NORSEE = NOn Required Safety Enhancing Equipment (ref http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/de ... ls/norsee/)

First we were "allowed" Angle Of Attack indicators: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/ ... wsId=15714

Now, some more policy guidance from Friendly Aunt Agatha: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... 8-1602.pdf

Reading between the lines, I expect to see some more announcements at Airventure (Oshkosh) similar to the Dynon/EAA STC, ref https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and ... 6-2016-stc

Good news all, methinks, and cost effective.

Fly safely!

one can dream!

I am currently installing a Garmin G5 EFI (for VFR-only use) in my 1953 C180.
1) this installation does not meet the definition of a major alteration per FAR 1.1
2) I am not removing any required instruments
3) the C180 was certificated under the old CAR 3 regs which do not contain any special requirements (TOS, etc) for instruments.
Therefore it is legal as a minor alteration, which I confirmed with the local FAA inspector.

hotrod180 wrote:I am currently installing a Garmin G5 EFI (for VFR-only use) in my 1953 C180.
1) this installation does not meet the definition of a major alteration per FAR 1.1
2) I am not removing any required instruments
3) the C180 was certificated under the old CAR 3 regs which do not contain any special requirements (TOS, etc) for instruments.
Therefore it is legal as a minor alteration, which I confirmed with the local FAA inspector.

I agree and tried this approach when installation a new radio, but I couldn't find any shops that would install non-TSO'd gear. They pretty much all took a hard line that any certified airplane has to have TSO'd gear.

hotrod180 wrote:I am currently installing a Garmin G5 EFI (for VFR-only use) in my 1953 C180.
1) this installation does not meet the definition of a major alteration per FAR 1.1
2) I am not removing any required instruments
3) the C180 was certificated under the old CAR 3 regs which do not contain any special requirements (TOS, etc) for instruments.
Therefore it is legal as a minor alteration, which I confirmed with the local FAA inspector.

I'm curious, since CAR3 doesn't call out TSO requirements for instruments, why do we need TSO'D required instruments? Why can't a guy just go with a G3x and be done with it?

A1Skinner wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:I am currently installing a Garmin G5 EFI (for VFR-only use) in my 1953 C180.
1) this installation does not meet the definition of a major alteration per FAR 1.1
2) I am not removing any required instruments
3) the C180 was certificated under the old CAR 3 regs which do not contain any special requirements (TOS, etc) for instruments.
Therefore it is legal as a minor alteration, which I confirmed with the local FAA inspector.

I'm curious, since CAR3 doesn't call out TSO requirements for instruments, why do we need TSO'D required instruments? Why can't a guy just go with a G3x and be done with it?

I am also VERY curious about this also.
just bought my first airplane in May a 1956 C-180
I don't have any idea the procedure to start to ask questions of how
but I hope to continue my research and compile what ever I need to submit to the FAA
an installation of a Garmin Gx3,G5 and a 650. and a certified CGR-30P E.I. engine gauge
if I might guess a little, as long as I keep the primary flight gauges that are in the build sheet, I should be ok
gyro attitude, compass, airspeed, altitude
cubs fly with less (right)?
It seems to me I have to find the (right) person at the FAA to make things like this happen.
digging on,
Bradley

I don't know what all modern stuff you can install legally-- maybe you can rip out all the steam gauges and put in glass. I'd say get to know a local IA, or two, and their FAA maintenance inspector(s), and get their take on it. Offhand, I'd say not to hold your breath- you can probably install some glass, but will probably have to keep some steam gauges. Not a bad idea to do it that way anyway.

As to why this might be approved and not that-- why do some FSDO's / inspectors do field approvals, sometimes for some pretty elaborate mods, and others want nothing to do with them? There's very little region-to-region consistency within the FAA.

hotrod180 wrote:I don't know what all modern stuff you can install legally-- maybe you can rip out all the steam gauges and put in glass. I'd say get to know a local IA, or two, and their FAA maintenance inspector(s), and get their take on it. Offhand, I'd say not to hold your breath- you can probably install some glass, but will probably have to keep some steam gauges. Not a bad idea to do it that way anyway.

As to why this might be approved and not that-- why do some FSDO's / inspectors do field approvals, sometimes for some pretty elaborate mods, and others want nothing to do with them? There's very little region-to-region consistency within the FAA.

It's the "it's my fiefdom" rule at work.

Cary

This might be of interest:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Garmin-Announces-STC-For-Its-Experimental-G5-Flight-Instrument-226600-1.html

Garmin Announces STC For Its Experimental G5 Flight Instrument

.
Now Dynon Avionics isn't alone with a certififed version of an experimental EFIS display. At AirVenture 2016 at Oshkosh, Garmin announced a wholly owned AML-STC (approved model list supplemental type certificate) for its previously introduced G5 electronic flight instrument. When installed per the STC, the G5 will be approved for use as a primary attitude and turn coordinator instrument when installed in the six-pack instrument layout of 562 certified aircraft. The G5 will be approved for VFR and IFR flight and it has a 4-hour emergency backup battery.

Denali wrote:This might be of interest:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Garmin-Announces-STC-For-Its-Experimental-G5-Flight-Instrument-226600-1.html

Garmin Announces STC For Its Experimental G5 Flight Instrument

.
Now Dynon Avionics isn't alone with a certififed version of an experimental EFIS display. At AirVenture 2016 at Oshkosh, Garmin announced a wholly owned AML-STC (approved model list supplemental type certificate) for its previously introduced G5 electronic flight instrument. When installed per the STC, the G5 will be approved for use as a primary attitude and turn coordinator instrument when installed in the six-pack instrument layout of 562 certified aircraft. The G5 will be approved for VFR and IFR flight and it has a 4-hour emergency backup battery.

That is good news for sure. Now if it could be used to replace the direction gyro as well that would really make it sweet.

agggrh....

this is what is so aggravating

Unlike the version released for non-certified aircraft, the G5 for certified models won't have an autopilot interface and can't display glideslope data.

so for 1200.00 you can buy the same thing for experimental with autopilot interface and internal GPS
but this sells for 2500.00 with out them for certified aircraft

Yes, does less and costs more.
Kinda like a trophy wife.
Sweet.

I wonder how much time and money Garmin spent getting the STC?
And modifying the G5 t eliminate the autopilot-driving feature?
(from the AvWeb article: "Unlike the version released for non-certified aircraft, the G5 for certified models won't have an autopilot interface and can't display glideslope data. Installation is expected to be straightforward, requiring power and ground wiring, plus pitot and static source input")

Seems to me they could have just used the exact same unit, provided an installation manual which did not cover hooking up the autopiloglideslope features, and written the STC accordingly. It also seems to me that (esp if they'd done that) they could charge a minimal fee for the STC, like maybe $100, and do alright due to the sheer number of them that they'd sell at the original $1200 price. I'm guessing that there'll be a lot fewer sold at $2400 a pop. Also, people who've already bought the original version would be able to install it via the new STC. So IMHO Garmin kinda shot themselves in the foot on this one.

hotrod180 wrote:I wonder how much time and money Garmin spent getting the STC?
And modifying the G5 t eliminate the autopilot-driving feature?
(from the AvWeb article: "Unlike the version released for non-certified aircraft, the G5 for certified models won't have an autopilot interface and can't display glideslope data. Installation is expected to be straightforward, requiring power and ground wiring, plus pitot and static source input")

Seems to me they could have just used the exact same unit, provided an installation manual which did not cover hooking up the autopiloglideslope features, and written the STC accordingly. It also seems to me that (esp if they'd done that) they could charge a minimal fee for the STC, like maybe $100, and do alright due to the sheer number of them that they'd sell at the original $1200 price. I'm guessing that there'll be a lot fewer sold at $2400 a pop. Also, people who've already bought the original version would be able to install it via the new STC. So IMHO Garmin kinda shot themselves in the foot on this one.

A lot of times, requirements like that aren't randomly generated within a company. Sounds like the removal if those features was required for certification.

Also, removing features from software like that is generally not difficult. They may even still be living and breathing inside the units, but have been removed from menus or otherwise made inaccessible.