How to put pressure on FAA regarding non-TSOd avionics

Hcsims

Hcsims

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 18, 2014
Messages
24
Display Name
Display name:
Hcsims
I have a 1979 Tiger that I want to redo the panel on. This would be a complete new panel with purchase of Avidyne GPS, Avidyne Transponder, PS Engineering audio/com, EI 30P(TSOd engine monitor), a Dynon D100(pilot side) and D10a(rt side). I would then reuse my Stec30, and clock. The new panel would get new wiring, cb's(replacing fuses), & removal of the vacuum system. I calculate approx $36000 installed. Going all certified would add at least $13000.

Now the bad news......the Dynon/EAA STC only replaces the AI. You have to keep all the other steam instruments even though the D100 is giving you heading, vvi, airspeed, & turn slip. The Dynon, as well as MGL and GRT, build highly reliable EFIS systems and the FAA knows it. This is how the Dynon D100 got approved. The EAA presented how unreliable vacuum systems systems were vs the very popular and reliable Dynon system.

I am not enthusiastic about spending more to get all certified and I do not want to start a panel rebuild and have to keep a bunch of 1970s instruments. Glass is here and I would like to modernize as would thousands of other pilots/owners.

It seems to me there needs to be pressure brought on the FAA through AOPA and the EAA to enable this modern technology into the tens of thousands of Certified GA. With ADSB coming up in the next few years and aircraft visiting their avionics shops, this is the time to do updates that don't grossly exceed the value of the airplane while adding Situational Awareness, safety, reliability, and a less cluttered panel.
 
They don't even care what congress has to say.

I'd say maybe fire one fed a week until they make the changes, and if it takes over 6 months strip all of their pensions and government provided health care.

Ofcourse that would actually light a fire under their butts, doubt that would ever happen.
 
Hcsims said:
I have a 1979 Tiger that I want to redo the panel on. This would be a complete new panel with purchase of Avidyne GPS, Avidyne Transponder, PS Engineering audio/com, EI 30P(TSOd engine monitor), a Dynon D100(pilot side) and D10a(rt side). I would then reuse my Stec30, and clock. The new panel would get new wiring, cb's(replacing fuses), & removal of the vacuum system. I calculate approx $36000 installed. Going all certified would add at least $13000.

Now the bad news......the Dynon/EAA STC only replaces the AI. You have to keep all the other steam instruments even though the D100 is giving you heading, vvi, airspeed, & turn slip. The Dynon, as well as MGL and GRT, build highly reliable EFIS systems and the FAA knows it. This is how the Dynon D100 got approved. The EAA presented how unreliable vacuum systems systems were vs the very popular and reliable Dynon system.

I am not enthusiastic about spending more to get all certified and I do not want to start a panel rebuild and have to keep a bunch of 1970s instruments. Glass is here and I would like to modernize as would thousands of other pilots/owners.

It seems to me there needs to be pressure brought on the FAA through AOPA and the EAA to enable this modern technology into the tens of thousands of Certified GA. With ADSB coming up in the next few years and aircraft visiting their avionics shops, this is the time to do updates that don't grossly exceed the value of the airplane while adding Situational Awareness, safety, reliability, and a less cluttered panel.
Click to expand...


I hear ya, but you're tilting at the windmills. Your Tiger is a de facto stretch RV-9A. But ExAB is not interested in 4 seaters, which is why we fly spam cans. You're gonna have to go exab if you want a modern panel for non-extortion racket money, and that largely means downsizing to two seats. Just the way it is.

I'm not being flippant, we have all vented about our frustrations with the part 23 re-write. But all you've hinted at was already addressed to completion during the Aviation Rulemaking Committee's recommendations to Congress in 2013. Specifically, the final rulemaking proposal dated June 5, 2013, Chapter 3.3.5. It was called primary non-commercial category, and it addressed all you're *itching about...... aaaand it got shelved with prejudice by the FAA's 2-year-late implementation of the federal law originally signed by President Obama.
They sidestepped the recommendation altogether. Bait n switch. Shelved. Not a peep, like it was never written. There's your answer.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
But ExAB is not interested in 4 seaters, which is why we fly spam cans. You're gonna have to go exab if you want a modern panel for non-extortion racket money, and that largely means downsizing to two seats.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing your point, but there are a bunch of 4-seat homebuilt aircraft. RV-10, Glasair Sportsman, Lancair just to name a few.
 
Actually, I think that the FAA is finally coming around. Just yesterday, I talked with Trio Avionics about an STC for their autopilot. Previously, they said that it was not worth it due to the cost. But yesterday, they said that they hope to have an STC in place by Sun n Fun. They are working with the FAA, who is actively pushing the effort. The problem, according to the guy at Trio is that this is new ground for the guys at the FAA. For decades there was a process in place that now has to be reinvented and approved. The guys at the bottom have been told by management to make all of this happen. But, as always the devil is in the details. What makes me optimistic it that the bottom guys at the FAA are looking to the venders for help in developing the new approval process. i think that the hard part will be getting management to actually make good on what they have said that they want. Replacing one expensive process with another expensive process is of no value and the vendors have told the FAA just that.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Actually, I think that the FAA is finally coming around. Just yesterday, I talked with Trio Avionics about an STC for their autopilot. Previously, they said that it was not worth it due to the cost. But yesterday, they said that they hope to have an STC in place by Sun n Fun. They are working with the FAA, who is actively pushing the effort. The problem, according to the guy at Trio is that this is new ground for the guys at the FAA. For decades there was a process in place that now has to be reinvented and approved. The guys at the bottom have been told by management to make all of this happen. But, as always the devil is in the details. What makes me optimistic it that the bottom guys at the FAA are looking to the venders for help in developing the new approval process. i think that the hard part will be getting management to actually make good on what they have said that they want. Replacing one expensive process with another expensive process is of no value and the vendors have told the FAA just that.
Click to expand...

Exactly, for the small airplane owner "now" doesn't strike me as the time to buy anything other than WAAS/LPV GPS and whatever is needed for ADS-B. I'm 32 right now and have seen several evolutions take place over the last 10 years. It wasn't that long ago ProLine 21 packages were the "new" thing. They aren't anymore, and already being REPLACED. https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Dat...k/Pro_Line_21_Integrated_Avionics_System.aspx

The WAAS/LPV upgrade for G1000 is a pretty good example what it costs to upgrade fully integrated systems. It costs EVEN more.
 
Thanks for all the input.....I think the rewrite of part 23 will happen. The FAA will eventually have to do something since technology is far surpassing them. I mean "vacuum pumps" and little mechanical instruments in 2016? I do not want to start on Magneto Ignition
Pressure needs to be brought via AOPA or the EAA for a reasonable workaround to part 23.
I'm having this conversation with my Dallas FSDO. The first one was disheartening as the administrator thought I was rewiring a B747 and so he told me a laundry list of things I would need to do that cost a lot.
I guess I will just get ADSB compliant and Velcro my IPAD to the panel.

At Oshkosh this year, Dick Rutan said it best, "the FAA should be embarrassed at the state of GA." He was referring to the lack of affordable modern tech for certified light aircraft.
 
Remember that these are the same clowns who didn't think Bob Hoover was capable of flying an aircraft after he masterfully brought a t-28 in for landing when most wouldn't have.
 
donjohnston said:
Maybe I'm missing your point, but there are a bunch of 4-seat homebuilt aircraft. RV-10, Glasair Sportsman, Lancair just to name a few.
Click to expand...

Not for RV-6 money there aren't. That was my point.
 
One must remember the Congress and the FAA get pressure from both sides of this controversy.

The " O MY GOD that thing cold fall thru my roof gang" seems to be able to scream louder than anyone.
 
You could get the Dynon D-10A... which fits where your AI currently should be. You can fly 100% from that but the steam is still primary.

What's your goal on the glass?

Also, you should keep in mind that as of now the AP features of the D-100 are NOT covered in the STC. I asked the Dynon guys about that at OSH when they told me that C177RG and PA32-300 did have available STC's.

Good news is that times are changing, so patience may pay off.
 
Tom-D said:
One must remember the Congress and the FAA get pressure from both sides of this controversy.

The " O MY GOD that thing cold fall thru my roof gang" seems to be able to scream louder than anyone.
Click to expand...

I suspect the sheer number of people employed by "the process" and pressure on Senators by companies that make avionics "screams" louder than the "sky is falling" crowd.

The chicken littles are just used as air cover for the corruption and money going to re-election campaigns. USA Today helps out by flying as a wingman.

Keeps all the entrenched manufacturers paid and the politicians paid and nothing changes. Hoardes of people having a "suck of the salve" at every level in avionics.
 
denverpilot said:
I suspect the sheer number of people employed by "the process" and pressure on Senators by companies that make avionics "screams" louder than the "sky is falling" crowd.
Click to expand...
Youbetcha,, but what excuse do they use.??
 
rolivi said:
Good news is that times are changing, so patience may pay off.
Click to expand...


qrjc02.jpg

Breaking news. Non-TSO avionics for everyone! This page last updated: February 2011....:rolleyes:
 
The reason that can be cited is that nonTSOd EFIS are safe and reliable is because empirical data says so. Tens of thousands of experimentals are flying safely, IFR, with superb SA. Synthetic Vision, large easy to read AI, Flight Director, etc.......all FO 1/4 to 1/5 the cost of certified.
The FAA could cite that after a 100000 hrs flight time with X failure rates or lower met, then it can be added to Certified GA fleets. The manufacturer would have to show their system is compatible with Garmin or other GPS systems.
This would already be solved if I was running the program
 
donjohnston said:
So you think that a 4-place plane with a 6-cylinder, 260hp engine should cost the same as a 2-place plane with a 4 cylinder, 160hp engine?

Interesting point.
Click to expand...

Of course not, but that wasn't my point. My point was why can't exAB provide a grumman tiger? Why does it have to be this false dichotomy between sardine can RV-4/6 and Cirrus pricing/6-banger performance to get access to a third/fourth seat? I just wonder about the relative absence of 4 seater/4 banger aircraft.

I went into the Vans forum and did a search for 4 banger RV-10 and the responses were very interesting to me. In a nutshell, "lack of legitimate demand" they conclude. That response baffled me, considering the tired and repetitive nature of threads about this very topic year after year on here. In the end it reminded me that, in the words of George Carlin: "it's a big #uckin' club...and you ain't in it." Which is why I suggested to the OP in an earlier post to figure out if his airplane is a forever airplane and if so, just save up for the avionics upgrade. Or do without until a point where the mission can be done by a 2-seater. I wouldn't hold my breath on exab supporting the 4 seater 4 banger need though.
 
Thousands of non-TSO'd KX-170s have been installed in aircraft certified in he normal category, for 5 decades.
 
donjohnston said:
So you think that a 4-place plane with a 6-cylinder, 260hp engine should cost the same as a 2-place plane with a 4 cylinder, 160hp engine?

Interesting point.
Click to expand...
There isn't that much difference in manufacturing costs, liability of 4 seats is where the cost per aircraft kicks in.
 
kgruber said:
Thousands of non-TSO'd KX-170s have been installed in aircraft certified in he normal category, for 5 decades.
Click to expand...
There is a bit of a difference between radios and substituting electronic instruments and standard ones.
 
Tom-D said:
There isn't that much difference in manufacturing costs, liability of 4 seats is where the cost per aircraft kicks in.
Click to expand...
Bingo! Somebody gets it. ;)

Just like in medical products, in aviation, a significant portion of the costs can be attributed to liability. :mad:

And don't forget the additional $20,000 in engine costs.
 
James331 said:
They don't even care what congress has to say.

I'd say maybe fire one fed a week until they make the changes, and if it takes over 6 months strip all of their pensions and government provided health care.

Ofcourse that would actually light a fire under their butts, doubt that would ever happen.
Click to expand...

I like your approach. Change your culture now or we will do it for you by firing one manager a week until part 23 rewrite is complete and this certified crap is out of the regs.

Last time I checked certified planes crash the same way every other plane does...
 
Hey, let's just get rid of all the regs and just let anybody fly anything anywhere at anytime.
 
It's not a black and white like that Dog, but there are changes that need to be made and they were ordered to make, it shouldn't just be us citizens who feel repercussions for not "doing what we are told" If I don't do what my boss tells me to do, chances are I'll loose my job, if the FAA doesn't do what the people/congress tell them, leadership should be fired till they fall in line.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Hey, let's just get rid of all the regs and just let anybody fly anything anywhere at anytime.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that except I've seen the crap box cars people drive with their entire young family in them. Some controls are necessary but the reliability of the newer avionics should be excepted. $6,000 for a transponder or a radio or a gps seems rediculous when $150 for a car gps, lifetime maps is available; $150 for radio that auto syncs with any connection, BT or wifi in your car.. It's not that these certified electronics are any better, just that to get the cert cost a small fortune. Experimental with their less expensive stuff have proven that.
Hell, just allow portable aviation gpses like the 496 or arias or ipads. Most of the gpses installed are not critical to the safety of flight. When they are, write the rule to say the data must be current.
 
I've always said "let me buy non-certified stuff and just make me have a backup". The statistical numbers against dual-failures are pretty damn high. And one could easily afford two vs one certified. That's the rub in current pricing.

But if they allow that, their buddies at the certified shops call up the Senator and a ****storm starts.
 
The funny thing is - is that TSO'd avionics were intended to be a shoe that fits all.

The certification process is not all that daunting and the TSO process allows self certification to occur.

Frankly going through the process on over a dozen applications for various components - I don't really know if I would want non-TSO'd equipment in the aircraft. Either that or I would expect that a aircraft component manufacturer would environmentally test the units, vibrate them, insure that voltage wouldn't take them out or normal aviation fluids ....... and make pretty darn sure that weren't causing EMI/RFI harm to other systems.

You would want to do this to keep your customers happy and not make them your unofficial test pilots (with the liability squarely on your shoulders)

I have seen experimental documentation and ASTM documentation - it doesn't cut any muster with any accepted quality system - Build what you say your going to build

Individual craftsmanship is not an ideal in a production environment

Aviation is expensive because there are so few participating - nothing more nothing less

And when I sat down and talked to my Senator - Yes I did point out exactly that. The FARS were written in blood - but streamlining the process like TSO was intended, is the way to go to reduce costs and get the FAA to back off of the death grip on STC of TSO'd products.

Anybody who castigates the TSO system doesn't know what they are talking about - I have heard platitudes coming from EAA leaders that are just flat wrong.
 
Scott Philiben said:
The funny thing is - is that TSO'd avionics were intended to be a shoe that fits all.

The certification process is not all that daunting and the TSO process allows self certification to occur.

Frankly going through the process on over a dozen applications for various components - I don't really know if I would want non-TSO'd equipment in the aircraft. Either that or I would expect that a aircraft component manufacturer would environmentally test the units, vibrate them, insure that voltage wouldn't take them out or normal aviation fluids ....... and make pretty darn sure that weren't causing EMI/RFI harm to other systems.

You would want to do this to keep your customers happy and not make them your unofficial test pilots (with the liability squarely on your shoulders)

I have seen experimental documentation and ASTM documentation - it doesn't cut any muster with any accepted quality system - Build what you say your going to build

Individual craftsmanship is not an ideal in a production environment

Aviation is expensive because there are so few participating - nothing more nothing less

And when I sat down and talked to my Senator - Yes I did point out exactly that. The FARS were written in blood - but streamlining the process like TSO was intended, is the way to go to reduce costs and get the FAA to back off of the death grip on STC of TSO'd products.

Anybody who castigates the TSO system doesn't know what they are talking about - I have heard platitudes coming from EAA leaders that are just flat wrong.
Click to expand...

That ignores the fact that in flight testing can be fine under the correct circumstances, and nobody I know even trusts a TSO'd or certified black box slide in replacement the day it goes in to go launch into zero/zero. And plenty of certified garbage has failed the day it was shoved into the panel.

If I could buy a non-certified PAIR of even different manufacturer boxes, say, one as a backup -- and fly behind it for X hours VFR and eyeball it like a hawk for any signs at all of misbehavior, and then do a bit of time in soft IFR with it, and then get the "blessing" to fly it for whatever purpose after it behaves for a total of Y hours...

...it would STILL cost less than the certified single box that's a single point of failure in the overall panel configuration.

It's the same engineering mentality as RAID. These disks are too expensive, so let's put a bunch of cheaper disks in as a system backing each other up. If one craps the bed, I don't care, I replace it.

One could load up a panel with NICE gear and lots of redundancy for a lot less than one certified box. If FAA allowed that, certified would have to justify their "cost of certification" excuses for their price tags, or compete and offer the low end stuff to pair up with other's low end stuff in redundant configurations.

Same thing as everyone does in server farms. High density, small, cheap, powerful machines stacked multiple cabinets deep. One fails? Don't care. It's job was already picked up and handled by another.

That's just how the economics work best when China cranks out stuff in bulk cheaper than anywhere else on the planet can afford to do.

EVERY other electronics industry does it excepting perhaps DoD for secret squirrel stuff. Bulk equipment and spares. Because it's really really inexpensive. Even after you pay someone to manage the failures and the RMAs it's still cheaper than buying "one big box" to do anything these days.
 
Take it up and buzz around the patch - Well take it from someone that supplies to this market, you will lose money. The product will not operate correctly, the pilot will want his aircraft returned to its original configuration, performed on your dime and throw in his lawyers kids braces. Oh yeah you will get a box of parts back with no packing or care - COD.

The reality is that this is a Mom and Pop business by and large - back to the most salient point that the GA market is not large enough to support viable series production

I'd rather have the pilot legacy aircraft population be able to pop in an iPad on his or her own and use that for cockpit function with downloadable software - 2 for redundancy

So for sake of arguement - you are allowed/ required to put in two iPad Pros in your cockpit - that's $2,000 - You have to get the biggest ones for software

And because the operating system changes you will need a subscription service like Foreflight - but it is $300 dollars per year

in 5 years or so your iPads will be obsolete and no longer supported by Apple - so you have invested $5,500 in this just for the panel

To make this change it cost you another $5,000 for labor and the new sheet metal, wiring and panel work --- More like $10K

Maybe even more because you will all want it to be oriented a little different or have this new do dad.

You will also have another $5K in new sensors and interfaces - as you will find that all the crap in your aircraft is not really performing to a level consistent with a modern cockpit interface.

This concept that the government is somehow preventing you from enjoying aviation and somebody is getting rich is the equivalent of watching people chase rainbows and unicorns

This is america and we should be able to fly viable cross country IFR capable aircraft for $25K is just that, a big a pipe dream.

Considering the aviation market size alone - that kind of performance should cost you 4 times what a Tesla costs you - and low and behold yep that's what it costs

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It always costs far more to bring something old up to current standards. My best friend has a rocking business restoring 1960's and early 1970's Porsche 911's

With the car shell costing the price of a reasonable aircraft $60K to $100K - they add $100K in restoration and $40K in engine work.

The same is true to bring a rocking Single Comanche up to current standards - labor of love and not economics.

If you modernize the car like Singer in LA - double that amount.

Sorry to let you in an a secret - there is no free lunch

And another thing is that you will have to wait hours on the phone for customer support as all the dedicated Mom & Pops will have vacated the market space.

Be careful what you wish for - it might just be granted to you
 
Last edited:
This thread starts out with a fundamental impossibility at its core. To wit, there is NO WAY to apply "pressure" to the FAA, any more than you can influence the orbit of Venus.

Once you accept that, everything makes sense.

The last estimate I got on installing a modern panel in our Piper Pathfinder was $50,000. Instead, I sold the plane, bought an RV-8, and installed a MORE sophisticated panel for $11,000. It's been a terrific upgrade, and I encourage everyone who is interested in flying glass to investigate the homebuilt world of aviation.
 
Jay Honeck said:
It's been a terrific upgrade, and I encourage everyone who is interested in flying glass to investigate the homebuilt world of aviation.
Click to expand...

Oh my god! Homebuilt? That's almost as crazy dangerous as flying to Gastons. What are you drinking down there in Port A?
 
Scott Philiben said:
Take it up and buzz around the patch - Well take it from someone that supplies to this market, you will lose money. The product will not operate correctly, the pilot will want his aircraft returned to its original configuration, performed on your dime and throw in his lawyers kids braces. Oh yeah you will get a box of parts back with no packing or care - COD.

The reality is that this is a Mom and Pop business by and large - back to the most salient point that the GA market is not large enough to support viable series production

I'd rather have the pilot legacy aircraft population be able to pop in an iPad on his or her own and use that for cockpit function with downloadable software - 2 for redundancy

So for sake of arguement - you are allowed/ required to put in two iPad Pros in your cockpit - that's $2,000 - You have to get the biggest ones for software

And because the operating system changes you will need a subscription service like Foreflight - but it is $300 dollars per year

in 5 years or so your iPads will be obsolete and no longer supported by Apple - so you have invested $5,500 in this just for the panel

To make this change it cost you another $5,000 for labor and the new sheet metal, wiring and panel work --- More like $10K

Maybe even more because you will all want it to be oriented a little different or have this new do dad.

You will also have another $5K in new sensors and interfaces - as you will find that all the crap in your aircraft is not really performing to a level consistent with a modern cockpit interface.

This concept that the government is somehow preventing you from enjoying aviation and somebody is getting rich is the equivalent of watching people chase rainbows and unicorns

This is america and we should be able to fly viable cross country IFR capable aircraft for $25K is just that, a big a pipe dream.

Considering the aviation market size alone - that kind of performance should cost you 4 times what a Tesla costs you - and low and behold yep that's what it costs

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It always costs far more to bring something old up to current standards. My best friend has a rocking business restoring 1960's and early 1970's Porsche 911's

With the car shell costing the price of a reasonable aircraft $60K to $100K - they add $100K in restoration and $40K in engine work.

The same is true to bring a rocking Single Comanche up to current standards - labor of love and not economics.

If you modernize the car like Singer in LA - double that amount.

Sorry to let you in an a secret - there is no free lunch

And another thing is that you will have to wait hours on the phone for customer support as all the dedicated Mom & Pops will have vacated the market space.

Be careful what you wish for - it might just be granted to you
Click to expand...

I don't know what any of that blather has to do with certified vs non-certified panel mount avionics. Nobody was talking about iPads. Even Garmin sees a large enough market to make them.

My point was that we have a method to certify entire aircraft into the experimental category and fly people around in them IFR, it should be much easier to "retrofit certify" a pile of "experimental" avionics into a certified aircraft panel and fly it a while and do the exact same thing the "entire aircraft is experimental" folks do every day.

In fact, their flight time behind those boxes and tracking of failures and fixes should be part of that process. Add in a requirement to have two types of system for redundancy, and voila... Orders of magnitude better avionics than a standard six pack. (Although being an old guy, I'm kinda partial to the six pack anyway. Pretty simple stuff, failure modes are well known, and happen often, and they're "certified".)

It's not like the certified stuff was really "right" when released anyway. What software version is the latest for a G1000 and how many bugs were fixed since release? :)
 
rolivi said:
Oh my god! Homebuilt? That's almost as crazy dangerous as flying to Gastons. What are you drinking down there in Port A?
Click to expand...

lol I know, right?

Frankly, on a more serious note, when I started looking at homebuilts, I was extremely worried about quality. I had experience buying certificated planes, but with Pipers and Cessnas you can assume a certain, basic level of workmanship. It may be a crappy, basic level, but it's a minimum standard that everyone accepts.

With homebuilts, there's no such thing. You can get everything from a work of art, with every piece crafted by a true artisan, to something that Bubba pop-riveted together in his shed. And to the untrained eye, they can look pretty similar, especially with a pretty paint job.

So, I hired an expert to help me find and evaluate RVs, with great results. I now own an aircraft that was built to a much higher standard than any certified plane, simply because the builder was a true craftsman.

If anyone is interested in buying an RV, Tom Berge (his company is RV Transitions) is your man. He's a one-stop shop that can take you from zero to insurance check out, and you will end up with a great airplane. If you need his contact info, PM me.
 
This is a very frustrating topic for me too. I was on-hand for Jack Pelton's (EAA) Q&A session at Triple Tree yesterday. STCs were part of his discussion. Now that they have their Dynon D10 STC they are going after an autopilot next. I asked him if there was any plans to go after more robust glass panel systems like the Dynon Skyview or Garmin G3X. He said he thought those would be much more difficult to STC but now that the door has been opened, EAA was going to keep pursuing any and everything they think would be beneficial for GA.

I have a Cherokee that I have totally refurbished with the exception of the instrument panel. I have new radios but not instruments. I so wish I could install a Garmin G3X or Dynon Skyview so I could replace my antiquated steam guages. The costs of the certified glass panel systems make absolutely no sense for an old spam can. I just wish the FAA would come up with a more streamlined certification process for electronics for airplanes that are 300hp/6 seat or less that would be more realistic for that category of airplane. I just have difficulty understanding why it is okay for the RV owner to use a G3X or Skyview system but they are taboo for the rest of us that have production planes. At least now with the Dynon D10 and Garmin G5 STCs there is a glimer of hope.
 
I don't even need to replace the steam, I just want to move the steam to the right side and put a skyview in the left side.

Bob
 
unsafervguy said:
I don't even need to replace the steam, I just want to move the steam to the right side and put a skyview in the left side.
Click to expand...

Another common sense solution based on redundancy of cheaper systems, that's not allowed.
 
James331 said:
It's not a black and white like that Dog, but there are changes that need to be made and they were ordered to make, it shouldn't just be us citizens who feel repercussions for not "doing what we are told" If I don't do what my boss tells me to do, chances are I'll loose my job, if the FAA doesn't do what the people/congress tell them, leadership should be fired till they fall in line.
Click to expand...
If you think the FAA is bad, you don't even want to go to the VA hospitals their still a mess and they can't get rid of the bad people.
 
brien23 said:
If you think the FAA is bad, you don't even want to go to the VA hospitals their still a mess and they can't get rid of the bad people.
Click to expand...

Chit can them all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top