Replacing back-up Attitude Indicator

Any DA40 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
Sandy
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:30 pm
First Name: Sanford
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N159PS
Airports: KPDK
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Replacing back-up Attitude Indicator

Post by Sandy »

@marcuso,

Interesting thought that you have there, in that it might be possible to use one of the electronic units, like the Sandia Quattro https://sandia.aero/product/sai-340-quattro/ to provide multiple functions, thereby freeing a 3" opening for something like this combo Mode S transponder with ADS-B https://www.trig-avionics.com/product/c ... ansponder/

While this would also require that GTX33 transponder be removed, disabled or turned off, for those of us who do not have WAAS with our G1000's it might be a more straightforward (and less expensive) way to comply with the 2020 ADS-B mandate than adding a GTX345R (with WAAS).

Of course, it would also provide a new, electronic backup attitude indicator, along with the other Sandia Quattro features.
User avatar
Charles
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:36 pm
First Name: Charles
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: C-FLEV
Airports: CYHU
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Replacing back-up Attitude Indicator

Post by Charles »

Rich wrote:The RCA 2610 looked like a reasonable candidate to replace my iron-gyro AI when it becomes time, until I saw this sentence in the operation manual:

Extreme turns may cause the instrument display to temporarily disable itself. This is indicated by a red “X” across the screen and an “Exceed Bank Angle” warning notice at the bottom of the screen. The instrument should automatically reset the display within 3 to 10 seconds.

In my case it would be the only AI and this seems like the condition in which one would be most in need of its function. Therefore this gives me pause. Three seconds is an awfully long time in an upset condition in night/IMC conditions.

I have never had that happen to me even with full stick attitude changes. Given that the unit is advertised as aerobatics capable, I would be surprised if anything a DA40 could do would take it outside of its envelope.
User avatar
Sandy
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:30 pm
First Name: Sanford
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N159PS
Airports: KPDK
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Replacing back-up Attitude Indicator

Post by Sandy »

carym wrote...
It is FAA certified and meets the TSO requirements of the FAA, so I am sure it can be used as a replacement. You can see the certification information if you click on the "Features" and "Specifications" tabs.
Steve wrote...
My primary attitude indicator was taking a longer time than normal to spool up last year, so I thought it was on its way out (2001 steam gauge airframe). I was going to replace it with one of these (about a one pound weight savings). Luckily? my original equipment one still seems to be working well. I did discuss it with my A&P/IA, and he said it would just require a logbook entry as a minor modification.
According to my avionics shop, the FAA, Garmin, and Diamond, so far it's a "no go", as the G1000 STC is very specific about using the original electromechanical AI.

The G1000 STC "trumps" the unit's TSO, so unless someone goes through the time, trouble, and $$$$ needed to obtain a new STC it cannot be legally done, although, initially, I had been told (prior to the FAA realizing that the electromechanical unit was part of the G1000 STC) that it could be done with either a "log book" entry or a 337. I actually looked into obtaining an STC, figuring that as a DA40 owner who is an attorney with an electrical engineering degree I could navigate the STC issues with the FAA, but, upon looking into it, further, it just doesn't seem to be worth the effort.

Has anyone who actually looked beyond their own mechanic's offhand "legal" opinion, concluded otherwise?

Sandy
Post Reply