What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Getting Aircraft IFR Certification with EFIS

U

USCANAM

Well Known Member
Did a search on this forum on getting our 9A IFR certified, and saw a lot of information and lawyerese of regulations which can be confusing.

I talked on Thursday to the technician would always did my Mooney, but he is uncertain about how, or what is required for the 9.
Happens that the Feds were going to be at his shop on Friday, and he was going to try and find out as much as he can as related to the 9.

What I'd like to do is list the equipment that I have, and see if anyone has been successful getting certified with a similar setup. I'm not that optimistic that the Feds in my area will be of much help.

We have the Blue Mountain Sport which receives nav and ILS info from the Garmin 530. We have a ILS at our field, and it works great. This we confirmed in VFR conditions.
The GTS 327 also receives encoder info from the Blue Mountain.
We have a heated pitot, and a outside source static system.
Back up altimeter and airspeed purchased new from Vans.
Checks with ground radar indicate that Mode C is working and accurate.

In the past when the Mooney was done, he would remove the altimeter from the A/C, put it on his bench and compare it with his test unit, and either pass it or fail it.
To check transmitted altitude, he would put his equipment beside the plane and adjust the static source to testing altitudes.

Now, I do have an idea how to calibrate the altitude readout signal in the Blue Mountain (using the keyboard if necessary) which is also the encoder for the transponder.
I guess the question arises at to what is the altimeter for the certification, the non-TSO's mechanical one from Van's, or the altitude readout on the Blue Mountain.
Will appreciate any experienced help in this matter. I'm sure it will also be of interest to many more with a EFIS system.
Please enlighten me if I've missed anything.
Thanks
Jack
RV9A
70.1 hours
 
Last edited:
There is no IFR certiifcation per se. You the pilot, by filing IFR are saying the aircraft meets the requirements. My understanding in a nutshell, is your op lims has to say that IFR flight is authorized if properly equipped, you have to be equipped IAW 91.205, you have to have the required transponder and pitot/Static checks, and the transponder has to meet the TSO.
 
Auburntsts said:
There is no IFR certiifcation per se. You the pilot, by filing IFR are saying the aircraft meets the requirements. My understanding in a nutshell, is your op lims has to say that IFR flight is authorized if properly equipped, you have to be equipped IAW 91.205, you have to have the required transponder and pitot/Static checks, and the transponder has to meet the TSO.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply Todd
The issue here is my avionics guy is not familiar with experimental aircraft. He's installed avionics in them, but has never done the required xponder, static, and altimeter checks on an experimental plane.
If the FAA cannot give him proper information as to what he can and cannot work on, hopefully I can learn enough on this forum to help him.
Unless someone else knows of another source in the Massachusetts area that can do the required checks on an experimental, I'll have to hope for success with my guy.
Hopefully, we will be successful, and he will be comfortable doing other experimentals in the area.
Jack
 
Yep...and the

Auburntsts said:
There is no IFR certiifcation per se. You the pilot, by filing IFR are saying the aircraft meets the requirements. My understanding in a nutshell, is your op lims has to say that IFR flight is authorized if properly equipped, you have to be equipped IAW 91.205, you have to have the required transponder and pitot/Static checks, and the transponder has to meet the TSO.
Click to expand...


...test requirements and tolerances are given in Part 43 Appendix E.

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_43-appE.html

...and are required by that pesky FAR 91.205 bit....:)

Have the shop check the mechanical altimeter, the EFIS alt. reading and the encoder - should be easy enough to do all three at once....
 
Last edited:
USCANAM said:
Thanks for the reply Todd
The issue here is my avionics guy is not familiar with experimental aircraft. He's installed avionics in them, but has never done the required xponder, static, and altimeter checks on an experimental plane.
If the FAA cannot give him proper information as to what he can and cannot work on, hopefully I can learn enough on this forum to help him.
Unless someone else knows of another source in the Massachusetts area that can do the required checks on an experimental, I'll have to hope for success with my guy.
Hopefully, we will be successful, and he will be comfortable doing other experimentals in the area.
Jack
Click to expand...

Hi Jack,

This is common with both the FAA and normal shops that only work on certified aircraft. Our local FSDO sometimes can't answer our questions about such things, even though we are a 145 certified shop. As others have told you there is no "IFR certification" for EAB's. So, here's what you need to be legal:

1) The equipment appropriate to the type of navigating you'll be doing in the IFR system (be it GPS, VOR, DME or whatever).

2) A full IFR Transponder & Pitot/Static cert. This check should take anywhere from 2-4 hours depending on how good your pitot/static system is and how easy it is to calibrate your EFIS and it's altimeter.

It sort of can depend on how the shop was certified. If he has a full class rating or a capabilities list. Either way he needs to be able to knowledgeably work on what he's testing, which usually means having current manuals for both the encoder(in this case the EFIS) and the transponder. Other than that it should be pretty simple. We do a lot of these and just had our yearly FAA audit/inspection last week. The FAA said we're doing fine, so just tell your guy to give you a standard/full IFR check and you should be golden. You don't need any sort of logbook entry that says anything about aircraft IFR certification - that's your responsibility. His is the Transponder and Pitot/Static system.

Cheers,
Stein
 
Backups?

at the AOPA show I was talking with the Aspen and King folks on installs and was told that you are required to have an attitude Gyro and mechanical altimeter installed as backup. Didnt ask about mechanical Airpseed. Does that only apply to certified aircraft or does it apply here as well??

Tim
 
The only pesky thing...

SteinAir said:
....... The FAA said we're doing fine, so just tell your guy to give you a standard/full IFR check and you should be golden. You don't need any sort of logbook entry that says anything about aircraft IFR certification - that's your responsibility. His is the Transponder and Pitot/Static system.

Cheers,
Stein
Click to expand...

...is that the transponder system is not TSO'd with an experimental EFIS acting as an altitude encoder....

However, I guess most shops (and owners) overlook this detail...

Check 2.6.2.4 in your GTX-327 Installation Manual....:) and FAR 91.217 for the other TSO C88
 
Last edited:
And more for IFR GPS

Auburntsts said:
My understanding in a nutshell, is your op lims has to say that IFR flight is authorized if properly equipped, you have to be equipped IAW 91.205, you have to have the required transponder and pitot/Static checks, and the transponder has to meet the TSO.
Click to expand...

There's more if there's an IFR GPS in the mix. If you are conducting "any GPS operation under IFR", the AIM 1-1-19-d says the GPS has to meet TSO-C129. OK, so you can meet that: just buy a TSO'd GPS.

But it also says the installation has to be done in accordance with AC 20-138, and that there needs to be a FAA-approved aircraft flight manual supplement for the installation. Again, these will be taken care of if you're buying a factory new certified airplane. But neither of these is automatic with an installation in an experimental aircraft.

In an experimental, is a log entry by the owner certifying compliance with AC 20-138 sufficient for that part? And how do you go about getting the FAA to approve your flight manual supplement?

--Paul
 
SteinAir said:
We do a lot of these and just had our yearly FAA audit/inspection last week. The FAA said we're doing fine, so just tell your guy to give you a standard/full IFR check and you should be golden. You don't need any sort of logbook entry that says anything about aircraft IFR certification - that's your responsibility. His is the Transponder and Pitot/Static system.

Cheers,
Stein
Click to expand...
Thanks Stein
I'll pass this on to my shop.
If no success, there might be a flight from MA to MN in my near future!!!

Thanks again
Jack
 
More Info

My avionics tech came up with this link that's a few years old, but should still be applicable to the issue
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/tvrvbg/_borders/IFR equipment.pdf
He's also going to schedule a day for us to attempt to do the static/pitot,xponder checks.

We have decided never to fly instruments in the 9 in conditions like we used to do in the Lance and the Mooney which had everything from dual glidescopes, HSI, dual axis A/P, radar altimeter, and Stormscope.
But it would be nice to be able to plan a trip for a few days when the forecast might call for some marginal VFR somewhere in the flight path, and some light IFR would be the difference between going and not going.
Jack
 
Last edited:
USCANAM said:
My avionics tech came up with this link that's a few years old, but should still be applicable to the issue
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/tvrvbg/_borders/IFR%20equipment.pdf
He's also going to schedule a day for us to attempt to do the static/pitot,xponder checks.
Click to expand...

One very important note about this document from BMA:
There is a reference near the end of the document that states that primary navigation must be based on "ground facilities", which has now been deleted from the regs, allowing GPS as primary navigation for IFR or VFR use. As we all know, VORs are being phased out.

On another note, I'm very curious to see how these new regs will affect S-LSAs. We're manufacturing the 2009 Skylark S-LSA here in California. We're hoping to be able to certify it for IFR flight, so we'll be watching this topic very closely over the next couple of months.
 
Thanks Sam, but....

......the requirement for operations being compatible with ground facilities is still there...qoute:

Paragraph (d) of 91.205 speaks directly to IFR operations:

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:

(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

Where is the new reg without that requirement?

Thanks,
 
pierre smith said:
Where is the new reg without that requirement?
Click to expand...
It's in the 2008 version of 14 CFR 91.205:

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.​
​
You can always search the CFR as well.

TODR
 
Thanks, Doug.....

...and it looks at first glance, then, that my 496 would qualify, although I do have a panel mounted GX55 enroute certified GPS. Do you concur?

Regards,
 
Sam, that document agrees with what I've heard from both my DAR and the avionics tech who did my transponder and pitot/static checks (note: I've learned not to call them 'IFR certification'). Pierre, my DAR also agrees that the requirement for equipment appropriate for the procedure is required. So, I can use my GPS to navigate VOR airways but I still have to have a NAV receiver in the aircraft (which I do). Edit: It was my understanding that you can't shoot an ILS without the appropriate receiver; even an approach-certified GPS unit is not 'suitable for the route to be flown'. That may be a matter of interpretation. But if you interpret it the other way, does that mean you can use a GPS to fly an ILS approach, even if the ILS is out of service? It seems that GPS's ability to fake other systems (virtual VOR, etc.) could cause some procedural confusion.

Now, to the original question: my tech did both altimeters at the same time. He said the one that matters is the one connected to the transponder but it's the same static system so it was no problem to do both. In fact, he helped me do the calibration on my BMA One EFIS: he ran the system to a set altitude and we read the calibration number from the EFIS through the range of altitude (I think I optimistically went to 20k'). Then I entered the numbers in the calibration table and he re-ran the test, checking both altimeters against his system. He was actually quite tickled by the process; apparently most mechanical systems have a fair amount of variance but the BMA was exactly on target, even at altitudes between the calibration points.

Anyway, that's all it took for the pitot/static check (wish I could calibrate airspeed that way). The transponder check was no different from any other aircraft with a Garmin 327. My DAR has already written the operating limitations allowing IFR flight after Phase I if equipped and maintained per 91.205. And, as mentioned elsewhere, I cannot fly IFR solely with GPS nor use the GPS equipment prefix for flight planning since the system is not TSO'd. Practically, this means that my 'principal' IFR equipment is still the NAV radio even if I do most of my flying with the GPS and I cannot legally fly GPS approaches. Blue Mountain discusses this in their FAQ and even mention that you can take input from a TSO'd GPS (in place of the NAV) - but if I wanted GPS approaches that bad, I'd have installed a G1000 instead of the BMA in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Monday appointment

We're scheduled this coming Monday for our static/xponder check in Westerly Rhode Island, about a 25 minute flight from our home airport.
Hopefully the Blue Mountain Sport should be OK, or made to be OK with just a little tweeking.
I attached a small 2 conductor plug to the engine mount that can be accessed through the oil door that goes to the battery. That way I can connect the battery to a battery charger without removing the upper cowl. Just the master solenoid is enough to pull the battery down in a few minutes, but with the 6 amp charger on I can operate the Blue Mountain, 530 and 327 without a problem for about a half hour.
We'll update when we get back.
Jack
 
pierre smith said:
...and it looks at first glance, then, that my 496 would qualify, although I do have a panel mounted GX55 enroute certified GPS. Do you concur?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't know. I've thought that something like a x96 should be able to meet the standards for enroute IFR, but that would be a toughie if the airplane was ever given serious scrutiny by a DAR or feds. It certainly won't meet the approach requirements, but it would be handy to have at least an enroute GPS.

There is a IFR spec brewing for LSA. It would be interesting to see if non-TSOed GPS are given approval for enroute IFR operations.

TODR
 
Ahh...but...

the_other_dougreeves said:
It's in the 2008 version of 14 CFR 91.205:

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.​
​
You can always search the CFR as well.

TODR
Click to expand...

....Most of the IFR equipment rules are actually in the AIM, not the CFR....

Chapter 1-1-19.d -- Specifies what the GPS equipment must meet....

1. Authorization to conduct any GPS operation under IFR requires that:

Full text, and a description of the certifications (aka TSO Classes) needed for each phase of IFR operations are in this section.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap1/aim0101.html

As far as I can determine, since it's "authorization for IFR operations", it covers both certified and experimental aircraft.

If you have the wrong equipment, then I would say it's an "unauthorized IFR flight", and I'm sure there is a generic FAR somewhere forbidding that...:)
 
Last edited:
IFR GPS

Once you have selected the equipment...

AC-20-138A is the approval guide for certification. The installation of the equipment is as per the installation instructions of the manufacturer.

I am installing a Garmin GNC 300 with a GRT EFIS for my display.

The GNC 300 instructions give minimum installation requirements. The key element in an IFR installation is annunciation. The annunciator lets you select the source of guidence, tells you what is selected and tells you if you have valid data from that source.

In my particular installation I have to have an annunciator for the GNC 300 for IFR. No annunciator, no IFR.

Always be sure to follow the manufacturers instruction because the FAA refers you to those instructions.

Ken
 
Hi Ken,

Just to clarify a bit, if the annunciations take place in the EFIS and provide you with the same functionality, then you don't need that miserable external annunciator! As I've said before, you can't take the install instructions verbatim for every single item, because many of those units had/have no idea what is on the other end in our experimental world. There is NO guidance in any of the Garmin manuals for hooking to an EFIS like a Chelton, GRT, AFS, BMA, Dynon, etc.. so naturally they have no idea of the functionality in those units.

Cheers,
Stein
 
Thanks, Stein

I am going to clarify with GRT. I understood that I didn't need the annunciator for the SL-30 but I would need it for the GNC-300. I have the Sport 200 and 100 with an internal GPS in the 100. Could it be that I cannot get annunciation for nav AND 2 gps in the EFIS?

Ken
 
SteinAir said:
There is NO guidance in any of the Garmin manuals for hooking to an EFIS like a Chelton, GRT, AFS, BMA, Dynon, etc.. so naturally they have no idea of the functionality in those units.
Click to expand...

Conversely, it seems that the EFIS manufacturers have no guidance for how an older IFR GPS can annunciate through their units. At least when I have asked AFS, Dynon, etc.

For example, the Apollo GX60. The installation manual says it requires these annunciators for IFR nonprecision approach operation:

MSG, amber color
PTK, blue or white
OBS/HLD, blue or white, and with momentary switch
APPRCH, blue or white
ACTIVE, green

There are open-collector, 400ma sink pinouts on the GX60 for all of these. But how to interface them to an EFIS so I can lose the analog annunciators I currently have?

--Paul
 
Sam, that document agrees with what I've heard from both my DAR and the avionics tech who did my transponder and pitot/static checks (note: I've learned not to call them 'IFR certification').
Click to expand...

To further split hairs, nor should it be called the "transponder and pitot/static check." There is no requirement to check the pitot system, only the requirement to check the transponder and static/Altitude system.

...and it looks at first glance, then, that my 496 would qualify, although I do have a panel mounted GX55 enroute certified GPS. Do you concur?
Click to expand...
I would not. "Navigation equipment suitable" for an IFR GPS is pretty clear--TSO 129 or TSO 146/a. I would not interpret this as approval to use any portable for other than "advisory" while IFR.
 
Ken,

I'm not sure of the annunciation capabilities of the Sport EFIS...but then again I don't know if I'd necessarily recommend your combination of the S100/200 for solid IFR work anyway. The Horizon Series are quite a bit more of a machine all the way around including the number of inputs, sources, etc.. and are much better equipped for an IFR installation.

Second, regarding the handheld for IFR GPS. No, and No. This has be debated over and over. We had an article in kitplanes that explained it in detail with input from many sources...Here's the simple answer. Your handheld GPS does NOT qualify for a certified WAAS GPS unit, it doesn't. Period.

Regarding the older GPSes and annunciation with new EFISes. The older GPSes are not necessarily "new EFIS friendly" when it comes to annunciation (that we've seen). It's usually not a limitation of the EFIS, but a limitation of the equipment. That being said, you MIGHT be able to make it work, but I don't think you'll find many people (mfgrs) wanting to spend a lot of time getting a OOP unit working with their EFIS. Units like the GX-60 (while fine units) have been out of production for a good number of years, are not supported by the mfgrs, and the numbers being installed with the big EFISes are very, very small. I guess I'd encourage you to get a newer generation unit if you intend a nice glass panel IFR setup...

My 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
SteinAir said:
Your handheld GPS does NOT qualify for a certified WAAS GPS unit, it doesn't. Period Stein
Click to expand...

Actually it is not that it has to meet the WAAS TSO 146 but any appropriate TSO like 129 would be fine. Obviously you have ops limitations compared to a WAAS unit.
 
Do they exist?

Ron Lee said:
Actually it is not that it has to meet the WAAS TSO 146 but any appropriate TSO like 129 would be fine. Obviously you have ops limitations compared to a WAAS unit.
Click to expand...

Find a hand held that meets TSO 129 for primary GPS navigation (not as an electronic flight bag) - I bet there aren't any...
 
Sport and GNC300XL

Ken said:
Thanks, Stein
I am going to clarify with GRT. I understood that I didn't need the annunciator for the SL-30 but I would need it for the GNC-300. I have the Sport 200 and 100 with an internal GPS in the 100. Could it be that I cannot get annunciation for nav AND 2 gps in the EFIS?
Ken
Click to expand...
The Sport does not have any annunciation, so I have an AK950L annunciator panel. The 'L' means it doesn't have the switches that allow a GPS and VOR to share the same CDI so it costs less. It's not required in this case because the Sport displays CDIs for both the GPS and VOR simultaneously.
 
SteinAir said:
I guess I'd encourage you to get a newer generation unit if you intend a nice glass panel IFR setup...
Click to expand...

No question a GNS430W would be nicer, but I'm not feeling that rich at the moment. I guess if the EFIS is handling CDI display, I can make a little separate annunciator panel easily enough, and lose the MD40.

--Paul
 
Passed the Tests. Here's the update.

I guess now we can go fly again in the rain, clouds, and mire. Well, not at least until I waterproof the plane.

Here's what we learned today.
Static system. Make it tight !! Do not use the Van's kit of flimsy tubing, slip on T fittings, and rivets for static ports. This will work fine for VFR, but it will not stand the pressures of the IFR test. Took well over an hour to track down the errors of my method of installation.
According to Terry (my avionics tech) the static cannot leak more that 100 feet per minute, but with his test equipment, he said we would never reach 20,000 feet if there were any leaks.
My static source feeds 3 instruments; 1 backup airspeed, 1 backup altimeter, and the Blue Mountain Sport EFIS.
Therefore I have 2 tees in the line, and one was not tight, causing a small leak. Thank goodness for the external inspection panels I fabricated. Would not have been a pleasant job trying to do from under the panel.
Oh, and did I mention that one of the lines had come off the "rivet" static port. That required removing the rear fairing.
Just to stop any further delays, even after all the static lines were OK'd, he attached a line directly into the EFIS.

We started to test the system at designated altitudes, and it was within 30 feet until reaching 6000', where the error became about 1000ft. Terry had an idea as to what the problem might be, and a quick call to BM confirmed that the airspeed needed some pressure to make the unit think it was flying????. So he hooked up the airspeed calibrate line.
Terry would then set the test equipment to a designated altitude, and I would record what the AD number was in the Sport, even though the EFIS altimeter was reading wrong.
Then I went into the system and changed all the AD numbers to match the recorded ones for that particular altitude.
Tested again this time doing the transponder at the same time right up to 20,000', and the error was zero feet.
What should have taken about 2 hours was about 4 1/2, so I paid accordingly.
Next time with a better static system and new ports that I'm going to machine, it could be even less than 2 hours.

In summary, if my static system is done right, in 24 months, all Terry will have to do, is remove the static line to the backup airspeed (easy with the tip-up), connect his equipment to that line, compare altitudes to the test equipment, the EFIS and the transpnder, and we will be out of there.
If the electronics have wandered a bit, it's a simple matter to re-calibrate.
Then all that's needed is the logbook entry with test results.

I've been working with Terry since 1989 on projects, and he seems to have a good handle on working with the EFIS. If you're in the New England area, and would like to talk with him, I'll be happy to put you in touch with him.
Whee, it's over!!!
I hope this enlightens you a little bit. As Stein said, it's no big deal, but everything has to be right to start with.
Jack
 
USCANAM said:
I guess now we can go fly again in the rain, clouds, and mire. Well, not at least until I waterproof the plane.
Next time with a better static system and new ports that I'm going to machine, it could be even less than 2 hours.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the contour of the outside of the static ports affects the airflow pattern at the ports, which affects the air pressure at the ports, and hence the accuracy of the static system. The bump in Van's pop rivets appears to be important to achieve acceptable accuracy. Many people have tried flush static ports, only to find that the airspeed and altimeter read too low. Glueing on simulated rivet heads over the port orfices fixes the problem.

If you plan to machine your own ports, and you want the same accuracy as with Van's pop rivets, you need to make ports that have the same external shape as the rivets. The area in the close vicinity of the static port is also critical, so you want to have a flat surface as it transitions from the skin to your port, then the bump where the port orifice is.
 
Kevin Horton said:
If you plan to machine your own ports, and you want the same accuracy as with Van's pop rivets, you need to make ports that have the same external shape as the rivets. The area in the close vicinity of the static port is also critical, so you want to have a flat surface as it transitions from the skin to your port, then the bump where the port orifice is.
Click to expand...
Thanks Kevin
Will keep that in mind. I use 7075 aluminum, and should be able to keep the heads thin and small, very close to the rivet head size. Only difference will be on the inside, where I'll have a thread on the shaft for a nut, and a long extension to slide the tube over.
Thanks again
Jack
 
New Static Ports

Here's what we came up with for the new static ports.
Heads are .041" thick. Shaft for tubing is .020" oversize. Will heat tube and slide over.
Thread is 1/4" course.

By USCANAM
Jack
 
Static check

I had a full IFR Cert. done on my plane and I have the little sticker that says everything was inspected as per FAR 43. My question is, where do I put this sticker? assume the aircraft logbook, but I do not keep the aircraft logbook in the plane. So if I got ramp checked how do I show the plane is current as far as FAR 43?

Thanks a bunch,

Jason
 
The sticker goes in the aircraft log. It does not have to be "in the aircraft." It just has to be available within a reasonable period of time.
 
There may be a bit of confusion here...on an IFR cert there are two things that should be labeled when finished. #1 is the aircraft logbook, and #2 is the system/component that was tested. Some shops(like us) use stickers for both, but some will just signt the logbook and give you the sticker to put on the encoder/altimeter or whatever.

Either way, the Logbook needs to have something in it like Mel says. If your tech put a sticker on the altimeter than great, but not as important as the logbook.

Cheers,
Stein
 
So I should have gotten stickers from my tech for the transponder, EFIS, altimeter, and airspeed? And then fished behind the panel to apply them? I noticed that Aerotronics applied stickers when they certified their install and I'm guessing you do, too, Stein, but I'd bet that the field technician rarely does. I only got two stickers to apply in my airframe logbook and the DAR was happy with that.

I'm assuming that the reason I did not receive logbook stickers from Aerotronics was because they only tested the panel components; they could not certify the complete installation. Hence the check after I completed the panel install.
 
You don't need a sticker on every single component in the airplane/airframe, but you should have one that indicates the "system" itself has been tested and when it was tested. Then one sign off in the logbook. You don't necessarily need two stickers for the logs. If they gave you two of the same stickers, one was for the logs and was one for the airplane.

Like Aerotronics, we are not able to certify your full aircraft installation or system. Most of the shops like Aerotronics or us will routinely test the equipment we install, but are unable to certify it because we have no idea about the entire aircraft and how your plumbing job will turn out. Most are pretty good, but believe me I've seen some crazy stuff used in pitot/static systems!

Cheers,
Stein
 
I wasn't clear. 2 stickers = 2 inspections = 1 IFR check. Transponder and static were separate signoffs, and I only got one of each. Still not sure where I would put one in the airframe or why; you can't see it if it's on the equipment unless the equipment is pulled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top