Most add-ons to certified aircraft end up tangling the interior with USB cables, suction cups, etc. Levil Aviation has come up with an exception: the Broadcasting Outer Module (BOM). In kind of a throwback to the 1920s and 1930s, in which slipstream-powered instruments were popular for aircraft that lacked electrical systems (also gyros powered by vacuum pumps).
This is kind of a victory for advocates of more sane regulation under a NORSEE policy.
The device starts up when it senses engine vibration (maybe it will not work for the next generation of battery-powered aircraft?). It broadcasts attitude and heading to an iOS or Android device (i.e., everything in the panel could fail and you could stay safe in the clouds by reference to your phone). It contains its own pitot-static system for airspeed and altitude information. It has its own GPS plus ADS-B IN for weather and traffic data. So you get about $1 million worth of airliner stuff or $50,000 worth of light aircraft stuff for $2,000 plus the cost of the phone that you already own.
Vaguely along the same lines is the SkyBeacon ADS-B OUT transponder that replaces a wingtip light and installs in a few minutes. Instead of taking an airplane apart so that an avionics shop can rewire it to deal with all of the transponder requirements of the last 70 years plus the new one of ADS-B, this thing listens to the replies of the legacy transponder in the panel and adds a legal ADS-B OUT transmission on top of whatever the legacy transponder is sending.
Readers: What would be the next cool thing that could be mounted under an aircraft wing or out at the strobe/nav light spot? At a minimum, I would like to see the above two products combined! And a video camera added while we are at it.
How about a rear-view video camera (now mandated on all new cars)? Or multiple cameras that stitch together an overhead 360 view (like on many new cars)? Or a “valet” mode camera activated by motio in or near the aircraft when it is parked?
ehhhhhhh i will just say it looks ugly creates drag and i would never consider putting one of these in my plane. Why not a portable unit with a usb cable (or cigarette lighter) run under the carpet and stuffed in the baggage area. Or even maybe something designed to bolt onto the aircraft’s battery. Many batteries are forward of the firewall and under a fiberglass cowl which would not block a gps signal. The nav light is a much more elegant solution in my opinion.
thinking about it even more why not incorporate it into the battery itself?? you would rely on GPS airspeed (probably okay in an emergency) especially if it took into account wind data from ADSB If someone came up with a certified lithium batter it would be lighter and have plenty of space to run.
I’ve long wondered whether light aircraft owners should lobby for a completely different approach to upgrading certified aircraft: namely, an option for an owner to irrevocably convert their certified aircraft into an experimental one.
In theory this would instantly devalue it, but in practice it’s not clear to me that it would, particularly for cheaper airframes. If it means that an owner can modernise an aircraft without the cost burden of keeping it certified, I think it could well come out ahead.
Alternatively, it gives flexibility to someone who isn’t particularly concerned about cost, but wants freedom to augment a good, trusted airframe, or install options that are currently available only in the experimental market.
The only downside I can see is a tragedy-of-the-commons type problem: it may siphon off some demand for STC solutions, meaning that today’s tiny trickle of new certified options becomes even more anaemic.
What do you reckon? I’ve never heard anyone talk about something like this. Are there other negatives that I’m not seeing, from either an owner or regulatory perspective?
phik, they do this in Canada. It is very rarely done. google Canada Owner Maintenance Classification
phik: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/changing-to-experimental.90820/ says that this can’t be done now. Even if it were possible, the plane would then be ineligible for flight school or any other commercial use. My friend who runs a charter company says that regulations are becoming so difficult to comply with that the smallest GA plane in 10-20 years will be a Gulfstream (because the all-in cost of operating a Cessna 172 will become similar!). So maybe it would make sense to have an “Adventurers” category into which all of these $20,000 Cessna and Piper airframes can be placed. On the third hand, the hourly rate for an aircraft mechanic is already lower than what we pay a dealer for car mechanics. So upgrades would be cheaper in Adventurers category, but adhering to the standard maintenance schedule wouldn’t be.