I will be back when my engine is back from overhaul ! ouch…
FlyWest since it was created by Joel about fifteen years ago, Aero85 before that with Michel.
I know Joel well. I haven’t seen Michel for some time I understood he was very unwell or worse.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I’m a bit concerned about all the incorrect information that is spread here by more than one person. When we are talking about equipment for “minimalistic IFR”, we need to distinguish very carefully between two things:What the regulations say
What you can do without in practise
We can have different opinions about the second item, but for the first one there is no discussion as long as we are talking about EASA aircraft in EASA-land. It is all in part-NCO. National legislation or national AIPs that say something else don’t have legal force.
AMEN!
Please take care to quit mentioning some antiquated national rules. Countries are slow to do legal housekeeping. This means, just while the laws might still be published (eg FSAV) they still aren’t valid anymore!
It’s Part NCO.IDE
A good writeup is here
https://myclimbrate.com/2018/09/27/news-ifr-minimum-equipment-in-europe-part-nco/
For a Cherokee
- GPS (non waas is fine)
- VOR/ILS
- DME
is sufficient for IFR in mostly VMC.
very good webpage Snoopy , I wonder if IOAPA or the various National AOPAs can circulate this info as I was shocked how many old wives tales and reference to antiquated rules I was getting from maintenance and avionics shops. As you point out on your webpage, there are lots of aircraft out there that could be used for IFR but owners/clubs still stuck in the previous mindset.
Part NCO IDE it is.
I am not saying the above site is wrong (I have long ago given up trying to work out which EASA reg is most recent of so many for a particular application area, and anyway most avionics installers don’t want to follow these regs, are booked up for 6-12 months ahead so can afford to be picky, and most aircraft owners don’t have much choice of installers) but it appears to have been abandoned about 3 years ago. The owner, ArcticChiller, used to be here too.
It’s simple Peter, EASA NCO.IDE. Takes <10 minutes to read any disarm any OWT being spread.
I know a couple of owners who recently upgraded avionics in various shops. The shops don’t care about IFR regulations, they’ll install what the customer wants.
In my case I had no problem to get a handful of quotes/offers from shops all over europe for a dual G5, GNC355 and GFC500 install.
The myclimbrate site isn’t abandoned btw.
I doubt the problem is with avionics shops just tell them to install what you want and say it’s VFR initially (we had a similar story on 2*8.33khz radios for IFR)
The problem if you want to use own aircraft for training (initial, skill-test, revalidation, renewal) you are stuck as there are few dinosaurs who have strong opinions on NCO/NAA equipments, usually the ones who don’t own an IFR aircraft = never had to pay for having strong opinions 
my point is that some of the shops I spoke to have no idea what the current regulations are, and prefer to just stick to what they’ve done for twenty years, and very often the clients just follow what they say. As Snoopy says, it take ten minutes to look it up.
I got into a row with a guy who insisted I needed a second VOR for IFR and when challenged refused to point to the exact legislation that required it. This was a well known shop, same guy who said GPS can’t be primary. I pointed out NCO.IDE to another one who refused to sign off on the equipment bench test until EASA confirmed I was right. I actually don’t really know what sign off I required from him anyway (I was transferring the aircraft to F-) I could have done the ‘VFR’ use Ibra suggested but knew he was wrong in waving the 1991 rules.
I think all these OWT are just detrimental to more IFR flying in clubs and private owners, when we should be encouraging it.
On tests my experience was the opposite. If you clarify it with the examiner before hand you will find a number of them are very accomodating. I did my CPL initial for instance on mine and several IR renewals.
I am with you 100%, podair. The challenge is how to take this forward.
Already, most avionics installers intensely dislike forums. Some of the discussion here and here might be tongue in cheek, while some of it is bluntly self-serving, but these people don’t have an easy life, with the average customer turning up with some wreck containing 40 years’ worth of undocumented mods and they are expected to do a fixed price job on it, without breaking anything existing, delivering it to a customer who doesn’t fully understand how the system works, and actually neither did the installer because in most cases he has never flown anything other than a kite
And it is obvious to all that practically all knowledge of this type will have come from a forum. A techy forum, and there aren’t many of those around. It won’t have come from a flying school, or from a book, will it
So the moment you turn up in a shop, quoting some EASA regs, they will think “bloody hell here comes another smart ar*se who is gonna give us a hard time; sod him, let’s work on the other 20 who make up our 6 month job queue and who are suitably clueless”. Judging from some of the eye-watering avionics invoices people send me, there is a fair bit of money sloshing around in GA… right now. People aren’t flying so they are throwing money at their planes.
When I was looking for someone to do the FAA 2-yearly altimeter check and quoted some references here to a well known UK shop, I got this nice reply
OK Peter
Enough from you, please do not contact me again, look at getting this and any other work done somewhere else
Regards
[name removed]
Avionics Director / Owner
and that is one shop less left to work with, and there weren’t so many to start with. And there are a number who don’t want their names recommended on forums, presumably because they don’t want to get ex-forum customers!
I’d say there has been a comprehensive breakdown in the relationship. I don’t know how this can be solved. I think the business has deep structural issues – just like the car body repair business (there is a loooong story I am involved with currently, actually not dissimilar to this, but I won’t post anything until the said car has been retrieved, which I hope to do next week, albeit at more than 2x the right price).
actually to be fair, most of the shops I have dealt with in the past twenty years have been excellent, people clearly passionate about aviation rather than just there to make a buck. There are only one or two out of a dozen GA outfits (maintenance or avionics) I would not use again. I was just stunned by this guy who parroted stuff about GPS I thought had be forgotten this millenium. It is predictable at the aeroclub bar or a pilot forum, but not coming from a shop that should be aware of the new regulations, especially when they ve been around for five years. Yes the EASA stuff got off on a complex and confusing start but I believe they are on the right track now, simplifying life with things such as CSTAN or Part ML.
