Dan wrote:
Dan29-Oct-23 21:0160
a little zoom in sure will help @Yeager… LY
I´m not that smart Dan my Man. 
But now, since u pointed me in that direction. Is Lithuania not part of EASA. Why would they have their “own” regulations when it comes to IFR operations.. It´s very unusual for me to see a simple SEP with dual pitot tubes. wtf.
@RV14 It makes sense to have dual pitot tubes in a heavily dependent integrated “glass cockpit concept” (from a logical point at least), but from a regulatory point of view, to me at least (but I´m by far no expert), it seems strange that the authorities brings the requirement for two separate pitot tubes up at this day and age. Is the RV14 a certified aircraft or not?
I can’t help with the exact answer, but as the RV10 is a homebuilt, every country seems to have its own rules for what they allow (or don’t not allow) for homebuilts.
IO390 wrote:
every country seems to have its own rules for what they allow (or don’t not allow) for homebuilts
Gotta be the right answer
IO390 wrote:
IO39029-Oct-23 21:4462
I can’t help with the exact answer, but as the RV10 is a homebuilt, every country seems to have its own rules for what they allow (or don’t not allow) for homebuilts.
That makes sense. Good to see that even this segment has it´s downsides! As they say, if you can´t get up – getting the other ones down, has the same effect! ;-) Sorry! Didn´t mean that!
Yeager wrote:
Is Lithuania not part of EASA.They actually have quite pro-GA CAA. As I understand not every country allows IFR in experimentals.. And when all flight schools had to become ATO-s, the lithuanians sent more-or-less pre-filled documents to flight clubs – “fill in your key data and send it back to us and you are ATO”.. They also had a former competition level acro pilot as prime minister :)
As I understand not every country allows IFR in experimentals
It is best (and also everything is least enforced) in the former USSR
ivark wrote:
They also had a former competition level acro pilot as prime minister :)
That might help! ;-)
