8KCAB IFR Certification

Interesting detail at the end about landing before departing on an IFR flight.

I just wonder to what lengths ACA would have to go to change the AFM.
 
The flight test plan included flying about six basic acro figures then an instrument approach. The FTP DER weighs 250. With 30 lb of chutes and a 100 lb pilot named-insured, there was barely enough useful load remaining for fuel for this flight (and a little reserve). This restriction was a way to avoid the test.

ACA has been...circumspect about supporting my project. They market an "IFR equipped" SuperD that only lacks an alternate static air selector and heated pitot tube to be compliant with tech drawing 7-1572. I asked them about an STC for IFR for this option and the response was "it's complicated".
 
I'd bet they could do it for less money than you in terms of satisfying the technical requirements but I'd also bet there's a risk assessment they would rather not look at. You can balance the need vs risk and see value, they probably don't want to. wild ass guess on my part
 
That's the answer. All it would take is for new customers to demand IFR approval on their new bird, and ACA would do it. The profit on just one delivery would cover the expense.

But then they will demand metal spar wings and aluminum gear legs ,if you want the IFR supplement - two things that have zero to do with IFR flight.

That's what they did with the 160 hp upgrade - the wood spars were just fine with 150 hp, but you need metal for 160.
 
One of my "IFR Update" followers bought a 2025 IFR equipped Super D, delivered in May, 2025. Now he has an Extra 330SC and the dealer who sold him the SuperD is brokering the sale of the SuperD.
 
One thing is for sure - they are using type certificate data for aircraft that were built or certified with a wood spar. They may not have written those type certificates, but they are using them to produce and sell aircraft.

All they would have to do is certify all 8KCAB aircraft as IFR, and then it would not make any difference which spar, engine, prop, or attitude gyro was installed.
 
That was my question though, do they only have to say it or do they have to demonstrate a particular configuration?
 
The whole thing makes no sense. It's a couple of words in the AFM that I bet were put in for liability reasons, and the fact that it was nonsensical to make them IFR in the past with the heavy equipment. A logical person would argue that if any 8KCABs were produced IFR, then all 8KCAB airframes are viable IFR. So - what would happen if you went ahead, equipped your 8KCAB IFR, did the IFR cert (pitot / static test) and just flew it under IFR?
 
nothing matters until you
a. crash
b. get the attention of an Inspector who just happens to know the specifics of your violation and flags you for it
c. encounter an A&P/IA who recognizes your violation and won't sign your books
 
Sully said:
It would be easier to get an Act of Congress than to get wording changed in any FAA Approved (anything).
Click to expand...
There are errors in the Milman Spar instructions that they aren't willing to correct because of the work required to do it legally, as I understand it. :)
 
ACA changes the type certificate all the time. Metal spar, aluminum gear, O-390, composite prop, etc - all require FAA approval, all are more expensive than a simple IFR certification. The type certificates themselves still date from antiquity.

The Bellancas were type certificated under different rules - you had to specifically certify day/night/VFR/IFR. They just didn't see the need to do it for the Decathlon.

All the other Champs, when properly equipped, can be legally flown IFR.
 
Bartman said:
nothing matters until you
a. crash
b. get the attention of an Inspector who just happens to know the specifics of your violation and flags you for it
c. encounter an A&P/IA who recognizes your violation and won't sign your books
Click to expand...
actually it should only be (a). One's obviously allowed to install all the equipment (it's on UAvionix and Garmin STCs) - so what would an inspector see that would raise flags? I'm also not aware that one is not allowed to get a pitot static check for any plane. So again - what would an IA have anything to do with it? Neither the pitot static check / nor an annual inspection verifies / approves flight for IFR. So yes, if you crash while on an IFR approach, your insurace co will have an issue with what just happened ...
 
Just tell them you were scud-running. In the Pacific Northwest, that is half the time. Inspectors are not laying in wait, anyway. They are far too busy working from home.
 
I would buy a reasonably priced STC in a heartbeat. Makes the airplane more versatile. But going through what you did is not for the faint of heart.
I am going through the world's simplest field approval - six months in, I can't even get a return e-mail. At the one year point I start writing letters.
 
Bob Turner said:
I would buy a reasonably priced STC in a heartbeat. Makes the airplane more versatile. But going through what you did is not for the faint of heart.
I am going through the world's simplest field approval - six months in, I can't even get a return e-mail. At the one year point I start writing letters.
Click to expand...
My notion (not really a fully developed thought) is that the roughly 10 or so owners who have asked me for details throughout the project might form an LLC and pursue a "multiples" STC that could be sold. I've told them that I'll provide them with my data, plans, and documents. One of them is in the small airplane STC business. If they have to hire DERs (probably for flight test and analysis) they could contribute and crowd fund (maybe). I don't know if ACA might be willing to support them with technical assistance. They might have DERs on staff who might contribute (totally speculation on my part).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top