Dynon Avionics in certificated aircraft

[Z06tink72]

As an avionics guy, this makes me wonder if they had to go through the entire Do-178B/C process for software development. That is why these fun gadgets cost so much in certified aircraft. If Dynon really did pull it off, it took a lot of expertise and money. May be a hint that they will be doing more things like this in the future?

I looked up the new ATSM standard they talked about. First of all, its interesting they used that standards organization. I don't know of any other avionics development standards by them. Second, it's all based on testing at the system level. No multi levels of requirements, tracing, structural code coverage, object code analysis, etc. Thus no TSO.

This is a Giant shift from traditional avionics development. Kudos for pulling it off to dynon/eaa.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Tom....what are you fishing for?

 

[thomasdr72]

There is a lot of evidence about switching out vacuum to electric gyros. Your skepticism is contrary to that evidence and completely anecdotal. care to share the fails?

I've been tracking a lot of the other forums as well, lots of folks are perfectly happy with their new glass. However, there is also a growing body of evidence to suggest that the failure rate of glass isn't what you'd expect. Lots of guys are reporting Garmin/Avidyne/Aspen/etc displays that are only lasting 2-5 years before they end up finding a need for major repair. Several of the Beechcraft guys are reporting that the true cost of ownership for glass is over and beyond $2k per year. I definitely haven't conducted a real scientific study, but the stories are out there. Aviation consumer recently did an article discussing how expensive it is to keep glass airworthy (not counting repair costs) and I suspect that those costs far out shadow legacy instruments.

Don't get me wrong, I love the technology too... But there is more to it other than just a shiny new gizmo. Some new studies are actually beginning to show that the glass panels aren't really any safer than steam gauges either from a primary orientation/basic instrument flying perspective either. More information doesn't always make you safer, many times it just presents new cognitive challenges and an increased drain on your SA.

Do I believe in onboard weather and traffic? You bet! Obstacle clearance info? Of course! --I'm just trying to say that glass isn't necessarily the panacea at everyone thinks it is...

V/r,

Dana

 

[Grum.Man]

What does the vacuum system run besides gyros?

Should have been more selective of my words. The vacuum system runs the artificial horizon and directional gyro. You cannot remove the directional gyro with this STC, therefore the vacuum system will have to stay put. That is of course if you have a vacuum operated directional gyro.

 

[bnt83]

OK,, So a question. If I had a one of these installed in E/AB and wanted to sell it to a Certified Aircraft owner, How can he install it?

If the certified airplane owner buys the STC from EAA then buys the used Dynon, and that Dynon conforms to the data within the STC (part numbers and software version levels as/if applicable) and the system as installed passes the STC's ground function and/or flight test, what's the problem?

Per the article, these unit are NOT PMA'ed. If that's true they don't hold production approval. They may not even have an FAA approved quality plan (instead some other industry standard the FAA accepted) they probably don't hold a repair station certificate either so what documents will come with repaired units?

I see a hole mess of questions coming. It really seems like the FAA may have approved a product based on performance history more than testing performance in a lab.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Tom is looking for an argument.

Careful....this one is gonna take some outta the box thinking. The old timers might not do too well.

 

[bnt83]

I've been tracking a lot of the other forums as well, lots of folks are perfectly happy with their new glass. However, there is also a growing body of evidence to suggest that the failure rate of glass isn't what you'd expect. Lots of guys are reporting Garmin/Avidyne/Aspen/etc displays that are only lasting 2-5 years before they end up finding a need for major repair. Several of the Beechcraft guys are reporting that the true cost of ownership for glass is over and beyond $2k per year. I definitely haven't conducted a real scientific study, but the stories are out there. Aviation consumer recently did an article discussing how expensive it is to keep glass airworthy (not counting repair costs) and I suspect that those costs far out shadow legacy instruments.

Don't get me wrong, I love the technology too... But there is more to it other than just a shiny new gizmo. Some new studies are actually beginning to show that the glass panels aren't really any safer than steam gauges either from a primary orientation/basic instrument flying perspective either. More information doesn't always make you safer, many times it just presents new cognitive challenges and an increased drain on your SA.

Do I believe in onboard weather and traffic? You bet! Obstacle clearance info? Of course! --I'm just trying to say that glass isn't necessarily the panacea at everyone thinks it is...

V/r,

Dana

The reason I like this Dynon thing is a plain old all digital stand-by attitude indicator runs north of $2000. A plain old electric-mechanical attitude indicator is also around $2000. This gismo right now with pitot, static altitude, CDI and everything is right at $2000. Even if the EAA STC is $1500, that's a lotta bang for the buck. In my case rather than eliminating a good vacuum attitude indicator I'd just relocate it.

 

[FastEddieB]

They let you remove one of your least important instruments and replace it with a digital one.

Least important?

Are we talking about the attitude indicator?

If so, attitude instrument flying makes it the "hub" of an instrument scan, so in that respect it's likely the most important, not the least.

Even VFR, if one accidentally found oneself in IMC or without a horizon, I think one's take on the importance of an attitude indicator might change.

If you were talking about something else, never mind.

Oh, and my Sky Arrow has a D10A front and center.

No issues with it over 400+ hours in 9 years*. Use it mainly for its calculation of TAS and DA, but glad to have it there in case I ever encounter IMC - which to date I have not in the Sky Arrow.

And, yes - I need to fly more!

*To be honest, in my installation on a really hot day it gives an over-temp warning from time to time. Seems to continue with reliable indications throughout, but there is that.

 

[bnt83]

Least important?

And, yes - I need to fly more!

*To be honest, in my installation on a really hot day it gives an over-temp warning from time to time. Seems to continue with reliable indications throughout, but there is that.

Wouldn't surprise me if heat was a primary cause of failures in Dynon, Aspen and Garmin.

 

[Grum.Man]

Least important?

Are we talking about the attitude indicator?

If so, attitude instrument flying makes it the "hub" of an instrument scan, so in that respect it's likely the most important, not the least.

Even VFR, if one accidentally found oneself in IMC or without a horizon, I think one's take on the importance of an attitude indicator might change.

If you were talking about something else, never mind.

Oh, and my Sky Arrow has a D10A front and center. No issues with it over 400+ hours in 9 years. Use it mainly for its calculation of TAS and DA, but glad to have it there in case I ever encounter IMC - which to date I have not in the Sky Arrow.

And, yes - I need to fly more!

I'm speaking mostly VFR here and yes I was referring to the attitude indicator. Your rate of climb/altimeter and turn and bank indicator can tell you everything the attitude indicator will unless you find your self upside down. I pretty much never reference my attitude indicator when flying VFR.

 

[SCCutler]

I think there is a lot to look at here - mostly good. I would gladly replace my air-powered Attitude Indicator with this and never look back.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

I find myself curious why Dynon would allow EAA to obtain the STC to install their product, rather than doing it themselves. Also, why EAA (note the bolded 'E') would consider this a focus for the organization. Of course, EAA is a completely different organization than when I joined in 1971.

That said, would be nice to have one of these on the right panel of the 182!

Jim

 

[thomasdr72]

Even if the EAA STC is $1500, that's a lotta bang for the buck. In my case rather than eliminating a good vacuum attitude indicator I'd just relocate it.

Agreed! My vacuum system isn't going anywhere for sure, especially since it runs my autopilot too... I would rather hope that the EFIS could be STCd primary for more than just the attitude indicator, but I guess we have to start somewhere. With the external magnetometer, it weighs approximately 2 lbs, which is slightly more than my current EDO-Aire vacuum A/I (But still 1.5 lbs less than the original RC Allen (Cessna) one that is sitting on my desk).

Now to find room for the vacuum gyro on the right side...

V/r,

-Dana

 

[Challenged]

This is really great news. The AvWeb article says that this is just the first of other, similar announcements, which is pretty exciting.

 

[Tom-D]

Tom is looking for an argument.

Nope, just asking the question, let's see how many misconceptions there are about retrofitting the new equipment.
remember the discussion about part 23 re-write ?

 

[Tom-D]

Wouldn't surprise me if heat was a primary cause of failures in Dynon, Aspen and Garmin.

It is in a lot of the old radios too.

 

[ateamer]

I find myself curious why Dynon would allow EAA to obtain the STC to install their product, rather than doing it themselves. Also, why EAA (note the bolded 'E') would consider this a focus for the organization. Of course, EAA is a completely different organization than when I joined in 1971.

That said, would be nice to have one of these on the right panel of the 182!

Jim

I suspect that there are two reasons: One is that many EAA members have certified aircraft. Two, and probably most beneficial to EAA (in my off-the-cuff theory) is that with opening the certified aircraft world to Dynon et al, there will be more competition, more choices and lower prices. Maybe it will also lead to more, such as Catto props on Cessnas, PMAG ignitions on Pipers, etc.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

I suspect that there are two reasons: One is that many EAA members have certified aircraft. Two, and probably most beneficial to EAA (in my off-the-cuff theory) is that with opening the certified aircraft world to Dynon et al, there will be more competition, more choices and lower prices. Maybe it will also lead to more, such as Catto props on Cessnas, PMAG ignitions on Pipers, etc.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in the point I was making, which was, why is EAA the STC-holder instead of Dynon. Many EAA members have Whelen strobes on their aircraft (certified or not). By logical extension should EAA inject itself into the paperwork for non-STC'd installs on those?

Just a paperwork/background question I'm asking...I think it's awesome that the whole thing is being done. I would think EAA would be supporting Dynon in their efforts instead of being primary.

Jim

 

[wanttaja]

I find myself curious why Dynon would allow EAA to obtain the STC to install their product, rather than doing it themselves. Also, why EAA (note the bolded 'E') would consider this a focus for the organization. Of course, EAA is a completely different organization than when I joined in 1971.

The EAA Auto Fuel STC post-dated when you joined, then. It didn't benefit a single Experimental aircraft, either.

There are about 30,000 homebuilts, and about 230,000 standard-category aircraft. This opens up a much larger market for companies previously restricted to just the EAB world. This may result in lower prices for everyone, and a faster path to increased capabilities.

Last year, EAA asked me to perform some accident analyses in support of this effort. I looked at mechanical issues only, such as how often installation issues went beyond the equipment simply not working (e.g., catching fire, fouling controls, cutting fuel or hydraulic issues, etc.). Pretty rare.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[bnt83]

Perhaps I wasn't clear in the point I was making, which was, why is EAA the STC-holder instead of Dynon. Many EAA members have Whelen strobes on their aircraft (certified or not). By logical extension should EAA inject itself into the STC paperwork for those installs?

Just a paperwork/background question I'm asking...I think it's awesome that the whole thing is being done. I would think EAA would be supporting Dynon in their efforts instead of being primary.

Jim

Do you know that EAA holds several STCs already? They have been a long time seller of MOGAS STCs for example.

My guess is that Dynon doesn't have the resources and knowledge to get and maintain an STC. Maybe they wanted someone else to share the liability.

 

[wanttaja]

Perhaps I wasn't clear in the point I was making, which was, why is EAA the STC-holder instead of Dynon.

I don't believe the intent of this was to help Dynon. It was to provide a legal path for *any* non-traditional avionics to be installed with a lot less hassle. Dynon just happened to be the first, since their market was 100% homebuilts anyway.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Jim Rosenow]

Not aware of 'several', but if I recall correctly EAA was the second entity to win an STC for MOGAS, and competed directly with Petersen's, who were first. Kind of what prompted my question.

Jim

 

[bnt83]

Not aware of 'several', but if I recall correctly EAA was the second entity to win an STC for MOGAS, and competed directly with Petersen's, who were first. Kind of what prompted my question.

Jim

I'd say a good 75% or more STC holders are approving the installation of some other manufacturer's products...

 

[Jim Rosenow]

Are these STC-holders allegedly 'membership' organizations?....or commercial entities competing with each other in an open/free market? That's what I see as the difference. Might be an old-fashioned concept, I guess.

Oh, in the interest of disclosure, we have an EAA auto fuel STC for our Citabria, but don't use it. It seems to like 100LL better actually. I also had a forced landing in a Warrior I owned, believed attributable to MOGAS (vapor lock). Neither of these are reflected in the accident statistics as the forced landing ended at an airport.

Getting back on track...I still think the progress by Dynon is awesome!

Jim

 

[bnt83]

Are these STC-holders allegedly 'membership' organizations?....or commercial entities competing with each other in an open/free market?
Jim

Both. There are several memberships organizations that have STCs. In fact, why wouldn't they be interested in PMAs and STCs? If I had a Cessna 210 club and couldn't get a part from Cessna at a decent price (that most of the membership needs too) why can't the membership (likely includes a bunch of engineers) reverse engineer the needed parts and pursue a PMA? This would not only help maintain the membership's fleet value but also reduce operating costs as a whole.

It doesn't even have to be a replacement part, it could be a repair procedure. Say there was cracking on a landing gear part, the membership could pool knowledge and resources to get a repair procedure approved.

Just an observation and opinion:

The TC and STC process was intentionally written to be somewhat expensive, this was to deter every Tom, Dick and Harry from applying and clogging up the process with products & marketing that would likely fail in the marketplace anyway. If you have a successful product, like Dynon in the EAB world, they still might not have the knowledge and resources to competently complete a certification effort. Since EAA is full of volunteer and retired talent with some of these skills partnering with EAA seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Stewartb]

I'm curious how this will be worded. An STC product can be installed by the STC holder. In order to sell that part for installation by others using the STC requires a PMA and the news release says the Dynon won't be PMAd. THAT may be a real game changer. I'm looking forward to seeing the text of the approval.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Perhaps I wasn't clear in the point I was making, which was, why is EAA the STC-holder instead of Dynon. Many EAA members have Whelen strobes on their aircraft (certified or not). By logical extension should EAA inject itself into the paperwork for non-STC'd installs on those?

Jim

Maybe it's just as simple as the new EAA chief understanding the definition of "advocacy"?

Looking in my inbox this am, I got an offer of a $100 credit from AOPA if I apply for another credit card. Lemme think, which organization better represents my interests as a pilot and aircraft owner...

 

[Jim Rosenow]

Your point on type clubs is well-taken. Actually got to participate in that a little bit.

As far as Tom, Dick, and Harry....you may be right on that also. STC-holders I know personally are named Tom, Dick, and Bill (literally!), but they seem like regular guys to me.

Will you also argue that EAA will put the STC money to better use than Dynon could thru additional development? I'm all discussed out!

Jim

 

[bnt83]

Will you also argue that EAA will put the STC money to better use than Dynon could thru additional development? I'm all discussed out!

Jim

Not touching that with a 10 foot pole

 

[Stewartb]

Hey.... I didn't say that.

 

[bnt83]

Hey.... I didn't say that.

Sorry I got it goofed up lol. I'll fix it

 

[Jim Rosenow]

I'm curious how this will be worded. An STC product can be installed by the STC holder. In order to sell that part for installation by others using the STC requires a PMA and the news release says the Dynon won't be PMAd. THAT may be a real game changer. I'm looking forward to seeing the text of the approval.

Agree completely! This could be an interesting new world.

Part 23 change isn't dead...just a-sleepin'. Article on the front page of the April Aviation International News (came yesterday) says the Part 23 NPRM has been issued. Might all be related.

Jim

 

[bnt83]

I just hope we are finally seeing a shift in practices within the FAA regarding private small airplanes.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

I just hope we are finally seeing a shift in practices within the FAA regarding private small airplanes.

Another thing we agree on!!

Jim

 

[LuisO]

What does the vacuum system run besides gyros?

The vacuum gauge.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

The vacuum gauge.

And the air/oil separator if ya got one.

 

[simtech]

Any word on what the "nominal fee" for the STC might be? Nominal to me is small so hopefully it will be less than 1 AMU, which is small for aviation terms. At least to me.

 

[RyanShort1]

I'd love to have this as an option. Not that I want to ruin an older panel, but if I wanted to replace, or in ,y aircraft's case add an AI, having used the Dynon in a LSA before, I don't think it could hurt anything for situational awareness and having one more tool around.

 

[denverpilot]

Dynon's not selling the stc. EAA is to EAA members. Gonna do wonders for me!bership.

Yup.

I was just thinking that maybe my advocacy dollars should go to EAA rather than AOPA.

Stick another fork in AOPA. They'll be building another "better than new" something airplane, and not listing prices of the upgrades again soon, I assume. They aren't the best bang for the buck for aircraft OWNERS, but they do have a few easily replaceable benefits for PILOTS, IMHO. They could just remove the O from their name, and call it good. Business wise, ASF is already a separate business, and an excellent one, and I'd pay money to access and support ASF things and never send a dime into the general fund at AOPA "mainline" if that were possible.

However, there is also a growing body of evidence to suggest that the failure rate of glass isn't what you'd expect.

That simply means the expectations were wrong.

It really seems like the FAA may have approved a product based on performance history more than testing performance in a lab.

Which really wouldn't be all that bad, really. Kinda nice, actually. Lab testing is expensive, and the real world is a better test lab than the test labs anyway. I've been saying for a long time that it makes sense to support rules that once a [insert number here] of units and [insert number here] flight hours are flown on avionics only available to Experimental aircraft, the "experiment" can be deemed "done" and the device becomes installable in certified aircraft, perhaps with a mandate to track all reported problems and corrections along the way for outside review.

Maybe it's just as simple as the new EAA chief understanding the definition of "advocacy"?

Looking in my inbox this am, I got an offer of a $100 credit from AOPA if I apply for another credit card. Lemme think, which organization better represents my interests as a pilot and aircraft owner...

I'm up to my fourth or fifth hat offer, or maybe third and a couple of flight bags or something like that.

 

[nrpetersen]

My guess is that EAA has the resources and connections, and Dynon has the product. Having this STC etc should be low hanging $$$ fruit for both organizations with little technical risk compared to other EAA STCs.