What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Gns430 CDI

woodsideraff

Well Known Member
I purchased an RV8A with a GNS430 but without an indicator. According to Garmin, they will only sell me a unit if it is installed by an "approved" facility.

I understand that most of the Efis can provide HSI indicators compatible with the 430. I have been unable to find (other than Garmin) any CDI units.

Can anybody suggest how I can get the CDI and Glideslope information from the 430 displayed at a minimum cost? Right now, I see my choices as either to go to a shop and have the Garmin unit installed, or purchase a glass panel.

Thanks and regards.
 
Call and talk to Stein Air, he (Stein) will hook you up.

Another alternative is Stark Avionics.
 
Keep your eye out on Ebay, I've seen quite a few nice used ones for sale. (Some yellow tagged, and some not)

If you want Garmin, both the MD200-306 and GI-106A will work. The 430 will also run several other non Garmin units too.
 
This was stolen - err borrowed...

...from the SE Aerospace site on their GNS430 FAQ.

http://www.seaerospace.com/lc/cart.php?target=productDetails&model=GNS-430 -- click on the FAQ header

According to the Installation Manual, the following indicators are compatible with main switchable VOR/ILS/GPS Indicator output (Connector P4001) for the Garmin GNS-430 and GNS-530 GPS/Nav/Comms. GI-102 (no longer available), Garmin GI-102A, GI-106 (no longer available), GI-106A, S-Tec ST-180 HSI, King KI-202, KI-206, KI-208A, KI-209A, KI-525A, KPI-552, KPI-552B, KPI-553, KPI-553A, KPI-553B, Collins 331A-3G HSI, 331A-9G HSI, 331A-6P HSI, Bendix IN-831A, Century NSD-360, NSD-360A , NSD-1000 HSI, Sperry/Honeywell RD-550A, 650 HSI. The following indicators are compatible as well but not mentioned in the installation manual: King KNI-520, Collins/STec IND-350, IND-350A, IND-351, IND-351A, 331H-3G Basically, a non-converter type indicator is required for the VOR/ILS/GPS Indicator interface to the GNS-430/530 Note: The following indicators may be interfaced to the secondary VOR/ILS output of the GNS-430/530 (Connector P4006). This output only provides VOR/ILS information on the indicator not GPS deviation information. King KI-203, KI-204, KI-208 KI-209.

I was looking at the same thing for my Tiger....
 
Is this for an Experimental aircraft? Have you considered one of the smaller EFIS units? They will provide all the functionality of an HSI plus provide backup flight info.
 
Hummmmm

Stark or Stein Avionics. Any HSI will work. Check Mid Continient Instruments. Ebay has good used instruments and I have an HSI for sale currently working on my 530. Also think about and efis interface.
 
IFR?

Is this for an Experimental aircraft? Have you considered one of the smaller EFIS units? They will provide all the functionality of an HSI plus provide backup flight info.

It may be functional but will it meet legal standards required for an external CDI for IFR flight with an in-panel GPS?
 
Is this for an Experimental aircraft? Have you considered one of the smaller EFIS units? They will provide all the functionality of an HSI plus provide backup flight info.
The Dynon D10A is a great example of a small EFIS that can provide full HSI functionality and it is legal for IFR flight.
d10a%20straight%20on.jpg


d10a%20hsi.jpg


And both screens can display the glide slope.
 
Well describing them as "legal"...

The Dynon D10A is a great example of a small EFIS that can provide full HSI functionality and it is legal for IFR flight.

*** pics removed ***

And both screens can display the glide slope.

...for all IFR installations is a bit of a jump - a leap of Homebuilding faith?

GPS installations must be TSO'd per the AIM (Chapter 1-1-19.d) and to be TSO'd you need to follow the GPS box makers Installation Instructions.

From the GNS 430 IM

HSI/CDI Indicator or EFIS
This device displays the Nav Flag, Left/Right, To/From, Glideslope Flag,, and Up/Down. the indicator(s) used in conjunction with the GNS 430 VOR/ILS recievers shall be TSO'd.


I'm sure the 430W WAAS version has the same, or stronger, language in it.

Since you need the GPS bit of a 430 to do WAAS approaches (correct?) then a TSO indicator would seem to be required.

I guess you could argue it out with the FAA over an ILS approach....:)

Other avionics equipment (nav/com/GPS) makers may be different, but the IM rules for TSO required installations....
 
Gang,

This issue of IFR legal EFIS systems seems to be a real hot button and comes up on most every builder forum.

Doing some searches led me to this thread on the EAA's web site. To make life easier, I have copied the text from that page below.

EAA said:
Equipping a Homebuilt for IFR Operations

The Experimental/Amateur-Built (aka homebuilt) segment of general aviation has grown and expanded over the years. It?s now quite common for the performance and capabilities of homebuilts to meet and often exceed that of factory-built aircraft. One area where this is especially apparent is cross-country flying.

As the cross-country capability of homebuilts has grown, the need to deal with weather has become more of an issue. Thus, more and more builders are asking the question ?what equipment is required to qualify a homebuilt for IFR operations?? In order to answer that question, we need take a look at the regulations as they apply to experimental/amateur-built aircraft, as well as other documentation and guidance the FAA has provided.

Minimum requirements;

The operation of a homebuilt aircraft is most directly governed by its Operating Limitations. These Operating Limitations are issued along with and as a part of the airworthiness certificate when the aircraft is initially inspected and licensed by the FAA. This is where the pilot must look in order to verify whether the aircraft is approved for a particular type of operation (i.e., IFR, aerobatics, etc.)

In order for the aircraft to be approved for IFR operations, the Operating Limitations must contain the following or a similarly worded statement:

?After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with ? 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.?

The entry specifies that the aircraft can be operated under IFR once the initial flight test period is complete, so long as it?s equipped in accordance with 14 CFR Part 91, section 91.205. This is the regulation that spells out the minimum equipment required for day/VFR, night/VFR, and IFR flight operations. Normally, section 91.205 would not apply to a homebuilt because it specifically refers to ?powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates". However, the above operating limitation makes it applicable to homebuilts IF you want to use it for IFR.

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 communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:

(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in ?121.305(j) of this chapter; and

(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of ?80 degrees of pitch and ?120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with ?29.1303(g) of this chapter.

(4) Slip-skid indicator.

(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.

(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.

(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.

(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).

(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).

While much of this regulation is straightforward and self-explanatory, there are a few areas that leave some room for confusion and/or interpretation. Most of the confusion arises from the requirement for certain ?gyroscopic? instruments.
 
The 2nd part of the article:
EAA said:
What is a gyro?

The often-asked question is, what constitutes a “gyroscopic” instrument. Is an instrument containing an actual rotating mass gyro required, or are alternatives such as ring laser gyros or accelerometer-based instruments acceptable? Unfortunately, there is no specific definition of a gyroscopic instrument to be found in any FAA regulation or guidance document.

In order to try to answer this question, the EAA contacted the FAA Small Airplane Directorate in Kansas City, MO. The Small Airplane Directorate confirmed that there is no published guidance on this subject, but indicated that the function of the instrument is the main consideration. Any instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic instrument and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the gyroscopic instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of what mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and display.

What about TSO’s?

Another question to be answered is what, if any, of the equipment needs to be “TSO’ed”. In order to address this question, it’s helpful to understand what a “TSO” is. TSO stands for Technical Standard Order, which is defined in 14 CFR Part 21, section 21.601(b)(1) as “….a minimum performance standard for specified articles (for the purpose of this subpart, articles means materials, parts, processes, or appliances) used on civil aircraft.” As you can see from this definition, a TSO is actually a performance standard to which an article can be manufactured.

When someone says an article is “TSO’ed”, what they really mean is that the unit was manufactured under a TSO authorization. Section 21.601(b)(2) says, “A TSO authorization is an FAA design and production approval issued to the manufacturer of an article which has been found to meet a specific TSO”. You’ll note that the TSO and TSO authorization deal specifically with design and manufacture, and have nothing to do with installation or operation.

Now we have an idea what a TSO is, but we still haven’t answered the question of whether or not our instruments and avionics in a homebuilt need to be “TSO’ed”. Our Operating Limitations state that we have to equip the aircraft in accordance with 91.205, and 91.205 lists the minimum equipment required, but nowhere is there mention of a requirement for TSO’ed equipment. Thus, the answer is NO, the instruments and equipment installed in your homebuilt under the requirements of 91.205 are not required to be “TSO’ed”.

So far, so good, but that’s not the whole story. Most builders who plan to equip their homebuilt for IFR operations don’t stop at the minimums, so let’s take a look at some of the other commonly installed equipment and see what’s required.

Transponders and related equipment;

One item that will be high on the list of desired equipment will be a transponder. It’s interesting to note that 91.205 does not list a transponder as required in order to operate under IFR. While this is true, our current airspace system as well as the advantages for use in both IFR and VFR operations makes a transponder a popular choice for builders when outfitting their aircraft.

The requirements for transponder equipment and operation are found in 91.215, which has this to say:

(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).

Note that, while it is required that the transponder equipment meet the performance and environmental requirements of the applicable TSO, it is not required that the equipment be manufactured under a TSO authorization. In theory, this means that you could actually build your own transponder, so long as you can document that it meets the requirements of the applicable TSO. However, the easiest way to be assured that your transponder meets the requirements of 91.215(a) is to install one that has been built under a TSO authorization.

The requirements for altitude reporting equipment associated with the transponder are called out in 91.217(c), which states that, the altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively. TSO-C10b applies to the sensitive altimeter itself, and TSO-C88 applies to the automatic altitude reporting equipment. Again the equipment is required to meet the standards of the applicable TSO’s, but not necessarily be produced under a TSO authorization. But as with the transponder, the easiest way for a builder to meet this requirement is to install equipment manufactured under a TSO authorization.

Remember that, in order to legally operate this equipment under IFR, you must also comply with the maintenance and testing requirements of parts 91.411 (for altimeter and altitude reporting equipment), and 91.413 (for the transponder). Note that the requirements of 91.413 apply even if the aircraft is operated only under VFR.
 
Last edited:
The 3rd part of the article:
EAA said:
What about GPS?

Global Positioning System (GPS) is becoming a very popular navigation tool for both VFR and IFR flight operations. Many aircraft, including homebuilts, now sport GPS equipment in their instrument panel. Some of these units are approved for IFR operations, and the FAA has recently updated their guidance on how to approve the installation of GPS equipment in individual aircraft.

This guidance comes in the form of FAA Advisory Circular 20-138A, titled “Airworthiness Approval of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Equipment”. The purpose of this AC is stated as providing “guidance material for the airworthiness approval of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment. Like all AC material, this AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. It is issued for guidance purposes and to outline a method of compliance with the rules. In lieu of following this method without deviation, the applicant may elect to follow an alternate method, provided the alternate method is also found by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be an acceptable means of complying with the requirements of the federal aviation regulations (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR).”

The guidance contained in AC 20-138A is based on FAA regulations contained in parts 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 43, 91, 121, and 135. Of these regulations, only part 91 applies to homebuilt aircraft. However, the info in the AC is still a valuable tool for the builder who wishes to install a GPS unit, as it contains accuracy and testing criteria that can be used to verify that the installation meets the performance requirements acceptable to the FAA.

As with transponders and other equipment discussed previously, GPS equipment must meet the performance requirements of the applicable TSO (in this case, C129), but there is no specific requirement for the equipment to be built under a TSO authorization. However, if the equipment is not built under a TSO authorization, it is up to the owner/operator to verify and document that the equipment performs within the required specifications. It is also the owner or operator's responsibility to document the necessary flight-test data showing that the installation performs within the required accuracy parameters.

The bottom line;

All of this leads us to the conclusion that none of the equipment installed in a homebuilt aircraft is required to be built under a TSO authorization. But in most cases, it’s to the builder’s advantage to install “TSO’ed” equipment if possible. Also, FAA guidance aimed toward type certificated aircraft can be used by the builder when installing equipment in a homebuilt, even though many of the regulations referenced in the FAA guidance do not directly apply to the homebuilt aircraft.

Legal equals safe?

So far we've been talking about the regulatory requirements of equipping a homebuilt aircraft for IFR operation. But is simply meeting the minimum requirements the way to go? Do you really want to fly your homebuilt "in the soup" with only the minimum required equipment installed? It would certainly be legal to do so, but some thought should certainly be given to overall flight safety as well as cockpit/crew resource management when deciding how to equip a homebuilt for IFR flight.

With that thought in mind, it's important to note is that the minimum equipment called out by 91.205 does not include any kind of system backup or redundancy. Most aircraft that are routinely used in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) have a safety margin built in by using separate systems to power some instruments. This is commonly accomplished by using a vacuum or pressure system to power some instruments, while other instruments are powered by the aircraft's electrical systems. However, aircraft that are "all electric" are becoming more common. These aircraft will typically have dual (or sometimes triple) redundancy built in, with multiple power sources (alternators or generators), multiple supply systems (i.e., separate bus bars, etc.), and dual batteries. An owner/operator who plans to operate a homebuilt in IMC should give serious thought to building redundancy into the aircraft.

Summing up;

As mentioned at the outset, equipping a homebuilt aircraft for IFR flight is becoming more and more common. Avionics advances make this option even more attractive than just a few short years ago. We urge builders and owners of homebuilts to consider safety as well as regulatory requirements when choosing what equipment to install in their aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Bill... I believe that...

The 3rd part of the article:

...this part of the EAA article (the GPS bit) is incorrect.

They make no mention of the fact that GPS installations must be TSO'd per the AIM (Chapter 1-1-19.d).

In general, the AIM is not regulatory, but this particular section is very specific to the allowable operational IFR use of a GPS.

These are the actual words....

d. General Requirements

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

(a) GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in accordance with the requirements specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or equivalent, and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System, or Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of Navigation or Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation Sensors, or equivalent. Equipment approved in accordance with TSO-C115a does not meet the requirements of TSO-C129. Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument flight reference. During IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to situational awareness.


Note that they use the "must" word.... and also the "any" word for applicability... no Experimental exception here - NOTE: my bold additions in the above quote.

It's section 1-1-19 and the Chapter is here....

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html

I would certainly like to hear the EAAs view on the above... they sort of forgot about this when they quoted the AC document for GPS installation.

Would you read the above any differently?
 
Last edited:
Bill and Gil, thanks....

For posting this information.
I thought that I already knew what was right, but have learned something here.
I currently have my EFIS (BMA) hooked up to the transponder for alt. reporting. It looks like none of the current (non TSO'd) EFIS units should be hooked up to the transponder. I will be buying a separate encoder and installing it (they are only a few hundred $).

My EFIS currently is hooked up to my 430 for Alt. information. I didn't see anything that would disallow this for IFR. Anyone think otherwise?

Kent
 
az_gila;289537... I would certainly like to hear the EAAs view on the above... they sort of forgot about this when they quoted the AC document for GPS installation. [B said:
Would you read the above any differently?[/B]

I just got off the phone with the EAA and after the guy researched the idea, he came up with what was essentially this part of the above:
EAA said:
Now we have an idea what a TSO is, but we still haven?t answered the question of whether or not our instruments and avionics in a homebuilt need to be ?TSO?ed?. Our Operating Limitations state that we have to equip the aircraft in accordance with 91.205, and 91.205 lists the minimum equipment required, but nowhere is there mention of a requirement for TSO?ed equipment. Thus, the answer is NO, the instruments and equipment installed in your homebuilt under the requirements of 91.205 are not required to be ?TSO?ed?.

Thus you are legal to fly with non-TSO'ed equipment. In our discussion, it turns out I would be legal to fly IFR with my 496, maybe not smart, but legal.
 
For posting this information.
I thought that I already knew what was right, but have learned something here.
I currently have my EFIS (BMA) hooked up to the transponder for alt. reporting. It looks like none of the current (non TSO'd) EFIS units should be hooked up to the transponder. I will be buying a separate encoder and installing it (they are only a few hundred $).

My EFIS currently is hooked up to my 430 for Alt. information. I didn't see anything that would disallow this for IFR. Anyone think otherwise?

Kent
Kent,

You mentioned two different issues.

The first issue, is it OK to use the altimeter output from your EFIS to drive the mode-C altitude reporting for your transponder? From what I have learned, that is legal in our E-AB aircraft. (And is how mine is connected.) One thing, this is legal as long as you have it tested every two years and it passes.

Your second issue, is it OK to derive the altitude information in your EFIS from your 430? This impacts issue #1 and is a different thing entirely. Pressure altitude and GPS altitude are two different things and can vary a good bit.

I have a steam gauge altimeter, a Dynon D100, and a 496 in my RV and I have noticed that the Dynon and round altimeter match but the GPS altitude is all over the place. Truth is, the GPS altitude is probably the most accurate in terms of true distance above sea level, but since all the other planes are flying off of pressure altitude, that is what you want to use "in the system".

Thus if your BMA is putting out pressure altitude to your transponder via some type of converter, you are legal. However, if your BMA is getting its altitude reading from the 430, you could be off and transmitting the wrong altitude to ATC. Remember, transponders all report altitude corrected to 29.92, not the current altimeter setting.

I hope that helps.
 
I just got off the phone with the EAA and after the guy researched the idea, he came up with what was essentially this part of the above... Thus you are legal to fly with non-TSO'ed equipment. In our discussion, it turns out I would be legal to fly IFR with my 496, maybe not smart, but legal.

Bill, what about this part of the above:
GPS equipment must meet the performance requirements of the applicable TSO (in this case, C129)

Does your 496 meet the requirements of TSO C129a? For just one example, does it do RAIM? The full TSO document is here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgtso.nsf/0/E560CD9C6ACF8BA186256DC700717E0F?OpenDocument

--Paul
 
Don't bet the farm

Thus you are legal to fly with non-TSO'ed equipment. In our discussion, it turns out I would be legal to fly IFR with my 496, maybe not smart, but legal.

Don't bet the farm.

To be legal for IFR use, a GPS must be a permanent panel mount, have an external permanent mounted antenna, portables do not meet the signal integreity alerts of FAA standards, and it doesn't have an uninterrupted electrical source. Your 496 fails all of these. (The 496 is a great unit... I use a 396 to back up my 430 and wouldn't leave home without it).

Put it this way, I would not want to be ramp checked having just finished an IFR flight plan and it was filed "slash-golf using a 496.
 
Bill, what about this part of the above:


Does your 496 meet the requirements of TSO C129a? For just one example, does it do RAIM? The full TSO document is here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgtso.nsf/0/E560CD9C6ACF8BA186256DC700717E0F?OpenDocument

--Paul
Paul,

I'm just reporting what the guy at the EAA told me. He said it basically comes down to meeting the requiremenets of 91.205 and that only because it is written into item #8 of our E-AB operating limitations. 91.205 does not mention any TSO requirements, thus, according to the EAA it does not apply.

The way the gentleman I spoke to interpreted the regs, is just like our laws, if something is not expressly forbidden, then it is allowed/legal.

Remember, legal and smart are not the same thing.
 
I'm just reporting what the guy at the EAA told me.

Seems to me then that the EAA guy is disagreeing with the EAA's own paper on the topic, which says that for IFR your GPS doesn't have to be manufactured under a TSO but it does have to meet the requirements of the TSO. Which a 496 does not, for various reasons.

Remember, legal and smart are not the same thing.

Myself, after having read the AC's and TSO's and CFR's I come down on kind of the opposite conclusion from you. Flying enroute IFR as /G using just a 496 isn't particularly stupid -- it's a great, accurate GPS -- but it is probably illegal.

--Paul
 
But....

Paul,

I'm just reporting what the guy at the EAA told me. He said it basically comes down to meeting the requiremenets of 91.205 and that only because it is written into item #8 of our E-AB operating limitations. 91.205 does not mention any TSO requirements, thus, according to the EAA it does not apply.

The way the gentleman I spoke to interpreted the regs, is just like our laws, if something is not expressly forbidden, then it is allowed/legal.

Remember, legal and smart are not the same thing.

The AIM section of AUTHORIZED for ANY IFR operations REQUIRED is pretty specific.

How did he answer that bit?

Question, do our operating limitations trump "musts" in the AIM?

His comments are correct on all of the other equipment, but I am talking GPS specifically, and it came up with the use of a Dynon as an Indicator for the 430.... the original subject of this thread (430 Indicators...:)...)
 
..How did he answer that bit?...
He said it didn't apply to E-AB's, simple as that.

Gil, please give them a call. I wonder if you will get a different answer than the one I did.

Also, it is my (this means me, not the EAA or anyone else) understanding that the AIM is not the regulations. A lot can be and has been said about the requirements to follow the recommendations in the AIM. I'm not trying to start that argument up. If this is true, then the AIM does not apply and may be what the EAA was thinking.
 
Last edited:
FAR 43.1 (b) ...

OK, here is some more info from the EAA.

Basically what the EAA told me is that TSO requirements apply only to aircraft that do not have E-AB certificates and to prove his point he directed me to FAR 43.1 (b).

He also confirmed that the AIM is not a regulation, only the FAR's.

I hope that helps

FAA said:
FAR 43.1 - Applicability
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of any—

(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;

(2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or carriage of mail under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter; and

(3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and component parts of such aircraft.

(b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft.

(c) This part applies to all life-limited parts that are removed from a type certificated product, segregated, or controlled as provided in §43.10.

(d) This part applies to any aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category except:

(1) The repair or alteration form specified in §§43.5(b) and 43.9(d) is not required to be completed for products not produced under an FAA approval;

(2) Major repairs and major alterations for products not produced under an FAA approval are not required to be recorded in accordance with appendix B of this part; and

(3) The listing of major alterations and major repairs specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of appendix A of this part is not applicable to products not produced under an FAA approval.

[Doc. No. 1993, 29 FR 5451, Apr. 23, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 43–23, 47 FR 41084, Sept. 16, 1982; Amdt. 43–37, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 43–38, 67 FR 2109, Jan. 15, 2002; Amdt. 43–39, 69 FR 44863, July 27, 2004]
 
That was my basic thought...

He said it didn't apply to E-AB's, simple as that.

Gil, please give them a call. I wonder if you will get a different answer than the one I did.

Also, it is my (this means me, not the EAA or anyone else) understanding that the AIM is not the regulations. A lot can be and has been said about the requirements to follow the recommendations in the AIM. I'm not trying to start that argument up. If this is true, then the AIM does not apply and may be what the EAA was thinking.

...too.

However, the sentence in the AIM, with it's "musts" and "anys" is what dictates that certified planes must have TSO's GPS equipment to file /G and for primary use in IFR conditions.

It's not in the FARs anywhere. Based on this, and that everyone agrees on the TSO GPS bit for certified planes, I think his quote on an E-AB exemption is not really valid for IFR operations.... but that is my reading...:)

The TSO requirements only crop up in the FARs for transponders/nav lights/strobes/elts for Part 91, IIRC

Anything else that is mandated to be TSO'd comes from somewhere else than the FARs...

Can you send me a PM with the name of the EAA guy you spoke too?
 
OK...

Originally Posted by FAA
FAR 43.1 - Applicability
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of any?


...it does not cover E-AB planes.... agreed....:)

But the discusion here is for "authorized" IFR operations in US airspace.

As I read it, these operations do not fall into the "maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration" category.

Again, can that be read differently?

I also note that the Dynon alpha/beta tester with a RV-6A has a Garmin Indicator for a 430 on his panel next to three Dynon screens....:)
Can't give a link because the Dynon web site "customer panel" section is a flash player...:rolleyes:
 
Can you send me a PM with the name of the EAA guy you spoke too?

Gil and everyone,

If you call the EAA about this, don't just ask somebody there for their verbal opinion. Tell them, as an EAA member in good standing, that you would like to see the official opinion of the EAA on this question in writing, preferably over the signature of EAA counsel. Getting a different opinion depending on who you talk to... it's as bad as FSDO's.

--Paul
 
Gil and everyone,

If you call the EAA about this, don't just ask somebody there for their verbal opinion. Tell them, as an EAA member in good standing, that you would like to see the official opinion of the EAA on this question in writing, preferably over the signature of EAA counsel. Getting a different opinion depending on who you talk to... it's as bad as FSDO's.

--Paul

Paul,

The EAA did put it in writing. The following quote is from their web page and was posted earlier.

EAA said:
The bottom line;

All of this leads us to the conclusion that none of the equipment installed in a homebuilt aircraft is required to be built under a TSO authorization. But in most cases, it’s to the builder’s advantage to install “TSO’ed” equipment if possible. Also, FAA guidance aimed toward type certificated aircraft can be used by the builder when installing equipment in a homebuilt, even though many of the regulations referenced in the FAA guidance do not directly apply to the homebuilt aircraft.
 
OK,
I bit the bullet on this one and contacted my local FSDO by e-mail and got a call back from one of their inspectors. After a long, but pleasent phone conversation I got these take-aways (Note I didn't get it writing and this is only one FSDO guy's opinion so proceed at your own discretion):

- The AIM is non-regulatory (it says so itself in the preface). However, it does have regualtory items in it, but they are regulatory from their source (ie the CFRs) not because they are in the AIM. The paragraphs in the AIM on GPS have no such regulatory foundation. IOW, there's no CFR requiring the use of a TSO'd GPS to file and fly IFR--yet (see below).

- So, what the EAA has stated is correct. For E-AB aircraft, and E-AB only, GPS do not need to comply with TSO C129 A1 or A2.

- We can expect to see new guidance in the CFRs (which part and when was unspecified) similar to para 91.215 on transponders which will state that GPS performance for IFR ops will have to equal the TSO, in so many words.

- Using an EFIS (GRT, Dynon, AFS, etc) as the CDI is fine.


The loophole with all of this is how the FAA has handled GPS implementation. For whatever reason, their regulatory focus has been on the installation in the aircraft, and not on aircraft operations. So they force type certifed aircraft into TSO compliance by simply withholding approval of the installation of the equipment without proof the equipment meets the TSO. For E-AB, since the oplims don't list GPS performance criteria and neither does any CFR part (21, 91, etc), there's nothing stopping you from using whatever you want, however ill advised that might be. The DAR doesn't have a say assuming you meet all the other 91.205 requirements. Not let me be perfectly clear, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Personally, to be as safe as I can, I'm going to have a GPS that meets TSO 129 in my panel when the time comes.
 
The problem with your approach to getting and answer from one FSDO person is that 10 out of 10 FSDO personnel scattered across the country will give you 10 different answers (some of them will vary wildly). For me it's pretty clear as an FAA certificated shop. I know lots of FED's, I just don't know many that can agree on an interpretation of the FAR's...even worse many barely know anything about Experimental aircraft....some don't even know that much about general aviation at all. So, the danger here is that getting singular opinions from non-policy making people means that each opinion is just that; an opinion of that individual. Until the FAA decides to clearly define things, we're left in a bit of a quandry. That being said, to avoid any debate, most professional shops that are in fact familiar with the web of regulations and are experienced with homebuilts will choose to work to the highest standard or reg. That avoids any "he said/she said", "I heard", "my opinion", "my research indicates" types of rhetoric. It doesn't mean we hold experimentals to the same exact standards as certificated planes, it means that we take the spirit and intent of the regs for what they were intended for. People pushing loopholes by not understanding spirit, intent and interpretation are what has and is causing this entire review of experimentals to begin with - not just with TSO'd equipment. Just like a few bad apples that are causing the whole 51% rule to come under scrutiny, those spreading the rhetoric lately of "go ahead a fly IFR approaches with your handheld GPS" will cause the freedoms we have with avionics, EFISes and GPSes to also come under more scrutiny.

My 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
Perhaps I should have worded this better. Lest anyone think I'm advocating using this loophole, I'm not. In fact just the opposite. I agree with the sprit and intent of FAA guidance which is why I adhere to documents like AC 43-13 as well. Like, I said in my first post, this was one FSDO's guy opinion--it's not gospel. I simply wanted to point out that he (singular) reinforced EAA's take on the issue and to highlight that the AIM is non-regulatory. To make my position clear, I firmly believe that a TSO'd GPS is the right way to go, even if currently there's nothing that says you have to--it's the right and safe thing to do IMO. My post was an attempt to shed some light on the discussion as what constitutied legal (not nessacliry safe or smart) GPS installations, particularly with regards to CDIs. My intent was not to green-light someone into launching into IMC not properly equipped. If that's how it came across I apologize to all.
 
Perhaps I should have worded this better. Lest anyone think I'm advocating using this loophole, I'm not. In fact just the opposite. I agree with the sprit and intent of FAA guidance which is why I adhere to documents like AC 43-13 as well. Like, I said in my first post, this was one FSDO's guy opinion--it's not gospel. I simply wanted to point out that he (singular) reinforced EAA's take on the issue and to highlight that the AIM is non-regulatory. To make my position clear, I firmly believe that a TSO'd GPS is the right way to go, even if currently there's nothing that says you have to--it's the right and safe thing to do IMO. My post was an attempt to shed some light on the discussion as what constitutied legal (not nessacliry safe or smart) GPS installations, particularly with regards to CDIs. My intent was not to green-light someone into launching into IMC not properly equipped. If that's how it came across I apologize to all.
Todd,

I agree with you here. Even though I have said you can legally fly IFR with a 496 in an E-AB airplane, doesn't mean you should.

Each person needs to build a plane they would be comfortable flying in, if that includes IFR flights, then build it in such a manner as to make you comfortable as well as legal. If that means using all TSO'ed products, duel electrical and vacuum systems, duel EFIS screens, etc, etc, etc. than great.

I know one guy who built his plane using a duel screen GRT system and for his engine monitor put in a Dynon D180 so the EFIS part of that unit can be his backup. He figured that using different vendors for his EFIS's will reduce the odds of one software glitch taking down his entire panel.

Remember, it is your butt in the plane, do what makes you comfortable.
 
I enjoyed reading this entire threat and I read the entire EAA position article twice.

There are two word in the AIM section being quoted frequently in this thread that I believe most posters are missing and which may explain why the EAA concludes that not everything needs to be TSOed. I'll highlight them in bold



(a) GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in accordance with the requirements specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or equivalent, ...and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System, or Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of Navigation or Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation Sensors, or equivalent.

Here is the actual FAA document describing TS-C129 which makes for some good reading if you need help falling asleep.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgtso.nsf/0/e560cd9c6acf8ba186256dc700717e0f/$FILE/C129a.pdf

The document is way behond my technical ability, but if a experiemental manufacture told me that as far as they were concerned their units met all the equiments of TSO-C129, but they had not been through the expense of actually getting FAA approval and certifying them , then it appears that the "or equivalanet" provison of the aim has been met.

I'm in way over my head here, so don't shoot me, just pointing out the "or equivalent" provision.
 
Actually not...

.......Here is the actual FAA document describing TS-C129 which makes for some good reading if you need help falling asleep.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgtso.nsf/0/e560cd9c6acf8ba186256dc700717e0f/$FILE/C129a.pdf

The document is way behond my technical ability, but if a experiemental manufacture told me that as far as they were concerned their units met all the equiments of TSO-C129, but they had not been through the expense of actually getting FAA approval and certifying them , then it appears that the "or equivalanet" provison of the aim has been met.

I'm in way over my head here, so don't shoot me, just pointing out the "or equivalent" provision.

But no shots fired... you got the correct document. It's the software bit that gets the Experimental EFIS makers.

After certification, which itself involves a complex change control system and testing requirements.
Any changes, no matter however minor, need a complex testing procedure and change control process.

In general, this is too difficult, too expen$ive, and definitely too slow, for the Experimental folks to follow.

That is why we get a good deal on non-TSO's stuff for our planes....:)

The EAA statement on "equivalent performance" is probably true if there is no software involved... but everything is digital now.

This is just one example in the TSO you linked to:-

5. Navigation data bases shall meet the standards specified in sections 3, 4, and 5 of RTCA/DO-200, “Preparation, Verification and Distribution of User Selectable Navigation Data Bases” and sections 2 through 7 of RTCA/DO-201, “User Recommendations for Aeronautical Information Services.”

...and perhaps more specifically....

(12) Software Standard. If the equipment design includes a digital computer, the software must be developed in accordance with RTCA Document No. DO-178B, “Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification,” dated December 1, 1992. The applicant must develop all software that affects navigation and integrity functions to at least the Level C criteria. For software which was developed to a different software standard, Section 12.1.4 provides a method for upgrading a baseline for software development so that changes can be made in accordance with the criteria contained in RTCA/DO-178B.

It's the sneaky stuff in the referenced RTCA documents...:eek:

Organized in 1935 as the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics

...and you have to pay quite a few $$$ to see the RTCA documents...:(
 
Last edited:
As typical example of a "experimental" EFIS maker let me tell a story. Just a small one.
As part of our new RF line developments, we have designed a nice mode-s transponder. It's very compact, uses little power, few parts, and just about everything is software including the stuff that normally goes into a big expensive FPGA.
Beautiful, state of the art design, nearly impossible to improve any further.
The cherry on top is that we could sell it for just a few $100.

So, once we knew it was a winner, we started looking at what we needed to do to get this thing into aircraft. We should have done this before we even thought of designing it. We need to look at the FAA, we need to look at EASA (the Europeans). We got all the documents (for many $$$), we read them all. We talked, we planned, we found ways and means (we tried anyway).

We have stuck it in a cupboard perhaps never to see the light of day again.

Innovation squashed by bureaucracy (again). Simply too big a task and too expensive for us. Making the transponder is the easy part (by far), the rest just seems a mountain that is too tall to climb.

Why ? For what ?

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
AOPA article "Certified vs. Experimental avionics"

Excellent article in the March 2009 issue of AOPA entiled "Certified versus Exprimental avionics- does it matter"


Regarding using non-TSO equipment for flying IFR in experimental aircraft which has been discussed at length in this thread, I quote

"The federal aviation regulations give avionics manufacturers wide latitude under the Experimental Category. The regulations spell out the minimum instruments required for IFR flight, but the FAA doesn't required certified or TSOed avionics for experimental aircraft"

That is the AOPA position.


Regards

Eric
 
Back
Top