for a paper trail citing desired functions, tests performed, results and application to the FAR's?

CJ

My approach

I had the every two year check of the static system & altitude encoder by an avionics shop at John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana (and it did require some adjustment during the calibration check). I checked the VOR receiver and it was off so I had to pull it and ship the receiver and CDI to Gulf Coast Avionics at Lakland, FL for calibration (they take care of Terra now). They did the vor/loc/gs adjustments called for in the manual certified it and sent it back. I did the compass card calibration at the compass rose at Springdale, Arkansas and the required airborne checks of the VOR receiver, personal verification checks of the LOC/GS. Then I virtually parroted in reverse sense what the DAR wrote in the airworthiness sign-off restriction to certify as the certified repairman for this aircraft that it meets the requirements for instrument flight rule operation. Its in the plane so I don't have the wording.

I have just above bare bones equipment no approach approved GPS so I avoided that whole mess. Way back when I decided not to put it in the shop and FAA requirments were so unpredictable that I was advised by Western Avionics at SNA not to even try it because the results were very unpredictable and the cost of certification would probably far exceed the cost of the equipment.

So off I went flying IFR and man it was a bear! The RV-6A that was a pussy cat VFR was very demanding in IFR. Chart management with knee boards required relearning my procedures and the plane needs to be controlled all the time - much higher work load than my previous experience (4500 hrs with well over 1000 approaches - flew to work every day for over 15 years in the LA basin). After about 15 hours I installed a Tru Trak Pictorial Pilot for course control and an Altrak for altitude hold and the transformation of my IFR work environment was amazingly good.

I find that in the drasticly changing world of GPS based operations it was a serious mistake to not install an approach approved GPS. I constantly worry about approach availability because of my equipment limitation.

Bob Axsom

Basically, yes, just a logbook entry that you have tested something and verified that it performs as it is supposed to. Anything that was not tested during initial Phase I or was added, repaired, or modified since Phase I must be tested by reinserting the AC back into Phase I.

If you complete Phase I, but haven't performed any aerobatics, you can later, place the plane back into Phase I, perform manuevers, sign them off in the logbook, then perform them legally in Phase II.

Similarly, you can add equipment (IFR stuff), return the plane to Phase I, test, prove it works properly, sign off, then return to Phase II and perform these tested things legally. Placing your plane back into Phase I can be done anytime, voluntarily, to test new items, repairs, modifications, modes of flight, etc. Phase I means you test these items just like you did in the initial Phase , in your test area and solo. Generally the reinsertion to Phase I lasts 5 hours or until proven. Then the portion tested is signed off to satisfy the appropriate Fars. I do not know this for certain, but I believe IFR equipment may be tested using a safety pilot on board, since you are not actually testing structural parts of the plane. It seems this would be the best way to prove the functionality of IFR equipment. Having the builder testing under the hood while a safety pilot watches out seems like a reasonable way to test.

I attended an EAA "Testing Your Experimental Aircraft" seminar and this is what I was taught during that seminar. As the builder of an Experimental AC you have a lot of latitude, but responsibility and common sense must also be factored in. Signing something off as good leaves you, the builder, subject to any liability that any other AC MFG would be subjected to.

Roberta

If you are an EAA member you can go to the following link for their interpretation of what is needed.

http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/Equipping a Homebuilt for IFR operations.html#TopOfPage

Pierre, did you inform the DAR that you intended to fly it IFR?

Roberta, after he takes it back into phase testing and completes it does he have to have the DAR come back to inspect and add another signoff? I guess the thing that would have me worried is the line from the DAR stating "No IFR". Can Pierre go back to the DAR and request the limitation that Paul has of "....Day/Night VFR only unless equipped for Instrument flight per part 91...."?

I should add that I carefully read the limitations req.

I should add that I carefully read the limitations against IFR unless properly equiped and the FAR listed. Since all of the equipment was already in the airplane and well proven to work during the original Phase 1 test period there was no requirement to go back into a Phase 1 test program concurrent with the normal IFR calibration and certification checks. Without going back into the details of that stage and a lot of "quotes and therefores" I am quite certain that going back into Phase 1 testing is required only if you are changing the system not just doing normal calibration and checks on equipment that was already installed and used as part of the original Phase 1 testing. Your interpretation may be different. That's not unusual, the FAA offices in different districts do not aggree on all things. When I worked at Douglas in Long Beach all of the FARs for the company were maintained in a library assigned to me (though not maintained by me thank goodness) and the number of volumes was huge! We just have to focus on the one requirement identified in the initial Air Worthiness Certification memo and not worry about all of the potential inter FAR conflicts. The main thing to be certain of, is the systems work properly (function), accurately (performance) and reliably to allow you to survive in IMC.

Bob Axsom

Roberta,
There is no need to do the testing under the hood. Are you testing equipment or the pilot? I would do one at a time. Two pilots would still be a good idea.

Jack

Bob, you are right in saying if the equipment was tested during Phase I, you do not need to go back to phase I for calibration or checks. That's not what I said. I was saying if you had not tested the equipment during phase I or you subsequently added IFR equipment, you must then go back in Phase I to test and verify it and sign it off.

Jack, you are right. You could verify the validity of the equipment in VFR conditions alone without the hood. What was I thinking? That should be perfectly fine, since you really don't need to simulate conditions to verify the equipment.

Sorry if I'm not real clear on this. The whole notion of experimental IFR is very vague ans subjective. I'm relaying what I was told at an EAA seminar.

But the bottom line is anything not tested in Phase I, has to be tested in Phase I conditions during subsequent testing sessions.

Roberta