What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-12 and actual IFR......

There is indeed some confusion here. Yes the latest operating limitations for ELSA DO reference the AOI:
14. The pilot may only conduct the flight maneuvers authorized in the AOI. (27)

Hi Mel, I noticed that too, I was hoping what they meant by 'Flight Maneuvers' had to do with spins, aerobatics, etc. Flying IFR or in IMC would be a little strange to call a flight maneuver. Anxious to hear what you find out.
 
Is the POH part of the Van's RV-12 ELSA ASTM configuration? If so, that would imply that the POH is incorporated by reference in the OLs ("If relying on the manufacturer's data, the aircraft must conform to the manufacturer's design and be maintained to manufacturer's instructions."). That would also indicate modifying the POH for any IFR mods made after the original ELSA SAWC and OLs are issued.

John Salak
RV-12 N896HS
 
Is the POH part of the Van's RV-12 ELSA ASTM configuration? If so, that would imply that the POH is incorporated by reference in the OLs ("If relying on the manufacturer's data, the aircraft must conform to the manufacturer's design and be maintained to manufacturer's instructions."). That would also indicate modifying the POH for any IFR mods made after the original ELSA SAWC and OLs are issued.

John Salak
RV-12 N896HS

It does have to comply for the certificate to be issued. But once the AWC is issued, you, your neighbor or anyone else may make modifications to both the aircraft and/or any flight manual you may have produced.
 
You may be right about the modification of the POH. I never had the problem so I never dug into the legalities once my DAR put the FSDO position in writing that I could fly IFR if so equipped.
 
Most of the ELSA Operating Limitations Paragraph 19 allow IFR if so equipped. However mine wasn't. I contacted the FAA FSDO and they gladly provided me a new Operating Limitations allowing IFR.

I have a Garmin G3X with autopilot. The only thing I needed to do was order a Garmin GTN 625 IFR GPS and I got special pricing when adding it to a G3X system. I ordered it from Stine and he provided the wiring which made it all plug & play. Not required but I also added a Garmin G5 backup display. It is not only a separate display it also backs up components like the AHRS feeding the G3X over the network.

I've flown thousands of hours IFR starting back in the early 60's a lot of this time is instrument instructing.
I fly this aircraft with this instrumentation IFR and it's far better than the most aircraft I fly. However, IFR or VFR you need to always evaluate the weather you fly in small aircraft are more limited. That said for me the IFR I fly in is more smoother, safer and enjoyable than VFR.

Note I'm not trying to sell anyone on using this aircraft for IFR because I believe most people are using the aircraft for local pleasure flight. IFR is certainly not for every one and unless you understand it and are current on IFR you would only be asking for a lot of trouble and you would not find it more safer and enjoyable than VFR and that goes for any aircraft.

Also the pitot heat is required per part 23 not part 91.205 and the older part 23 aircraft are grandfathered out like my BE35 & C-172. Note, the RV-12 isn't a part 23 aircraft. If you don't have pitot heat don't even get close to ice as the pitot is the first to leave and right after that everything else comes a bigger problem. I've been there and your not going to have fun. Just because your IFR you can't go just anywhere and be safe.
 
Hi Mel, I noticed that too, I was hoping what they meant by 'Flight Maneuvers' had to do with spins, aerobatics, etc. Flying IFR or in IMC would be a little strange to call a flight maneuver. Anxious to hear what you find out.

This is the unofficial interpretation I have gotten from Oklahoma City.
My GUY in Ok City agrees that the intent is directed toward flight maneuvers and not IFR flight. He agrees with us that because of the paragraph allowing instruments flight rules, IFR flight IS allowed if properly equipped and maintained. He is looking into getting an "official" interpretation.
 
OL’s: that’s good news Mel - thanks for the update. I’m glad to hear there’s still some common sense at the FAA.

Pitot Heat: this was yet another reason I built E-AB. I wanted an airplane I could use for IFR if needed. I put a Garmin heated pitot out in the left wing.
 
This is the unofficial interpretation I have gotten from Oklahoma City.
My GUY in Ok City agrees that the intent is directed toward flight maneuvers and not IFR flight. He agrees with us that because of the paragraph allowing instruments flight rules, IFR flight IS allowed if properly equipped and maintained. He is looking into getting an "official" interpretation.

Thanks very much Mel, that is a very encouraging 'unofficial' interpretation!! I used to love flying IFR/IMC back in the '80s and would be sad if I couldn't use my RV-12 in that environment 'just a little bit' :)
 
Ron, I?m with you on pitot heat. I once had my Cherokee pitot tube ice over in the soup. It was a good lesson in pitch and power flying the few minutes it took to melt the ice once I turned on the pitot heat. I should have had it on based on the temperature, but as they say: experience is what you get right after you needed it!
 
Ron, I?m with you on pitot heat. I once had my Cherokee pitot tube ice over in the soup. It was a good lesson in pitch and power flying the few minutes it took to melt the ice once I turned on the pitot heat. I should have had it on based on the temperature, but as they say: experience is what you get right after you needed it!

With a modern EFIS, the need for pitot heat may be critical - some brands of EFIS may lose their horizon reference with a blocked pitot.
 
Ron, I?m with you on pitot heat. I once had my Cherokee pitot tube ice over in the soup. It was a good lesson in pitch and power flying the few minutes it took to melt the ice once I turned on the pitot heat. I should have had it on based on the temperature, but as they say: experience is what you get right after you needed it!

I completely agree; glad you made it through that lesson!

One of the nice features of the Garmin pitot is that (if you buy the regulated heated one), it actually provides an annunciation on the G3X if temp is below 45?F and either the power to the pitot isn?t on or the temperature of the probe is below ambient. I thought this was nice way to hopefully minimize future ?experiences?.
 
With a modern EFIS, the need for pitot heat may be critical - some brands of EFIS may lose their horizon reference with a blocked pitot.

That’s interesting Bob. I’m happy to report that the G3X shows the ADHARS with it disconnected. I’m not sure about blocked as of yet, but I’ll save that for a future “experience”. ha.
 
I am considering working towards an IFR rating. My 12's EOL specifically allows for night or instrument flight if properly equipped in accordance with 14 CFR 91.205. I have the Dynon Skyview. What would I need to do to get "properly equipped?
 
Depends. You?ll need a VOR to shoot VOR and Localizer approaches, and a glide slope receiver for practice ILS approaches. If you are flying under the hood not on an IFRflight plan you don?t need a pitot static check, but if you want to fly on an IFR flight plan legally you will need one. At least the installed Dynon should be good for GPS approaches.
 
I completely agree; glad you made it through that lesson!

One of the nice features of the Garmin pitot is that (if you buy the regulated heated one), it actually provides an annunciation on the G3X if temp is below 45ºF and either the power to the pitot isn’t on or the temperature of the probe is below ambient. I thought this was nice way to hopefully minimize future “experiences”.

That's pretty cool. I would assume you could do that with the Dynon but I'd have to look into it.
 
Last edited:
Depends. You?ll need a VOR to shoot VOR and Localizer approaches, and a glide slope receiver for practice ILS approaches. If you are flying under the hood not on an IFRflight plan you don?t need a pitot static check, but if you want to fly on an IFR flight plan legally you will need one. At least the installed Dynon should be good for GPS approaches.

Not sure I'd invest in anything VOR these days. You'll also need antennas and associated wiring. And make sure the energy budget can handle it especially if you're considering older used avionics. There's not much capacity on the Rotax.

I'm considering the GNS 625. Problem is like everything Garmin they're greedy and it's always bundled with a bunch of stuff not needed (by me at least).
 
e. At least the installed Dynon should be good for GPS approaches.

For practice maybe, but not under IFR rules. You?ll need an ?approved? gps for that, which in practice means a TSO?d box.
The real decisions to be made involve backup equipment. The FARs require none. Some pilots fly with that minimum; some with dual batteries, dual alternators, 3 attitude sources, dual vors plus ifr approved gps; and many are somewhere in between. This decision takes a lot of thought.
 
I have the GTN625; nice unit. Although it may seem pricey, I bought it for about $4900 when I got a G3X at the same time. I’d guess you can still get a deal if you talk to a major Garmin dealer, like Pacific or Gulf Coast Avionics or Sarasota.

I agree with the VOR sentiment. The FAA just dropped a couple more VOR’s from service where I live, so buying a NAV unit has even less attraction. Being able to do an ILS as a backup in the event GPS failed, but that would be a rare condition, especially considering it would have to occur while approaching an airport that had an ILS to be valuable. However, of the several airports I fly to frequently, only have GPS approaches are available, so having the WAAS GPS fulfills all of my navigation needs.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don?t think the 12 is a very good training platform for instrument training . I know, here it comes. Just my opinion based on experience.
 
I installed a GTN625, which is physically the same size. The 650 needs a second power supply and antenna set and would be very doable.
 
Re reading the post sounds like the 625 may be better (cost) option for me then. Do you have to have the G3x too? Mind sharing any install photos you might have?
 
Re reading the post sounds like the 625 may be better (cost) option for me then. Do you have to have the G3x too? Mind sharing any install photos you might have?

Sorry for the image size; it’s quite a silly dance you have to go through to post a photo on this forum. My one request would be to allow just posting photos here.

Soap box statements aside, here’s my panel from a while back.
UyE1Oi4l.jpg


Yes, I do have a G3X. Note the GTN625 in the panel center.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I chose to use a single piece and cut it out myself, but retained all of the factory mounting holes and braces. It is admittedly a little overkill for an RV-12, but I thought, "why not?".
 
Last edited:
More power please!

I have been contemplating adding the GTN 625/650 to my flying ELSA RV12. The power budget is a problem if you want a back-up AHARS and heated Pitot tube. There have been discussions on this site regarding this issue but the solutions were completed as an EAB with extensive mods.

My goal is to leave the stock electrical system intact, not modify the cowl and add the additional amps needed to safely run everything. I was thinking I could add an IFR buss fed from the battery with the addition of a B&C pad mount alternator. This will supply an extra 25 amps of power during a 5000 RPM cruise speed. Successfully doing this is the problem. I have not found a sound way to have both alternators simultaneously charge a single battery. Everything I have read said to only have one alternator run at a time on a single battery.

I may need to add a second battery included with a second electrical system. Crowbar over-voltage protection is needed for a two Earth-X battery system (weight). One battery is charged by the B&C and the other charged by the standard Rotax alternator. Electrical load would be divided (IFR/VFR) between the two alternators. The batteries should be moved behind the baggage compartment for weight and balance reasons.

I would add a crossover switch for additional safty. If the Rotax voltage regulator/alternator failed, the Rotax (VFR) alternator/battery could be taken off line and the B&C could take over both busses (VFR/IFR). I thought about making the B&C the primary alternator but, it doesn't develop any amps until the Rotax is turning over 3000 rpm. Waiting for an IFR clearance for an extended period of time could cause a battery problem. Just wondering if the brain trust on here has any advice/answers? :confused:
 
I can't speak to power from a Rotax, but I can share what my avionics package uses for reference. With everything turned on, it pulls about 7.6A in steady state with a peak of bout 9.3A when transmitting. Add 4A for a fuel pump and 8A for my ECU (ignition and fuel injection), along with about 4A for lights and you're at about 26A. I have a 50A alternator, so it works fine for me.

I don't know that you'll need an additional alternator if you're just adding a GTN625; it doesn't pull much power at all with about 1.5A indicated on my VP-X. The 650 will use an additional ~5A for the COM and NAV units though.

My heated pitot spikes up about 7A when turned on, but quickly runs down to just over 1A steady; it will be closer to 2A at 20F. The additional GSU25 (Garmin ADAHRS) only pulls about .25A, so it's fairly negligible.
 
Last edited:
Resurrection

Here we are almost five months later - I just finished reading a great article in the November 17 issue of Kitplanes. They covered the RV-12iS in pretty great detail and mentioned a number of times about the Garmin 625 navigator. Not a terribly expensive way to get a TSO'd box with GPS approach capabilities. Thats about all I would want in a -12.
Are there any builders out there specifically planning to equip their -12iS with a GTN625 for the occasional GPS approach to get in or out in "light" IFR conditions?
I'd be the first to preach safety regarding the -12 as an IFR platform, but I really see a great opportunity here to be able to File IFR to get out or in to a specific field when there's weather just over the IFR hump.
The RV-12iS seems to be properly "equipable" with some extra panel real estate for the GTN, but I don't recall reading anything about heated Pitot. That being said, the -12iS does have an AOA system now, so maybe they relocated the pitot/aoa to the wing and I didn't notice. I plan on visiting Van's in the late summer and this will be at the top of my discussion/questions list. Between a nicely equipped -12iS and an RV-14, I just can't seem to decide. Apple to Oranges here, but each is a great option.
 
I have a Garmin GTN625 in my RV-12 and there is special pricing when used with the G3X system.
I also backed up the G3X flight instrument system with a $1,100 G5 small display unit. All the systems including autopilot synchronize over the common network. The G5 also provides the G3X information it needs in the event it own sources fails. The G5 + GTN625 adds very little additional power requirement.
I would never want to fly my RV-12 in any ice or low IFR. My rule is, I don?t fly weather that I couldn?t fly VFR but if safer to fly IFR then safer is the way I go. My FSDO reviewed it and agreed.

Whenever I fly my Bonanza I also use the same weather rules. It?s a single engine aircraft and I need to be VFR asap whenever I want to.

Whenever I fly the RV-12 anytime I consider the turbulence that could be encountered. I don?t like turbulence no matter if it?s a beautiful VFR day.
 
That sounds like the exact scenario and setup I?m thinking of.
The G5 is a cool piece of gear - and I?ve seen a couple IFR setups with a portrait G3x also, as an Attitude ind/HSI backup + AHARS.
I?m definitely not looking to slag through heavy IFR, but like you said, it?s nice to have the IFR rules and option for when weather is becoming a factor. (Also I really enjoy flying IFR plans and approaches.)
Thanks for the info! Any chance you could post a picture of how you set up your panel with the GTN and G5? The older -12 seems to be a little more tight- I like what they?ve done with the console in the -12iS.
 
That looks awesome- and I second your IFR discussion in the post. The gentlemanly IFR capability can be well worth it.
This may be more of an ignorant question that I could research and answer for myself, but I?ll ask since I?m here. If I wanted to build and register as E-LSA, can I still make those changes? Such as a larger alternator, alternate pitot source, panel/avionics adjustment? I know Van?s says we have to build it with their options to keep it E-LSA, but EAB wouldn?t kill me, but the potential resale would be just a slight bit more limited. It be great if we could do these changes and stay E-LSA.
 
That looks awesome- and I second your IFR discussion in the post. The gentlemanly IFR capability can be well worth it.
This may be more of an ignorant question that I could research and answer for myself, but I?ll ask since I?m here. If I wanted to build and register as E-LSA, can I still make those changes? Such as a larger alternator, alternate pitot source, panel/avionics adjustment? I know Van?s says we have to build it with their options to keep it E-LSA, but EAB wouldn?t kill me, but the potential resale would be just a slight bit more limited. It be great if we could do these changes and stay E-LSA.

Once an ELSA is certificated, you may make any changes you like as long as the change does not take the aircraft out of Light-Sport parameters.

If any change takes the aircraft outside of LSA parameters, the Airworthiness Certificate is void and it can never be returned to Light-Sport.
 
Thank you for the clarification - as always, VAF members are quick and willing to bring up the newer guys. Thanks!
 
Panel is nothing short of awesome.
That withstanding, what is your backup for the primary flight instruments? Dual AHARS?
 
Panel is nothing short of awesome.
That withstanding, what is your backup for the primary flight instruments? Dual AHARS?

Thanks. The MFD is redundant to the PFD, but yes, I also have a second GSU 25. Noting how CAN bus works, both ADHRS units are available to either PFD/MFD.
Keep in mind, I still only have one pitot tube and one magnetometer (and one engine and one pilot... :rolleyes:)

You can go crazy with redundancy, but at some point you need to balance that against weight and reality. Reality is that my iPhone getting signal from my GDL39R has sufficient AHRS data to find a VFR route to land if really needed. That and if it's nighttime here over the Sierra mountains in a rainstorm with IMC up to 18,000', I'll either go find a nice place to relax, or take my Baron.
 
Thanks. The MFD is redundant to the PFD, but yes, I also have a second GSU 25. Noting how CAN bus works, both ADHRS units are available to either PFD/MFD.
Keep in mind, I still only have one pitot tube and one magnetometer (and one engine and one pilot... :rolleyes:)

You can go crazy with redundancy, but at some point you need to balance that against weight and reality. Reality is that my iPhone getting signal from my GDL39R has sufficient AHRS data to find a VFR route to land if really needed. That and if it's nighttime here over the Sierra mountains in a rainstorm with IMC up to 18,000', I'll either go find a nice place to relax, or take my Baron.
Right on, Ron.
That is an outstanding and good looking setup.
Now, if you really had to, you could do an LPV approach somewhere.
If it were me, with an LSA, I would never flight plan that way (personal minimums). But it's really nice to have the capability, should you ever need it.
For light IFR conditions, I would not hesitate to use a panel like that. It beats getting stuck at an outstation for 2-3 days, due to overcast departure point and enroute broken ceilings.
Well done!
 
Doesn?t the light wing loading, and light weight for that matter, make the 12 a poor IFR platform? It doesn?t tolerate turbulence very well and yaws a good bit in bumpy air. I just think keeping the wheels pointed down would be a lot of work. Picture a cork in rough seas?
 
I've flown TONS of IFR approaches with little to no actual weather concerns. No ice, turbulence, windshear, or anything. Just cloudy or broken/overcast layers.
Sometimes its really nice to just have the IFR capability to fall onto when you need (want) to.
and, yes, typically speaking 'light' airplanes take turbulence a little more dramatically - but ALL RV's are light compared to what I usually fly :rolleyes:

I think for the cost/weight of a IFR GPS, it adds an incredible layer of safety and capability to any aircraft.

Just my $0.02 :)
 
I've flown TONS of IFR approaches with little to no actual weather concerns. No ice, turbulence, windshear, or anything. Just cloudy or broken/overcast layers.
Sometimes its really nice to just have the IFR capability to fall onto when you need (want) to.
. . . and, yes, typically speaking 'light' airplanes take turbulence a little more dramatically - but ALL RV's are light compared to what I usually fly :rolleyes:

I think for the cost/weight of a IFR GPS, it adds an incredible layer of safety and capability to any aircraft.

Just my $0.02 :)
+$.02 . . . :)
 
The biggest drawback of an IFR GPS is the cost of the subscription for updates! If I was routinely flying weather I?d bite the bullet, but my Cherokee has a great ILS and VOR capability, and it can?t be justified for my RV-12 which is set up for day flying although I did put in a nice VOR/GS 3LMB as a hedge.
 
Thanks for compliments.

The RV12 has a wing loading is light, but so is a 172, yet that?s a very common IFR trainer. The issue is less about wing loading and more about roll rate. The advantage of the RV12, really any RV, is that they are light on the controls with excellent roll rates, but it can admittedly work against you if you over control.

That aside, when you have a marine layer, turbulence is generally not a thing, with the whole point being the ability to find the runway hiding beneath the overcast.

Another thing that helps on my build, although minor, is that my fuel is out in my wings, vice loaded along the center line, which contributes to a more stable ride with the weight distributed.
 
The biggest drawback of an IFR GPS is the cost of the subscription for updates! If I was routinely flying weather I?d bite the bullet, but my Cherokee has a great ILS and VOR capability, and it can?t be justified for my RV-12 which is set up for day flying although I did put in a nice VOR/GS 3LMB as a hedge.

I hear you.

I bought the Garmin PilotPak, which provides all database updates for my G3X PFD/MFD and GTN. It?s about $600 a year; not inexpensive, but noting that I fly daily, I think it?s worth it.
 
I hear you.

I bought the Garmin PilotPak, which provides all database updates for my G3X PFD/MFD and GTN. It?s about $600 a year; not inexpensive, but noting that I fly daily, I think it?s worth it.

Ron, do you use Garmin FliteCharts or paper/iPad approach plates?
I feel like I would use everything the OnePak offers, except the FliteCharts. I would much rather have them on my iPad. That could change, but I'm not used to them being stuck on the panel :rolleyes: thats $150 extra a year for something I might not really want/use. I think any OnePak also gets you a premium GarminPilot upgrade ($150 value), which has plates and then some...
 
Included with the Garmin PilotPak subscription is the IFR premium package for Garmin Pilot that I use on my iPhone or iPad at no additional cost, so I do have Flitecharts on both handheld devices, one for use and the other for backup.

The PilotPak is Garmin’s bundled package, whereas OnePak is Jeppessen’s data package for Garmin devices.
 
Garmin Database Pricing...

FYI, unless you have 2 or more certified Garmin boxes (eg 2 GTN 650s, a 650 & a 750, etc) it's cheaper to go with just a regular G3X/GTN database bundle vs the Onepak or PilotPak. Even though the GarminPilot premium upgrade isn't included in the bundles, after adding it as a separate item the bundles are still cheaper than the paks. If you don't use GarminPilot then you aren't paying for an upgrade that's of no use.
 
The operative term is "conditions."

Nobody is questioning the prohibition of operating under "IFR conditions."

Perhaps ASTM F2245-16c has different language than the older F2245-11? The FAA mandated the newer -16c version as of October 2017.. (see FAA NOA-17-01). I don't have a copy of it, nor do I want to pay $ to see it.
 
Perhaps ASTM F2245-16c has different language than the older F2245-11? The FAA mandated the newer -16c version as of October 2017.. (see FAA NOA-17-01). I don't have a copy of it, nor do I want to pay $ to see it.

Does anyone have a copy of the 16c standard? I can’t find it online, without paying for it.

I also haven’t been able to find the FAA order that requires compliance with version 16c. Earlier versions required compliance with a plane’s POH, but did not itself prohibit flight in IMC.

As an aside, how can Americans be required to comply with a law that’s not available to be read unless it’s paid for?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top