dynon in Mooney's

[kris_adams]

I'm sure it's just wishful thinking but I sent an email to Dynon to see if they have any information they'd be willing to share.  While the D10A is nice, I'm holding out for the SkyView.  I also suggested some version of a kickstarter or gofundme to help move the process along.

I'll let you know if I hear anything.

-Kris

[kris_adams]

I got an answer from Dynon.  I'm sure they'd like to sell us all of their products but I was hoping for something a little more optimistic!

---------

haha, I personally love the idea Kris. I have forwarded your idea to the bigwigs who call those kind of shots!

Best Regards,
Dan Tennyson

Inside Sales Manager
Dynon Avionics Sales/Order
425-402-0433 ext 1101
sales@dynonavionics.com

[J. mitchell]

The more people write to Dynon, the better chance to get the 10A.  The squeaky wheel usually gets oiled first! 

[mccdeuce]

I think the EAA owns the STC so it's prob worth talking to them too. 

[NotarPilot]

5 hours ago, mccdeuce said:

I think the EAA owns the STC so it's prob worth talking to them too. 

I'm sure either would suffice. Maybe both. I would think Dynon would show the EAA the expressed interest to get the ball rolling.

[Yetti]

So at some point could the sign off be.  Using the performance data from other installed certified aircraft applications, deem this to be airworthy in this plane.

[mooniacX]

I spoke with Dynon yesterday. They said they have had lots of requests for Mooney's, but it is up to EAA as they are the owners of the STC. 

 

[PTK]

On April 29, 2016 at 1:29 PM, mooniacX said:

I spoke with Dynon yesterday. They said they have had lots of requests for Mooney's, but it is up to EAA as they are the owners of the STC. 

 

Something about this just doesn't sit quite right with me. It doesn't pass the "gut feeling" test. I have questions and I need clarifications:

We have a manufacturer, Dynon in this case, who doesn't own the STC for their product?! Who bears the responsibility?

Does this mean that main stream avionics manufacturers who have spend the money and time required to develop TSO avionics from the drawing board all the way to the cockpit of our aircraft suddenly find themselves in "competition" with bottom end manufacturers? 

How can this be possible? Have the EAA, FAA and Dynon told us? Was it a deal among drinking buddies in a smoky bar?

What do the major manufacturers i.e. Garmin have to say about this? They must be scratching their head wondering about the same thing!

What does installing such category avionics do to our aircraft values?

ASTM 3153-15 specifically states that software and hardware development assurance are not in its scope! And the standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety practices.

So who is that? The EAA or Dynon?

[Cruiser]

Peter,

You ask some important and valid questions, I do have have one issue however. 

What makes you say "bottom end manufacturers"? Do you know anything about Dynon? The quality of their product? Or the quality standards they manufacture to?

[Hank]

12 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

Peter,

You ask some important and valid questions, I do have have one issue however. 

What makes you say "bottom end manufacturers"? Do you know anything about Dynon? The quality of their product? Or the quality standards they manufacture to?

Peter knows Garmin products; to him, everything else is "bottom end," and he's not shy about speaking writing his opinion. 

[jclemens]

8 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

Peter,

You ask some important and valid questions, I do have have one issue however. 

What makes you say "bottom end manufacturers"? Do you know anything about Dynon? The quality of their product? Or the quality standards they manufacture to?

No, because they do not manufacture products that have to meet any standards, aka TSO/PMA.  That's why they are experimental.  A piece of paper from the EAA is not going to change that.  The responsibility falls on you, not Dynon or the EAA.  That's why they are priced accordingly.  An aircraft loaded with cheap experimental avionics, no matter how flashy, is definitely going to be valued less than one thats loaded with certified avionics.  

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, PTK said:

What do the major manufacturers i.e. Garmin have to say about this? They must be scratching their head wondering about the same thing!

When asked that specific question at SNF, John Young said "just wait" indicating the Gorilla has an offering in the works, besides the G3. That should keep you happy Peter.

[PTK]

1 hour ago, Cruiser said:

Peter,

You ask some important and valid questions, I do have have one issue however. 

What makes you say "bottom end manufacturers"? Do you know anything about Dynon? The quality of their product? Or the quality standards they manufacture to?

No Tom I don't. That's precisely my point.

And the EAA doesn't know either because they haven't told us! This is a case where a body, the EAA, is pushing an STC they obtained in a way unknown to us. The only thing they and we know is that they "tested" it in their Cessna 172 with FAA observation. Therefore I can't place much confidence in their claims that this is a "...breakthrough that will improve flight safety..."

By "bottom end manufacturers" I meant exactly that. I don't know Dynon's quality standards and certainly the EAA doesn't either.  An "observer" along for the ride to the proverbial 100$ burger is verry different than a TSO.

[Cruiser]

What about the thousands of units they have sold to the experimental market? Are you a member of the EAA? What is their reputation with their current customers?

You make it sound like they just "appeared" in the avionics marketplace with an unknown and untested product. This is totally false.

Remember the approval granted by the FAA is for BACKUP purposes ONLY. These units CANNOT replace any TC required equipment. 

By your analogy none of us should be allowed to have iPads is the cockpit since they don't even have an STC. Is Apple, Inc a "bottom end manufacturer" also?

[PTK]

21 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

What about the thousands of units they have sold to the experimental market? Are you a member of the EAA? What is their reputation with their current customers?

You make it sound like they just "appeared" in the avionics marketplace with an unknown and untested product. This is totally false.

Remember the approval granted by the FAA is for BACKUP purposes ONLY. These units CANNOT replace any TC required equipment. 

By your analogy none of us should be allowed to have iPads is the cockpit since they don't even have an STC. Is Apple, Inc a "bottom end manufacturer" also?

I believe you're mistaken Tom. 

According to the EAA and Dynon they claim they have  "...established an STC process for installation of the Dynon EFIS-D10A as a replacement for the airplane’s primary attitude indicator." Very different than an iPad.

Therefore they did just appear in the avionics market with an untested product and by them selling it and the EAA selling a piece of paper cannot be considered a breakthrough to safety!

 

[Cruiser]

Ok, sorry. I didn't state myself clearly. You are right they replace the AI but that is not a change to the Type Certificate. That was my point.

As for untested, why do you ignore all the experimental planes flying with these now?

[aviatoreb]

It is clearly a legal and regulatory break through achieving an STC for a Dynon D10a in a certified airplane.  Such a thing has never been done before and now this seems to open the flood gates.  Is the definition of break through, "only if done by Garmin"?

I strongly believe that there will soon be other formerly experimental offerings by Dynon, Garmin, and others.

I would take a scary uncertified Dynon any day over a vacuum powered certified instrument if we are comparing head to head reliability, no matter if the later is TSO'ed.  The regularity process has fallen behind the concept of "crowd source" tested which is what the experimental community has become.  Tested and debugged and critiqued in a thousand experimental airplanes is also a strong form of testing, and perhaps comparable to the traditional carefully orchestrated TSO testing process.  In fact, I would take the crowd source method as a better way to weed out the beta product to high quality and reliable.

Meanwhile, yes, I am holding out.  I have been wanting to install a Garmin GX3 in my airplane for years and now, my guess, it will be allowed very soon.

[Cruiser]

This might have something to do with it......

The FAA has a draft policy change coming for NORSEE equipment. Below is a partial quote from the document. emphasis is added by me.

Until recently, the FAA has not differentiated between non-required equipment and the special class of non-required equipment that can enhance safety. To support its mission, the FAA is implementing an approval process to allow installation of NORSEE in the general aviation (GA) and rotorcraft fleets. The intent is not to 2 bypass the existing certification processes or the current level of FAA oversight, but to standardize the approval process specific to NORSEE. Equipment approved as NORSEE has a variety of uses including— 1. Increasing overall situation awareness; 2. Providing additional information other than the aircraft primary system; 3. Providing independent warning, cautionary, or advisory indications; and 4. Providing additional occupant safety protection. Most NORSEE categories fall under the avionics, electronic instrument, and display categories. However, mechanical and other NORSEE categories can use the same methodology and evaluation approach, as outlined in this policy statement. The types of equipment that may be considered NORSEE include, but are not limited to the following: • Traffic advisory system, • Terrain advisory (such as a terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS)), • Attitude indicator, • Weather advisory, • Crashworthiness (such as energy-absorbing seats, seatbelts, and airbags), • Configuration advisory (such as gear advisory for floats and takeoff/landing configuration), • Supplemental indication (such as a fuel flow or fuel quantity indicator), • Monitoring/detection system (such as a smoke, carbon monoxide, or fire detector), • Extinguishing system (such as a fire extinguisher), and • Stability and control (such as an autopilot or stability augmentation system). The goal is to establish one policy that is scalable and adjustable to accommodate and encourage the installation of new technology safety enhancements into all aircraft product types.

[kris_adams]

Hopefully this progress will encourage some innovative products that can be retrofited by Garmin/Aspen/Dynon/whoever else.  I'd love to have a couple 10" screens (or maybe a 10" and a 7") from the same manufacturer that provide a glass panel/gps/com/weather/engine monitoring...without costing 100+ AMUs--As far as I can find this doesn't exist as a retrofit today. 

[RLCarter]

1 hour ago, PTK said:

By "bottom end manufacturers" I meant exactly that. I don't know Dynon's quality standards and certainly the EAA doesn't either.  An "observer" along for the ride to the proverbial 100$ burger is verry different than a TSO.

I can assure you that the EAA knows what Dynons standards are. This all comes from the Part 23 re-write, which is long over due.. Technology changes very rapidly, and the certification process takes way to long. I'd be willing to bet that by the time a product gets its blessing the manufacture is already in the process of getting the paper work in order for the next big break through. I have never understood why I can install a product like the Dynon Skyview in my experimental and have the FAA certify it for IFR, but install it in a certified aircraft and all hell breaks loose.... The component(s) has no idea what or where it is mounted in and would function the same reguardless. Spending major bucks on the on an aging GA aircraft makes no sense to me, spending a fraction of that might, but right now 6 gauges and an iPad works just fine even in IMC.

[Bennett]

I've flown behind two Dynon SkyView screens in my former DOVA LSA for several years, and they were absolutely trouble free, and the software updates were free and easy to install. I had one backup battery fail and it was replaced without cost to me.

I am very pleased with all my Garmin avionics in my current Mooney, and they replaced by early GTN 750 three times without cost to me.

Both companies have been responsive to my field findings of relatively minor problems, and both fixed those problems in the next software iteration.

Maybe it's how you approach the manufacturers. I have been treated more than fairly by both of these manufacturers. I wish I could say the same about Bendix/King/Honeywell.

I think that Dynon deserves a great deal of credit for building reliable and capable avionics at truly reasonable cost, and I hope their success and new STCs brings about some meaningful price competition. When I had my J panel rebuilt I went virtually all Garmin, paid their prices, and received fine products. If I had a choice to have Dynon SkyView screens, with their integrated autopilot installed at less than 30% of the cost? Absolutely! If Garmin was within 10 or 20 % of Dynon's costs it might be a difficult decision - mostly for resale considerations.

[steingar]

Yeah, the difference in experimental avionics and certified is just breathtaking.  No reason you can't crowdsource the reliability data.  Heaven forbid the FAA should think outside the box.

[bradp]

If I were the conventional wisdom unicorn and I could come up with my own approval process  for avionics, which would I choose?   Remember this is from a common sense standpoint only.

A. TSO with specific testing conditions on a very few n units during a short time.  

B. Field data from thousands of units in real world conditions over a long duration.

I'd choose B.  Let the experimental guys experiment and then use the data to port the experiments to the certificated world.   It is the only path forward for these aging airframes.  

[Hector]

21 minutes ago, Cruiser said: What about the thousands of units they have sold to the experimental market? Are you a member of the EAA? What is their reputation with their current customers?

You make it sound like they just "appeared" in the avionics marketplace with an unknown and untested product. This is totally false.

Remember the approval granted by the FAA is for BACKUP purposes ONLY. These units CANNOT replace any TC required equipment. 

By your analogy none of us should be allowed to have iPads is the cockpit since they don't even have an STC. Is Apple, Inc a "bottom end manufacturer" also?

I believe you're mistaken Tom. 

According to the EAA and Dynon they claim they have  "...established an STC process for installation of the Dynon EFIS-D10A as a replacement for the airplane’s primary attitude indicator." Very different than an iPad.

Therefore they did just appear in the avionics market with an untested product and by them selling it and the EAA selling a piece of paper cannot be considered a breakthrough to safety!

 

Far from untested. The FAA approved this because the reliability of the Dynon AI was far better than the "certified" AI that came with these aircraft.

[jetdriven]

21 hours ago, jclemens said:

No, because they do not manufacture products that have to meet any standards, aka TSO/PMA.  That's why they are experimental.  A piece of paper from the EAA is not going to change that.  The responsibility falls on you, not Dynon or the EAA.  That's why they are priced accordingly.  An aircraft loaded with cheap experimental avionics, no matter how flashy, is definitely going to be valued less than one thats loaded with certified avionics.  

It's funny because I know a guy Who's had a Dynon D10a installed in a Mooney for about 8 years.  Flies it IFR all the time.  Never an issue.