As far as I’m aware, the issue with RV6s has been more around spinning behaviour.
LeSving wrote:
Why continue with this nonsense?
+1
In the context of EASA CS-23, if a Type Certificate says Day VFR only, does that mean it is restricted to Day VFR even if you added the required equipment?
Take the Elixir for example. Their website talks (somewhat vaguely) about an IFR version (https://elixir-aircraft.com/en/how-to-buy/ifr-extended-possibilities). The EASA Type Certificate (https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/111973/en) says Day-VFR only (page 6). Does this mean Elixir need to re-certify it for IFR? Or only that they need to produce a version that has all the required equipment (including properly certified engine) for IFR, but don’t need to do more paperwork with EASA?
To be clear, I mean fly IFR in airways, not just IFR training under the hood.
To be clear, I mean fly IFR in airways, not just IFR training under the hood
That is what Elixir wanted you to mix up, they are indeed used for IFR initial CBIR training (*) but I
they can’t fly in IMC or in Eurocontrol
(*)all of this is done in VMC off-route in Golf, Echo TMA or Delta CTR with ILS/LPV under VFR
Well, they say: “The Elixir is the best option for heavy travellers and flight schools looking for a modern IFR aircraft. The IFR version of the Elixir is available with 2 choices of engine : the 100 HP Rotax 912iS for affordable initial IFR training, and the 140 HP turbocharged Rotax 915iS, the ideal choice for travel.”
To be fair, they say you can “pre-order”.
But in general, does a manufacturer need to re-certify the aircraft? The discussions I’ve seen (but can’t seem to find now), say that in EASA there is no concept of IFR certification, just required equipment. Is that now superseded? Or does that only apply to aircraft that don’t have any restriction to VFR in the type certificate (perhaps only for older aircraft? or can one get a new airplane certified without mentioning VFR or IFR explicitly?)
I think they put some emphaiss on initial IFR training
My understanding they are not after IMC or IFR signoff in Type Certificate, they are after ACB or FTO use in “VSV” (vol sans visibilité)
But in general, does a manufacturer need to re-certify the aircraft? The discussions I’ve seen (but can’t seem to find now), say that in EASA there is no concept of IFR certification, just required equipment
For certified EASA aircraft in last decade, the manufacturer have to state IFR black & white on Type Certificate Data Sheet by EASA for design safety certification
Once that it is done, all you have to do is to fit equipment as per NCO operational rules (old country, aerdrome or national rules for “IFR CoFA/ARC” or IFR equipment are now voided)
derek wrote:
In the context of EASA CS-23, if a Type Certificate says Day VFR only, does that mean it is restricted to Day VFR even if you added the required equipment?
Yes! I don’t know about night VFR, but for IFR there are particular design requirements, not just equipment requirements.
Airborne_Again wrote:
but for IFR there are particular design requirements
What exactly? I remember only a few years back when there was some discussions about using SET in commercial operation. Widerøe had no objections about that, but what they had objections about was operations with non-pressurized cabin. They have long experience with that from flying Twin Otters earlier. The ability to climb above the weather (severe icing mostly), which could extend far up and all the way to the ground, was deemed necessary by them. In that sense a pressurized cabin is a design requirement 
and a powerful turbine (two is better).
Today they are talking about short range electric planes doing small hops (“below” the weather presumably). I don’t see that happening anytime soon
LeSving wrote:
What exactly?
You’ll have to look in the certification requirements… I thing I do know is that the aircraft must be able to withstand a lightning strike. Thus composite aircraft which are IFR certified need to have the wings and fuselage made conductive — otherwise the heat generated by current from a lightning strike passing through the aircraft could cause explosive delamination.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I thing I do know is that the aircraft must be able to withstand a lightning strike
For big, heavy airlines that would make sense I guess. But for a GA plane to even get in close proximity of a thunderstorm, it’s the winds that are the danger. They could rip the wings of, or at least move you around like a leave, making you lose control. The possibility of delamination due to a lightning strike sounds very much theoretical. Has it ever happened in a GA plane? Isn’t this only a requirement for static electricity to not create different potentials, thus it is the same regardless if IFR or not?
The reason I’m asking is that I have seen this come up from time to time, but cannot remember to have actually read anything about it which is special for IFR. Not saying it isn’t, but it would be nice to know where exactly this comes from.
