IMC in LAA?

[Penguin]

Dean,

If I were equipping an aircraft with an eye on getting the Day/VMC limitation removed in time I would ensure that the electrical system was well documented. Owners are likely to be asked to show that the aircraft can survive the failure of any single component - eg alternator, master relay. A electrical load analysis will probably be required showing that the battery can support the normal electrical services for 30 minutes assuming 72% of the battery one hour rating is available. To ensure the instrument fit is reliable it is likely that a standby attitude indicator will be required (as well as the normal LAA required instruments). If an un-certified EFIS is used the standby AI should be from a different manufacturer. It is likely a heated pitot will be required. There will also likely be some engine restrictions. It is probable that each aircraft type will have to be assessed for suitability, and then each individual aircraft cleared on a a case-by-case basis.

This is quite a complex topic. A huge amount of work has been done over the last 6 years (by volunteers - very little input from HQ staff) to put in place a robust safety case to get us to where we are today - which is close to getting the first few aeroplanes started on the approval process. Once the application process and guidelines have been worked though with the 'guinea-pig' aeroplanes a more formal announcement will be made. This could be months away as one or two significant issues remain to be solved. There are also no guarantees - for the gentleman with the Eurofox, that aeroplane is not currently on the list of aircraft identified as potentially clearable - not saying it can't be, just that its not on the list right now.

This hasn't been a secretive process, its just there has been nothing concrete to share. What I have written above is my view of what is likely to form the basis of the rules, but the exact rules are not yet certain. There has been a great deal of trepidation in saying anything in public in case it gave an incorrect picture. I realise that some would like a more definite statement, but right now we don't know exactly what the outcome of the negotiations will be. This is mostly the result of volunteer effort, so things happen a little more slowly than sometimes we would all like.

Peter

[darnold]

Thanks to Brian and Peter for your responses. My intention is not to open up a major debate but rather to highlight that the LAA could adopt a more open and transparent communication approach to this topic but have apparently chosen not to. I guess this is because the feeling is that it is all too complex and fragile to share with members. I personally disagree.

I suspect those with an interest would have appreciated a regular update, sharing what progress has been made and what the "sticking points" are. I don't think we are looking for definite statements nor concrete decisions rather a simple indication of progress every now and again.

It would appear that decisions have been made. For example, Peter makes reference to a "a list of aircraft identified as potentially clearable"...this list would be helpful to share.

Finally, I hope that my posts in no way indicate either a lack of support, nor lack of appreciation, the LAA and its volunteers are undertaking to get this agreed. In fact, if you refer to my original email I was keen to get involved and lend a hand. So, this is a great effort and worth highlighting as such.

[Penguin]

This is the list of aircraft that were identified some time ago as potentially clearable. If your favourite aeroplane is not included then wait until this process is published in a TL and then request an addition. The priority at the moment is to get the whole process approved, details can be worked on later.

Beagle A109, Auster D5
Bulldog 120/124
CEA DR315
CP 301S
De Havilland aircraft
Druine Condor
Europa, XS & Liberty Xl-2
Falco F8L
Glasair II & IIS (RG, FT & TD)
Glastar
Harmon Rocket II
Jodel D140, D150/A, DR1050/1
Lancair 320
Linnet 2
Long-Ez & Varieze
MCR-01 Club
Piel CP301, CP328 Super-Emeraude
SAH 1
Scintex CP1310, 1315, 301
Tecnam P2002 Sierra, P92-EA Echo
Vans RV- 4, 6/6A, 7/7A, 8/8A, 9/9A, 10
Wassmer WA51, 52

[darnold]

I am keen to get an update. I know progress is being made but it is not clear how close we are to having a program / process in place for approving individual aircraft and what the agreements have been with the CAA in regards to what parts of CS23 will apply.

I understand some testing is underway but am unable to find any progress reports / test results.

Peter, you wrote an initial article in August 2014 that concluded that in your next article you would be describing the approval process. I was wondering if that article has been published or anything else been produced on where things have gotten. A search of the LAA website does not produce any current results.

Thanks in advance.

[mahogg]

Did I read in the LAA magazine that a wing loading limit of 60 kg/m2 had been set by LAA engineering?

I'm curious what would happen to (say) 152's if they were ever orphaned and moved to the permit regime.

They wouldn't meet this wing loading requirement, so would their previous IFR capability, granted by the CAA, be withdrawn, because of this 'arbitrary' limit set by the LAA?

I may have that wrong, but I just raise the point , using a 152 as an example, about some of the requirements being imposed by the LAA, not necessarily being in line with existing regulations set by a ''higher'' authority?

[Guest]

Hi Mike,

Just to clarify the point regarding the wing loading it is important to take the limit in context.

"A lightly loaded aircraft can be very uncomfortable to fly in turbulent conditions, and sometimes the air in the clouds can get quite bumpy. The limit set by LAA Engineering is a wing loading of 60kg/m2. Any aircraft with a wing loading at maximum weight lower than this value is unlikely to be recommended for removal of the day VMC limitation."

The acid test of the suitability of a type would be a series of test flights to assess handling. In the case of a C152, that type has already been assessed to be acceptable through the original FAA certification program and in-service history and so would most likely be accepted on that basis.

Hope this helps

Phil

[mahogg]

Hi Phil,

Yep - that's fair enough - but suggests the LAA may still have the final word on whether a wing loading below 60 KG/m2 is suitable?

I suppose my point was that the CAA left it to the owner/operator to decide if the platform 'stability' was appropriate, as I don't think they have wing loading as an approval criterion?

I agree that many (most) LAA types would not be great platforms in IMC, but would be fine in a VFR 'on top' situation, which as you know, would be IMC in the UK.[or whatever any new regulations decide it is ]. I guess that comes back to the 'what happens when it's time to descend argument', but that's another topic & debate, for a different thread.

[Guest]

I suppose my point was that the CAA left it to the owner/operator to decide if the platform 'stability' was appropriate, as I don't think they have wing loading as an approval criterion?

Hi Mike,

If only it was as simple as that! The handling criteria for certified aircraft are defined in the design code (CS-23 or CS-VLA) and they are much more detailed than using a wing loading figure. The aircraft must meet the relevant handling characteristics to be certified.

For Permit Night/IFR clearance the handling aspects become more critical than the same aircraft being operated VFR and a much closer adherence to the design code is required. In reality what this means is that aircraft with light wing loadings are unlikely to meet those more complex criteria and therefore probably wouldn't worth the owners hassle and expense of having the type flight tested.

Phil

[mahogg]

Hi Phil
That's much clearer, and I can understand the issue better now.
Thanks.
Mike.

[darnold]

Any chance I could get a response to where all this has gotten too...currently we are all guessing as to the parameters underwhich our aircraft will or won't be able to operate at night and/or in IMC.

[Waveflyer]

I have read this entire thread and I notice that the last post by darnold had no response.

Another year goes by but I am still wondering how and if this process is moving forward.

I hope all of the hard work and huge expense that has been contributed by the volunteers will not go unrewarded.

Can anybody give an update please?

[Brian Hope]

Hi Richard, I understand how frustrating it must be for members who are keen to get the night/IFR issue resolved and the matter of what exactly 'progress continues' means was raised at the last Board meeting. The next Board meeting is on April 1 - no comments please! - when I hope we will have a more descriptive answer of where the project is and when we might expect it to come to a conclusion.
I do not want to make excuses but without doubt the GA Unit has, understandably, been focusing on the Shoreham tragedy and this has definitely slowed down progress on all manner of other projects we and other organisations have in the system.
I will I hope, be able to come back with a more definitive answer on night/IFR expectations after the April Board meeting. One thing I can say now though is that the work that has been carried out will not be wasted, we are as sure as we can be that night/IFR will happen in appropriate LAA Permit to Fly aircraft.

[Waveflyer]

Brian
I am grateful for your prompt reply to my first post on this forum.
I perfectly understand why the sad event at Shoreham have taken priority over all other matters. It does put things into perspective.
In view of what you have said, I will wait patiently until after your board meeting when I hope you will give the membership an update, regardless of good or bad news.

[wigglyamp]

Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but I wondered if this project has made any more headway? Whilst not applicable to my RV12 (or at least not to me as a pure VFR pilot), I have a professional interest as a certification engineer within an EASA Part 21J designing STCs that approve glass cockpits and modern avionics for IFR.

[Brian Hope]

Hi Harry, work is ongoing, and I do mean ongoing because an important meeting was held about this issue with the CAA within the past week or so. It is hoped there will be sufficient progress to make an announcement by the end of the year, or possibly earlier, but we all know how frustrating this has been and how many false promises we have had. All I can add is that there is a genuine desire to see this through to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as is humanly possible.