Most GA piston aircraft still use dual magnetos for their ignition system, but there are some STC kits available to add electronic ignition to common piston engines, and new aircraft often come with FADEC systems.
Are there particular FAA requirements for electronic ignition systems?
If so, what are they and how can you demonstrate compliance?
The ignition requirements are pretty straight-forward:
(a) Each battery ignition system must be supplemented by a generator that is automatically available as an alternate source of electrical energy to allow continued engine operation if any battery becomes depleted.
(b) The capacity of batteries and generators must be large enough to meet the simultaneous demands of the engine ignition system and the greatest demands of any electrical system components that draw from the same source.
(c) The design of the engine ignition system must account for—
(1) The condition of an inoperative generator;
(2) The condition of a completely depleted battery with the generator running at its normal operating speed; and
(3) The condition of a completely depleted battery with the generator operating at idling speed, if there is only one battery.
(d) There must be means to warn appropriate crewmembers if malfunctioning of any part of the electrical system is causing the continuous discharge of any battery used for engine ignition.
(e) Each turbine engine ignition system must be independent of any electrical circuit that is not used for assisting, controlling, or analyzing the operation of that system.
(f) In addition, for commuter category airplanes, each turbine engine ignition system must be an essential electrical load.
Most GA piston aircraft still use dual magnetos for their ignition system, but there are some STC kits available to add electronic ignition to common piston engines, and new aircraft often come with FADEC systems. Are there particular FAA requirements for electronic ignition systems? If so, what are they and how can you demonstrate compliance?
The Soloy Dual Pac apparently allows two engines to rotate one propeller -- here's a picture of it on an Otter: Is this recognised as a centreline thrust twin engine aircraft, a "standard" twin engine aircraft or just an aircraft with a single engine for FAA certification? What about for pilot licensing?
14 CFR 61.55 says: ... (d) A person may receive a second-in-command pilot type rating for an aircraft after satisfactorily completing the second-in-command familiarization training requirements under paragraph (b) of this section in that type of aircraft provided the training was completed within the 12 calendar months before the month of application for the SIC pilot type rating. The person must comply with the following application and pilot certification procedures: ... (6) The applicant must appear in person at a FAA Flight Standards District Office
Inspired by a discussion in chat. Most GA piston singles are powered by either Lycoming or Continental engines. The engine designs used by both manufacturers are broadly similar (4-cycle, horizontally-opposed, gasoline-powered, air-cooled), and they're both generally available with either carburetors or fuel injection, but I know they're not "identical products". What are some of the differences between the designs used by the two manufacturers, and what practical implications do those choices have for pilots?
I'm wondering if it is it ok to use a consumer tablet and electronic charts (e.g. within the AirNav Pro app) instead of the paper version for recreational VFR single-piston flights? Edit: to clarify, my question is indeed about official, up-to-date charts, accessed with consumer hardware (I mention AirNav Pro, but it could well be any pdf reader for that purpose) as opposed to paper medium.
it should suffice to say that solid-state gyros can be engineered and built in such a way that gimbal lock is impossible, but I'm not certain that's how they're actually designed. Do modern AHRS systems with solid-state gyros (or replacement electronic horizons like the RC Allen 2600 series) still suffer from gimbal lock, or do they provide true 3-dimensional freedom? I'm interested primarily in answers from a light General Aviation standpoint, but answers about electronic gyros on commuter and transport category aircraft would be interesting too.
There've been a lot of questions lately about tracking aircraft, and after a conversation with a friend of a friend I started wondering: Could a PLB or EPIRB carried by a passenger or crew member aid in locating a downed or missing airliner? There are a dozen or so brands out there, most using similar technology, like this ACR ARTEX unit: Now, I'm well aware of the FAA and FCC regulations about electronic devices in flight, and that's not what I'm interested in. I also realize that airliners already carry an ELT. If a paranoid passenger brought one on board, would these devices function
powered parachutes where you simply don't want a propeller in your face The Convair B36 is one notable multi-engine aircraft with engines in pusher configuration, as is the Piaggio Avanti. Single engine aircraft are even more uncommon, and pretty much all I could find except the Lake Buccaneer are all kit-planes (e.g. Velocity, Rutan), ultralights (Quad City), military, or experimental. ...Jet engines are by their very nature push-engines, however, most propeller airplanes use pull-engines. Is there an inherent advantage to using pull-propellers except for the increased airflow over
spores Yellow fungal mycotoxins Ethylene dibromide Polymer fibers My question is, wouldn't these additives, chemicals, etc, cause adverse reactions inside the jet engines, if the turbine
Advisory Circular AC 61-136 which outlines the approval and limitations of flight training devices seems to contradict 14 CFR 61.57(c). To what extent can I use an AATD for instrument currency? In addition, to what extent can an AATD be used toward and instrument proficiency check (IPC)? Edit: I have located this document from the FAA Office of Aviation Safety that clarifies that AATDs and BATDs are governed by FAR 61.4(c) and are authorized for specific purposes and can be used in the same manner at a Flight Training Device instead of a Aviation Training Device as long as they have