I never claimed to flying on a database updated thusly or removing my GPS from the panel. Both spare cards and spare GPSs are on ebay easily
back
1 comments
Yes, I see the disclaimer. You are walking an incredibly fine line.
If you did this to the GPS that is currently in your airplane, unless you are also a licensed A&P or your aircraft is registered as experimental, you potentially made an illegal modification to your aircraft. You almost certainly voided the IFR rating on your GPS. You may have voided your airworthiness certificate. You may have also voided your insurance policy.
Now, there's a lot of qualifiers in there because ... I honestly don't know. There's lots of rule making about what maintenance owners can do when to comes to physical parts of the plane, but hardly any about software. That's why I would talk to a lawyer and A&P first if you do decide to fly with this. It might be fine, especially given the age of the GPS in question, to just have someone sign off on it. But likely only an attorney up-to-date with FAA rule making could tell you that. To me, this looks legally problematic at the very least, but IANAL.
Yes, it is your GPS, and your airplane, and you should be able to do what you like with them, but that's not how the FAA works. You and I both know that, as pilots, we have almost no legal protection. It literally just takes one FAA bureaucrat wanting to make a name for themselves to really make your life a living hell over this if they want to. Never underestimate the pettiness of government bureaucrats when it comes to following rules. If someone from the FAA sees this, they're likely going to want to ask you some questions.
I'm not going to tell you how to live your life. Only you can determine what your risk tolerance is, and the reality is that probably no one will find out, you will have no issues, and you'll be just fine. Again, it's an impressive and very clever feat of reverse-engineering, and I don't want to take anything away from that. From one engineer to another, really, it's well done. But if you have an incident flying IFR on this now-unrated equipment, and the FAA finds out about this, it will likely end very poorly for you.
All I can say is that, if it were me, I would not fly with anything in the airplane that would endanger me or get me in trouble with the FAA. I would not even want to take a chance with something like this in my airplane.
I would at the very least 1) talk to an aviation lawyer, and 2) get someone to sign off on what you've done. I would also provide the relevant documentation on your webpage about the legally questionable nature of this modification.
Or 3) slap an "INOP" placard on it and get on with the fun of flying.
Judging by the text and posts the author is well aware of all that, is this preaching really necessary here on HN? :/
The process of reverse engineering and hardware design itself is still very interesting to read about and I'm not sure what your post really adds besides negativity?
Because it's not just you reading this?
I found the reverse engineering part interesting too. Like I said, it's incredibly well done. But it's also legally problematic and anyone reading this should understand the risks they are taking. Fighting an FAA enforcement action will be far more expensive (think 5 figures) than just paying the money to do it the legally correct way. If someone does it wrong it might cost them their life (see paulmd's comments above).
Pilots operate in an complex regulatory environment and things that may seem okay from the outside are not okay to the government. It's so complex that otherwise well meaning and law abiding pilots each year run afoul of the various regulations, and there are few legal protections afforded to pilots facing an enforcement action. A good example of this is the relevant FARs about reimbursement for business expenses when flying yourself. They're not the same as driving and being caught breaking them could cost you your certificate.
Whole books are written about aviation law and attorneys specialize in it. And all pilots are expected to be familiar with them. But the devil is in the details, and that's where they'll get you,
He says he didn't put it in his plane, so he's fine. And it was a super interesting technical read. But others reading this need to understand the ramifications of doing this or something like it to an actual airplane is just asking for problems.
Sure, and that's what a disclaimer, like the one you even acknowledged, does. Make it obvious that this is something that he did for fun and that you shouldn't do the same unless you know the risks.
So, going back to izacus's comment, is the preaching really necessary? He gets it, and people who read this and are in a position to act upon the information (ie. have a plane, with this GPS, and want updates) also are likely to understand the ramifications, so, really, what does the preaching add, other than negativity, as was mentioned?
like I said - this was done to an extra card I bought, not the one I fly with