IFR certified GPS Question

[old_man]

My thoughts were if its going to cost him/us 7-8K in rentals.

You do realize that about half the required instrument time can be conducted in the flight school's sim right?

I thought maybe I would retro fit my 150 with an IFR equipment allowing him to do his training on our 150. Also would allow him more IFR practice and to stay current.

Seeing as I am still not sure if you plan on actually making a 150 fully IFR certified or just putting some additional instruments in a 150 and keeping it VFR, make sure that, whatever you do, you first find the instructor that is going to teach you son and ask him if he is willing to do it in that 150 that you are building.

I figured If I spent 8-10k in upgrades I would increase the value of the plane at least 4-5k. At the end of the day I should be ahead of the game.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I guess the question boils down to is... are you planning on making this thing actually IFR certified or is this just going to be a VFR C150 with a few additional instruments?

If it's the former...check to see what the market is for a IFR C150. (If there is one). If it's the latter, well.....just know your market.

[CID]

I asked earlier if you would settle for "simulated" IFR. Basically that is doing IFR navigation procedures while actually flying VFR. If that's acceptable to you then you don't need the heated pitot and alternate static.

I'd also like to clarify a few things about using shops in the US. If the stuff is installed under and STC, then you don't have a problem. FAA STCs are accepted without review for modifications done on "small" aircraft where the US is the state of design. If there is no STC, the shop would typically go the "field approval" route. Canada has no corresponding field approval process so you'd have to have the modification paperwork validated under Transport Canada certification rules.

It's been my experience that US field approvals are generally done poorly. They often fail to meet design and certification standards since there is no engineering oversight required. The field approval system has been "sick" for years and the FAA is looking into it lately.

Yes, you may save some money up front at a US based repair station but the product is sub-standard in my opinion and you may have to spend a bunch more and have your airplane effectively grounded (in the US) until you get the field approval reviewed and validated. Depending on Transport Canada's assessment, you may need to get a Canadian STC for it as well.

You can check here for more information.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca- ... 13-003.pdf

With respect to the advice for equipping with a KX-155/KI-209/KR-87, you're talking K for the equipment (no installation) and a giant hole in the airframe for the ADF antenna. And if you've never had a VHF NAV, you need an antenna installed on the top of the vertical stab. And in the end, you don't really have more capability than you do with a GNS-430.

Remember, you need to figure out what airports you wish to fly IFR to. If you plan to go to an airport with only an NDB approach, you can't do it with either setup. (Read the IFR equipage rule I linked to earlier)

If you add a second ADF and a second NAV receiver to the Colonol's suggestion, you then have a true IFR package but add another 5K.

In the end, making a 150 into an IFR machine is sort of like putting lipstick on a pig.

[Colonel Sanders]

It's been my experience that US field approvals are generally done poorly. They often fail to meet design and certification standards since there is no engineering oversight required.

A bit of a conflict of interest on that opinion, wouldn't you say?

I think we can safely say that installing a KX-155 and KR-87
into a C150 isn't exactly rocket science, no matter how much
FUD is spread around.

If you plan to go to an airport with only an NDB approach,
you can't do it with either setup

Sure you can. More FUD being spread around here. You don't
need dual ADF's and dual VOR's to be legal IFR in Canada.

The applicable CAR is 605.18:

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

So if your alternate has a (eg) VOR approach, you're golden
with the KX-155/KR-87 basic IFR package.

Goodness, there's a lot of disinformation in aviation.

One wonders how much is unintentional, and how much
is intentional. You can't help but think of what Napoleon
had to say on that subject:

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

As far as dual VOR's go ... if they come off the same attenna
(or freq splitter) then they really aren't independent wrt CAR
605.18, are they? Single POF common to both.

And all these nav boxes are tied through a single audio panel.
If it fails, you can't identify the station, which TC considers a
pre-requisite to flying an approach - it's an IFR test failure item.
Another single POF.

And, are they powered by the same bus? Well, a single failure
of that power takes out all the VOR's and ADF's, doesn't it? From
an MTBF standpoint the electrical system is far less reliable than
the solid-state receiver. Another single POF.

So much for dual VOR's and ADF's

If you want dual something, get dual transponder. Far more
trouble-prone than a VOR or ADF. I hate those old cavity tubes.
Maybe the new solid-state ones are more reliable, but I dunno.
Anything with a high-power transmitter - as opposed to a simple
receiver - simply isn't going to be as reliable.

[Colonel Sanders]

For the newbies:

FUD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_unce ... _and_doubt
SPOF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_point_of_failure
MTBF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_time_between_failures
CID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.I.D._(TV_series)
Colonel Sanders: http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/ ... anders.jpg

[Colonel Sanders]

Threatening to identify a poster is not cool. You know better

Bandaid

[bandaid]

I had moved this thread into mod area for moderation. The offensive remarks were removed but if it goes in the same direction it was I will remove the thread and pass out the appropriate warnings or banning. Please play nice in the sandbox.
Bandaid

[MrWings]

Here's a question:

You bring your plane down to the States and have some avionics work done (install new radios).

Who is asking to check it over when you come back? Do you have to self report to TC? Do you have to pay duty/tax on the equipment and work done?

I know they look through the STC and field approvals on import but I'm not talking about an import. This is an aircraft that is already CND registered and owned.

If I just go through customs and don't say anything, those guys aren't going to catch new radios, are they? The only way I see someone noticing is on my next annual. Then what? Does something need to be done then?

[ahramin]

Mr Wings, when you get that work done what are your tech and journey log entries going to read?

Put another way, if you just don't do your annual who is going to notice? I've never had anyone look at my journey log to make sure my annual was current.

I've never heard of anyone checking that an aircraft flying in IMC was equipped for it either. If there is no interest in operating legally, then why bother equipping the aircraft correctly in the first place?

[MrWings]

I'm not trying to break any rules, I just want to know the process. Is there one?

Actually, I've never been ramped check myself. But I know guys that have and they looked at things like if they had their licence and current medical. Not sure if they looked at if the journey log and if the inspection was current but I'm guessing not.

We had a farmer fly in for an inspection and it was 5+ years since he last had one done. Was our DOM supposed to report him?

[ahramin]

I've never seen a CAR that says DOMs must report farmers but you never know.

No, there isn't any process to make sure that a Canadian aircraft returning from out of country hasn't had any unapproved avionics work done.

If you are asking about the process for doing it correctly, that's a different story.

[MrWings]

If you are asking about the process for doing it correctly, that's a different story.

Do you care to share it? Or do I have to say the secret password and give you the secret handshake first?

[ahramin]

I'm afraid I'm in the breaking department, not the fixing department. CID already posted the info though.

[cgartly]

When you fly back into Canada you will be phoning CBSA to give your declaration over the phone. One of the questions that will be asked is "Did you have any repairs or modifications done on the aircraft while it was down there" They will also be asking you what the purpose of the trip was. You could lie in response to both questions I suppose but it really isn't worth it.

If you properly declare you will pay HST/GST/Whatever on the value of the improvements you made.

You will submit a copy of the 337 form the shop in the US creates for the work they did, if they deem it necessary, to TC. The shop in the US should also make entries in your journey log and airframe log.

[MrWings]

Thanks for the response cgartly. To the point and helpful.

[x-wind]

Hey Cap41,

You will have to upgrade the aircraft for any commercial pilot license training. The aircraft needs at least one ADF, VOR or GPS radio navigation aid receiver to satisfy the 20 hour radio aid training requirement. However, 10 of the 20 hours can be in an approved simulator or synthetic flight training device.

Link to the Standards for "Training Aircraft Requirements"
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#425_23

Link to the Regulations for "Power Driven Aircraft IFR"
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#605_18

To summarize:
You need two separate radio navigation aid receivers & indicators (a GPS, ADF or VOR) to conduct a IFR training.** Your aircraft will also need, unfortunately for you, a glide slope to demonstrate a precision approach on the flight test- this is only required for initial instrument ratings. Transponder required airspace maybe a problem?

**I believe it's reasonable to depart being prepared to dead reckon a reasonable space in the event of a radio navigation aid failure. Anyone else?

Link from the Aeronautical Information Manual on "Certification of Maintenance Preformed Outside of Canada"
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... #lra-5-4-2

Finally, I've had a Canadian Boarder Service Agents go through journey log looking for any out of country repairs recently. I'm not sure of the monetary fee reality but I believe it's the reason they ask and look as suggested. I've also been ramp checked by TC maintenance inspectors. YVR south terminal in a piston commercial machine. They did go through the logs and asked about placards etc. I also was ramp checked in the US, the inspector wanted to see the STC for the Q-tip propellers.

[MrWings]

Finally, I've had a Canadian Boarder Service Agents go through journey log looking for any out of country repairs recently. I'm not sure of the monetary fee reality but I believe it's the reason they ask and look as suggested. I've also been ramp checked by TC maintenance inspectors. YVR south terminal in a piston commercial machine. They did go through the logs and asked about placards etc. I also was ramp checked in the US, the inspector wanted to see the STC for the Q-tip propellers.

There you go. So it does happen. Thanks x-wind.

[CID]

Getting work done on your airplane in the US is (like most things) subject to import regulations. The CBSA is pretty clear on your responsibilities here:

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications ... 1-eng.html

Note where it says, among others things to declare:

....for returning residents of Canada, declare all repairs or modifications made to goods, including the aircraft, while these items were outside Canada; and....

If you fail to declare the repairs/modifications and are caught you are subject to penalties which can be as severe as forfeiting the entire aircraft.

Depending on the severity of the violation, the CBSA can impose penalties and seize any goods and any aircraft or boat used to carry the goods. As well, you may be subject to criminal prosecution.

With respect to logbook entries, etc, it all depends if they are "major" modifications or not. Consult CAR standard 571.06. Major modifications on Canadian Registered aircraft must be done in accordance with "approved" or "specified" data. FAA field approvals don't meet that definition and are only accepted without review during the initial import of the aircraft and only if they are done strictly in accordance with the FAA regulations, policy and guidance.

Unapproved modifications on your airplane basically nullify your C of A. Among other things, your insurance is effectively suspended because the insurance policies require the aircraft owner maintain the C of A.

The installation of NAV/COM with an antenna on a small non-pressurized airplane is a major mod believe it or not but can be easily done in accordance with AC 43.13 which is classified as “specified data” for such aircraft. Installation of an IFR GPS on the other hand must be done in accordance with an STC. For small aircraft where the US is the state of design, it can be an FAA or Transport Canada STC.

If you manage to get your airplane back into Canada and fly around declaring IFR capability when you really aren't so-equipped, it likely won’t catch up to you since privately owned Cessna 150s aren't really on TC’s “radar” (or anyone else’s radar figuratively and literally) but if you do get caught you will be charged and fined under the associated CARS.

During your annual, if you have an AME who has any scruples, he/she would be asking a few questions about how those radios were installed .

This isn't fear mongering. It’s just the facts. But on a related note, I think is a bit sad that someone is actually asking these questions in this manner. You’re basically looking for ways to save money by getting past the rules. Personally, I think that's a lot of risk.

[MrWings]

But on a related note, I think is a bit sad that someone is actually asking these questions in this manner. You’re basically looking for ways to save money by getting past the rules. Personally, I think that's a lot of risk.

If you are referring to me, well, I am always looking to save money. But the fact is I don't know the rules so that's why I was asking.

I've gone through customs a couple of times in a rental airplane and never had anyone question anything about the airplane.

I've been a pilot for many years but am looking to be an aircraft owner for the first time.

I've investigated the purchase/import process and think I have a good idea of how that works. But I never thought about getting work done on my own plane in the States until the Colonel brought it up. Now, knowing what's involved, I can make an informed decision.

Thanks for providing the information.

[CID]

MrWings,

Fair enough. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions.

Cheers

[x-wind]

"You need two separate radio navigation aid receivers & indicators (a GPS, ADF or VOR) to conduct a IFR training or simply fly under IFR"
**I believe it's reasonable to depart being prepared to dead reckon a reasonable space in the event of a radio navigation aid failure. Anyone else?"

I'm curious what others have to say about this comment. I got a lot of respect for the experience & knowledge on this site.


Another unrelated question:

CID you said "I asked earlier if you would settle for "simulated" IFR. Basically that is doing IFR navigation procedures while actually flying VFR. If that's acceptable to you then you don't need the heated pitot and alternate static."

I was looking to conclude the same thing for myself. But I was unable. Right now I believe you need a IFR capable machine to log training hours towards an instrument license. As I see it the only difference allowed in aircraft requirements that relates to simulated IFR is sub clause ii.

Applicable quote from General Operating Regulations:

"(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]

x-wind,

What I was getting at is if you have an airplane with sufficient navigation equipment, you can use it to practice IFR "procedures" while flying under VFR. I don't think you can count it as IFR time but you could still learn the procedures. I don't mean going under the hood. You basically tell ATC you'll be doing simulated approaches under VFR and practice away.

You couldn't file IFR in such an airplane but it may be a cost effective way to practice the procedures without the burden of meeting ALL of the IFR equipage rules.

[x-wind]

Thanks,

I just tried to look up the experience requirement for admission to a instrument flight test. Just rediscovered the the experience requirement is:

"the candidate is considered competent to complete the flight test for the Instrument Rating"

So, you can train to competency to complete the flight in whatever aircraft you want - with no equipment requirements. The flight test aircraft or simulator must meet the following requirements:

Flight Test Guide - Instrument Rating "Aeroplane & Equipment Requirements":
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... ft-954.htm

So for the original poster, there could be a good deal gained from putting a G430 into the C150 if the installation proved feasible IMHO.

[cap41]

Yep Thanks everyone. Still considering the cheapest option. There seems to be some electronic GPS (NON moving maps) that a a lot cheaper than a 430W. THey have the instruments required to practice i.e. ADF, DME, VOR etc. For practice sakes I think my Ipad with the app AIr Nav Pro has all the "needed equipment" to practice. Again just looking if there is a cheaper option out there.