GNS430

[mitsos]

Hello people..
Here is a question..
If someone has the know how and wants to install a GNS 430 for VFr use only in his own airplane can he do that without having an AME Avionics license?
Just curious as to the rules.....

IF So who can then make the entry in the logbook for the install?

thanks

[Hedley]

ummmmmmmmmm .... no. Even a signature from an AME is not sufficient (you need an avionics AMO), unless it's a homebuilt, in which case, there are no rules.

If it's a certified aircraft CAR 625 App C applies with respect to elementary maintenance which the owner/operator of a private aircraft can perform:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... c-2460.htm

Installing new avionics into the panel is NOT included in the above list!!!

If you are interested, install of new avionics is defined as "specialized maintenance" in CAR 571.04:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#571_04

Specialized Maintenance

571.04 No person shall perform the specialized maintenance set out in Schedule II to this Subpart on an aeronautical product other than an aircraft operated under a special certificate of airworthiness in the owner-maintenance or amateur-built classification, except in accordance with
(amended 2002/03/01; previous version)

(a) a maintenance policy manual (MPM) established by the holder of an approved maintenance organization (AMO) certificate issued pursuant to Section 573.02 with a rating of a category appropriate to the work to be performed;

Schedule II:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... 2-1769.htm

Avionics 4. (2) Any avionics system installation or modification is avionics specialized maintenance except for ...

So, you need to find an avionics AMO.

[mitsos]

I totally understand..
Do you think that after the work is done( i enjoy doing that type of thing) the AMO will sign it out?...of course after he gets paid and he is satisfied with the work?..or they don't do things like that?
thanks again

[Heliian]

An AME can install and certify if it doesn't require more than just a function check afterwards. So I think the com part would be good to go but the navaids would be uncertified. Talk to you local spark farmer.

[Hedley]

(2) Any avionics system installation or modification is avionics specialized maintenance except for:
(b) installation of single VHF communication or single integrated navigation/communication systems that are not interfaced with any other system, other than an intercom system;

Can a (non-AMO) AME hook up a VOR/GPS CDI, or does that count as "another system"?

[avyonx]

The key word is "Single". If you only have one nav/comm then you may install it, however it references an intercom not an audio panel. TC will let you run it to a CDI as it is part of certification of the Nav unit and usually required for the STC. "Other Systems" refered here are Autopilots generally so you cannot install it to an HSI which interfaces with one.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think you should reconsider why you are installing a GNS 430 for a VFR only application. This unit is optimized for IFR flying and IMO is not a particularly good unit for VFR flying. You will achieve better functionality and spend way less if you simply installed a simple flip flop COMM and a Garmin 495 (or better still 695 if you have the space) in the panel using one of the nifty AIRGIZMO panel mount adapters; all of which can be signed of by an AME.

[Cyclenut]

unless it's a homebuilt, in which case, there are no rules.

Not quite true ( although generally accepted as true) The exemption from 549.01

61) Except where specifically stated to the contrary, amateur-built aircraft are subject to the same operating and maintenance regulations as type certified aircraft. Some of the applicable regulations, and their practical effects, are summarized in the following information notes.

Information notes:
(i) The details of all maintenance and elementary work performed on an amateur-built aircraft must be entered in the aircraft’s technical record.
(ii) All maintenance activities require a maintenance release.
(iii) The owner of an amateur-built aircraft may sign the release for the maintenance of his or her own aircraft.
(iv) Elementary work does not require a maintenance release; however, it must be recorded in the aircraft technical record, together with the signature of the person who performed the work.
(v) The maintenance schedule requirements detailed in STD 625 Appendix B are approved by the Minister for use with amateur-built aircraft, at intervals not exceeding 12 months. STD 625 specifies that Appendix B must be supplemented by the applicable requirements of STD 625 Appendix C, for out of phase tasks and equipment maintenance requirements.
(vi) All entries in respect of the technical records for the airframe, engine and propeller for an amateur-built aircraft may be kept in the journey log, provided the requirements with respect to technical records are met.
(vii) A weight and balance report is required for each aircraft configuration.
(viii) Amateur-built aircraft are not required to comply with airworthiness directives; however, operators are strongly encouraged to review applicable airworthiness directives to determine if they wish to comply voluntarily, in order to enhance the safety of the aircraft.
(ix) Repairs and modifications to amateur-built aircraft must conform to technical data acceptable to the Minister; sources of acceptable data include, but are not limited to: . . . . .

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... n/1963.htm

So, back to the original question:
Ame "M" - No
Ame "E" - No
AMO w/Avionics - Probably, with appropriate data

[mitsos]

VFR only what i meant to say i can use the LOC/GS and comms but not the gps to do approaches since it will be a straight 430 not a W..
But i wanted to use the build in VR LOC/G/S for a second unit to my already king VOR LOC/GS.

looks like ill find a good honest Avionics guy to do the job along side with me if he is so inclined....If not then let him do the honors

i don't need the headaches from MOT


Merry christmas
happy holidays to all

thanks guys

[Hedley]

Free advice: if you're going to bother installing a 430 into your aircraft, get an AMO to sign it off the paperwork so it can be used for IFR.

Having an VFR-only 430 in the panel is just bizarre. And misleading. You sell the aircraft, the next owner/pilot might reasonably try to use it for IFR.

[Hornblower]

If it's not specialized work, there is no need to have it done (or signed off) by an AMO — IFR equipment or otherwise

[mag check]

Free advice: if you're going to bother installing a 430 into your aircraft, get an AMO to sign it off the paperwork so it can be used for IFR.

Having an VFR-only 430 in the panel is just bizarre. And misleading. You sell the aircraft, the next owner/pilot might reasonably try to use it for IFR.

I believe that Garmin is only supporting the 430 WAAS unit now, so the older 430's will be relegated to VFR aircraft now.

[azimuthaviation]

First thing you should do is send the unit to Garmin and get it upgraded to WAAS. The next thing yo should do is send it to an avionics AMO, specifically one with a Garmin dealership.

[cgartly]

I have a Garmin 430 installed in my 172 that I imported from the states a year ago. The installation is placarded as VFR Only.

I asked the avionics AMO on the field here what I would need to do to be able to use it for IFR and he told me I needed an STC and a flight manual supplement. Garmin does not have an STC for the 430 in a 172. They do however have an AML for the 430W that of course lists the 172. His suggestion was the easiest way to have the installation IFR certified would be to do the WAAS upgrade.

Are there any shorter routes? I know Garmin was doing the waas upgrades for $1500 when they first came out, they are no $3000. Does anyone know of any way to get a deal?

[azimuthaviation]

An upgrade to WAAS is expensive but may be your best route. You also have to do some modifications to the wiring as well as purchase and install a WAAS antenna.

[CID]

With respect to installation, it's a major modification for a couple of reasons not least of which, airworthiness limitations are being introduced. Major modifications must be performed in accordance with specified or approved (STC) data and for small airplanes AC.43 can be considered specified data under certain conditions. (See CAR 571.06 and the related standard)

But...since a flight manual supplement or in the case of VFR installations, a placard stating the limitations is required, it falls out of the realm of AC.43 and squarely into the realm of STCs unless the aircraft manufacturer has an appropriate service bulletin.

In order to be eligible for a VFR limitation, the system can't be capable of meeting the IFR requirements. That pretty much forces you to install it "stand-alone" with no interfaces.

And yes, just because an STC exists, doesn't mean just anyone can install it. The specialized maintenance requirements must still be adhered to as applicable.

Besides the installation and certification conundrum, many people are unaware of the operational impact of installing a WAAS approach capable system. In order to perform LP or LPV approaches, you need a dual installation. Oddly, Garmin's AML STC for light aircraft is for a single installation and therefore not eligible for use in LP/LPV approaches without the installation of a second unit.

Your single GNS-430W installation must carry a limitation prohibiting LP and LPV approaches without a second appropriate sensor.

[AtlanticTour]

I think you'll do well with a Garmin 430. It is one of the most technically advanced GPS' I have ever worked with. It has a multitude of capabilities that you will enjoy learning, that make your flying so much easier.

[mitsos]

thanks again guys....

Regards

[cgartly]

And yes, just because an STC exists, doesn't mean just anyone can install it. The specialized maintenance requirements must still be adhered to as applicable.

Besides the installation and certification conundrum, many people are unaware of the operational impact of installing a WAAS approach capable system. In order to perform LP or LPV approaches, you need a dual installation. Oddly, Garmin's AML STC for light aircraft is for a single installation and therefore not eligible for use in LP/LPV approaches without the installation of a second unit.

Your single GNS-430W installation must carry a limitation prohibiting LP and LPV approaches without a second appropriate sensor.

Are you certain of the above? For example when flying an ILS/DME approach one does not have to have two ILS' and two DME's, why would you have to have two GPS'. The regulation simply states CARS 605.18:

(j) sufficient radio navigation equipment to permit the pilot, in the event of the failure at any stage of the flight of any item of that equipment, including any associated flight instrument display,

(i) to proceed to the destination aerodrome or proceed to another aerodrome that is suitable for landing, and

(ii) where the aircraft is operated in IMC, to complete an instrument approach and, if necessary, conduct a missed approach procedure.

[CID]

cgartly, good question. It’s not very obvious when you look for the information. That’s exactly what I was alluding to.

I’ll discuss the issue pragmatically first then reference the standards.

When you conduct an ILS approach to CAT I minima, the need for a second ILS system doesn’t really jump out at you because under certain circumstances you are correct, you don’t need one.

CAR 605.18 says that after a single failure (paraphrasing) you need to be able to fly to a suitable airport and conduct an instrument approach if the alternate is also IMC.

There are plenty of considerations in picking an alternate airport during flight planning but if you find yourself in a position where your only ILS just quit and your alternate airport is in IMC with ILS minima, well….you’re in a heap of trouble.

So even in the case of normal “standard” non-GPS operations, you can’t file with a single ILS to even CAT I minima and meet 605.18 if your “destination aerodrome or another aerodrome that is suitable for landing” is in IMC at CAT I minima.

If that doesn’t apply and you are, for example, flying to an airport with CAT I ILS weather minima and your ILS quits, but your alternate is VFR, you certainly can launch with a single ILS.

Part of the reason is that ILS installations require an active monitor on site. Any little twitch or misleading indications are immediately detected by the failure monitor and the system is pulled off line automatically or manually by ATC. Pilots are then immediately notified that the ILS is not available.

For other than CAT I ILS, we generally know that the operating rules clearly require at least 2 independent systems along with a comparator. That’s a no-brainer since the regulations just come right out and state it.

Now on to the LP/LPV approach. Again, from a pragmatic angle, if you are flying an LPV approach to an aircraft in IMC at LPV minima and you have a system failure, you run into the same dilemma with alternates as the ILS example I provided above. Unfortunately, these are not always simple failures that cause an obvious system flag.

Failures that cause misleading indications are not monitored locally. An incorrect a “fly-down” command on the vertical pointer can steer you right in to the ground.

There is a degree of mitigation incorporated. The GPS receivers employed in LPV capable systems need RAIM and FDE and a plethora of other system monitors and alarms but the reality is that some failures that may cause misleading indication is not easily detected.

LP/LPV capable systems aren’t quite as self contained as an ILS receiver. They rely on integration with numerous aircraft systems and a space segment that isn’t monitored locally. An ILS receiver uses a relatively simple voltage measurement to derive the deviation signals. A WAAS GPS uses a computer to compute the deviation based on many variables.

So back to the basic question. Where does it say that single LP/LPV capable WAAS GPS installations are limited? The answer is FAA AC 20-138B which is the adopted de-facto standard for Transport Canada.

AC 20-138B states:

Localizer performance without vertical guidance (LP)/ localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) is considered a severe major/hazardous failure condition for misleading information (see paragraph 11-2.a).

Under the definition of the certification standards, a hazardous failure can not be the result of a single fault. (Refer to AC 23.13091C or AC 25.13091A for more information)

So basically, through all that jibber-jabber, if you have a single unit, you don’t meet the acceptable failure criteria.

With respect to operational approval, the FAA provides us with Notice 8900.1 Volume 4, Chapter 1, Section 2. TC Hasn’t gotten around to making operational standards for LP/LPV approaches yet so again, 8900.1 is the de-facto resource. It says;

C. IFR Operations in the NAS. GPS/WAAS equipment meets the performance accuracy for operations over all existing published or approved air traffic service routes including air traffic clearances “direct to” fixes or navigation aids. These routes, NAVAIDs, or fixes must be retrievable from the navigation database. When all applicable provisions outlined in volume 4, chapter 1, section 2, paragraphs 4-31 and 4-32 are met, including the installation of dual independent systems appropriate to the route of flight, GPS/WAAS equipment may be authorized for use as the only means of navigation in conducting IFR navigation in the U.S. NAS. This requirement may be met with:
1) Dual Class 1, 2, or 3 (see subparagraph B and Table 4-3 above) GPS/WAAS TSO-C146a units; or
2) Dual independent FMSs that comply with TSO-C115b (installed in accordance with AC 20 130, latest edition) with dual TSO-C145a, Class 1, 2 or 3 sensors (installed in accordance with AC 20 138, latest edition), or
3) A combination of one GPS/WAAS TSO-C146a unit and one FMS with a GPS/WAAS TSO-C145a sensor.
NOTE: The FAA has certified GPS/WAAS systems as primary navigation systems and they can be used as the only means of navigation as long as the 14 CFR operating rules do not prohibit this use. Whereas, GPS navigation systems certified under TSO-C129 are limited as a supplemental means of navigation except for certain operation in oceanic and remote areas when TSO-C129 systems meet HBAT 95-09.