TruTrak Autopilot Pre Order's / Status Update

[cliffy]

Question-

Is Dynon or TT/BK shipping ANY autopilot systems at all to anyone even those previously STC'd 

or even the experimental market? 

Is it an STC issue or is it a complete parts issue?

It defies logic that there is a willing market out there (in all aspects of GA) for autopilots and no one currently in the arena even has a word to say about what the hold up is

I talked with a guy from the FAA Washington at OSH  and he wants to hear if there is a problem with the ACOs or FSDOs out in the field in getting these A/Ps approved in a timely manner. If its an FAA issue he would look into it. 

He also said that autopilot approvals were in the arena of NORSEE and should be able to go that route

Why have none of them tried that route for certification? 

It would be nice if we had some answers instead of crickets!!

[Hank]

1 hour ago, McMooney said:

@jeev, are you still offering TruTrak installs ?

 

@Jeev, question for you. Lots of interest!

[Lionudakis]

33 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Question-

Is Dynon or TT/BK shipping ANY autopilot systems at all to anyone even those previously STC'd 

or even the experimental market? 

Is it an STC issue or is it a complete parts issue?

It defies logic that there is a willing market out there (in all aspects of GA) for autopilots and no one currently in the arena even has a word to say about what the hold up is

I talked with a guy from the FAA Washington at OSH  and he wants to hear if there is a problem with the ACOs or FSDOs out in the field in getting these A/Ps approved in a timely manner. If its an FAA issue he would look into it. 

He also said that autopilot approvals were in the arena of NORSEE and should be able to go that route

Why have none of them tried that route for certification? 

It would be nice if we had some answers instead of crickets!!

It sounds like BK is running into parts issues again. The Aerocruze I just received was paid almost a year ago once they received their STC (after the 3rd go around, TT, then BK, then Duncan)  Dynon has plenty of parts available for STC'd or Exp. Their issue is getting the FAA to do anything productive. The FAA is the hold up, for them and the others small companies       ( except 1)  Trio has been in limbo for over a year for a cessna 150 autopilot thats been flying, just waiting.. that ridiculous. 

I've gone down the NORSEE route on this. The faa orders specifically state AFCS are STC only. That cuts off field approvals, DER, or NORSEE. 

[Shep.G]

2 minutes ago, Lionudakis said:

It sounds like BK is running into parts issues again. The Aerocruze I just received was paid almost a year ago once they received their STC (after the 3rd go around, TT, then BK, then Duncan)  

Yes exactly this ^^ and this sentiment was repeated to me yesterday. Year-ago guys are just now receiving their units, with about 15 units on backorder. Lead times on new orders essentially "God knows when". 

It does indeed sound like 100% a parts issue for TT, and an STC issue for Dynon.

 

@Lionudakis you installing that TT yourself? What are you pairing it with on the panel? Would love to know how it works out on your M20C. Would also appreciate any measurements you can provide, as Duncan was unable to (they stated BK did not attach any). I may very well just precut a slot until I can obtain a unit.

[Lionudakis]

1 minute ago, Shep.G said:

Yes exactly this ^^ and this sentiment was repeated to me yesterday. Year-ago guys are just now receiving their units, with about 15 units on backorder. Lead times on new orders essentially "God knows when". 

It does indeed sound like 100% a parts issue for TT, and an STC issue for Dynon.

 

@Lionudakis you installing that TT yourself? What are you pairing it with on the panel? Would love to know how it works out on your M20C. Would also appreciate any measurements you can provide, as Duncan was unable to (they stated BK did not attach any). I may very well just precut a slot until I can obtain a unit.

I'm installing the Aerocruze in a friends J, paired with an Aspen ProMax. I got the plans some time ago, looks pretty straight forward compared to the GFC install. I installed an Aerocruze in a 172 earlier this year coupled to an Aspen E5. The owner loves it. His instructor who owns a 172 with GFC said aside from the UI, it handles turbulance much better. Thats just one comparison, but good to hear. 

[cliffy]

1 hour ago, Lionudakis said:

I've gone down the NORSEE route on this. The faa orders specifically state AFCS are STC only. That cuts off field approvals, DER, or NORSEE. 

This seems to contradict what the Washington FAA guy told me

He was also quite surprised that there was an issue with the STC process on their part. (If its true) 

Can you or anyone point me to "the orders" so I can read them? 

[Lionudakis]

2 hours ago, cliffy said:

This seems to contradict what the Washington FAA guy told me

He was also quite surprised that there was an issue with the STC process on their part. (If its true) 

Can you or anyone point me to "the orders" so I can read them? 

This is what I've been directed to by both a DER, and ASI from FSDO.  I cant find squat on the faa site anymore. This is what I was directed too

https://www.csobeech.com/files/FAA-Major_Repair_Alteration_Job-Aid.pdf

pg 13

[hammdo]

[Skates97]

7 hours ago, hammdo said:

Ditto, not doing that either. I’ll continue honing my ‘hand flying’ skills a bit longer or go Garmin…

-Don

I'm glad I gave up and shelled out the money for the GFC500. I've been happily flying with it since May 2021.

[47U]

5 hours ago, Shep.G said:

Would also appreciate any measurements you can provide,

Are you looking for the panel footprint?  I know the brochure says brand ‘C and P’… but the same control head options are used in the STC Duncan got approved for Mooney.

I can only guess that the same supply chain issues getting parts for the Duncan/Mooney STC install is also affecting parts availability to do new installs in brand C and P?  

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, 47U said:

Are you looking for the panel footprint?  I know the brochure says brand ‘C and P’… but the same control head options are used in the STC Duncan got approved for Mooney.

I can only guess that the same supply chain issues getting parts for the Duncan/Mooney STC install is also affecting parts availability to do new installs in brand C and P?  

They're all the same parts-wise.    The only differences are the firmware configurations.    So, yes, the same parts problems affect everybody.

I'm guessing there's some rare part in there and BK isn't willing to do a respin of the design to avoid the hard-to-get parts.   The market is small and if it would require recertification it'd be a total no-go.   I think even the experimental units are unobtainium and have been for a while.

[Navi]

14 minutes ago, EricJ said:

They're all the same parts-wise.    The only differences are the firmware configurations.    So, yes, the same parts problems affect everybody.

I'm guessing there's some rare part in there and BK isn't willing to do a respin of the design to avoid the hard-to-get parts.   The market is small and if it would require recertification it'd be a total no-go.   I think even the experimental units are unobtainium and have been for a while.

A bit more... 

Hardware and firmware are the same in all TT/AC units of the same firmware version. The differences are in the suggested "setup settings" (pilot changeable) and the installation brackets to mount the servos, all of which are unique to different models... 

The brackets are the "one off" stumbling block with the different aircraft and are the heart of the individual aircraft type STC approval process. The STC for the AP is relatively static, but the difficult part is getting the STC approval for the amendments in the AML to include each each model of aircraft. 

Nav

[cliffy]

I know of the job aid for major alterations but I'm not talking major alterations here - only NORSEE approval for autopilots (stability augmentation devices)

Here is a clip for the FAAs policy statement PS-AIR 21.8-1503  NORSEE POLICY

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 improvement,  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).

So who ever is referring to the STC route as being the only way to get approval doesn't know of what they are talking about  This is just what I was talking about with the Washington based FAA guy at OSH

The question remains why haven't the manufactures gone this route? 

Were they told by a FSDO or ACO that NORSEE was something they wouldn't do? 

Why make the decision to go STC IF in fact NORSEE was designed as a shorter simpler way of getting approval for installation?

Why did Dynon have to change ACOs trying to get something done? 

IS the issue Dynon and their relationship with the FAA or is it in the basement of the FAA somewhere? 

I have my Washington contact and I might as well write a letter of inquiry as obviously no one else on either side is talking 

I have forced movement from certain FAA "sections" in the past with the use of proper inquiry to the proper outer offices in the past. The monolith can be moved if it is frozen in place by diddle-dallying officials. 

Are we sure that the hold up is ONLY within the hallways of the FAA for Dynon?

I'm dropping any thought of TT/BK due to their terrible marketing communications. They frankly don't care as was shown by how empty their display at OSH was   NO foot traffic that I saw for 3 days. No answers No one knew anything  No communications. No one with any authority was even there They just passed it off to Duncan.  Duncan had no idea either then

[ArtVandelay]

Didn’t we go through this before? I vaguely remember Avidyne promising support for Mooneys after introducing DFC90.

[cliffy]

Kind of feels like being the red headed stepchild

[EricJ]

13 hours ago, cliffy said:

I know of the job aid for major alterations but I'm not talking major alterations here - only NORSEE approval for autopilots (stability augmentation devices)

Here is a clip for the FAAs policy statement PS-AIR 21.8-1503  NORSEE POLICY

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 improvement,  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).

So who ever is referring to the STC route as being the only way to get approval doesn't know of what they are talking about  This is just what I was talking about with the Washington based FAA guy at OSH

The question remains why haven't the manufactures gone this route? 

Were they told by a FSDO or ACO that NORSEE was something they wouldn't do? 

Why make the decision to go STC IF in fact NORSEE was designed as a shorter simpler way of getting approval for installation?

Why did Dynon have to change ACOs trying to get something done? 

IS the issue Dynon and their relationship with the FAA or is it in the basement of the FAA somewhere? 

I have my Washington contact and I might as well write a letter of inquiry as obviously no one else on either side is talking 

I have forced movement from certain FAA "sections" in the past with the use of proper inquiry to the proper outer offices in the past. The monolith can be moved if it is frozen in place by diddle-dallying officials. 

Are we sure that the hold up is ONLY within the hallways of the FAA for Dynon?

I'm dropping any thought of TT/BK due to their terrible marketing communications. They frankly don't care as was shown by how empty their display at OSH was   NO foot traffic that I saw for 3 days. No answers No one knew anything  No communications. No one with any authority was even there They just passed it off to Duncan.  Duncan had no idea either then

It seems to be the difference between the D.13h and D.13h(1) entries in the FAA Job Aid doc cited above.   A simple single-axis system like a wing leveler might be achievable via NORSEE, but a full-on autopilot requires an STC.    At least, that's how I'm reading the difference between those.   I've previously taken the interpretation that you do, though, that the way NORSEE was originally promoted seemed to indicated that autopilots were a good example of what was supposed to be under that umbrella.   Maybe it just wasn't possible under other regs or something, who knows.

That said, though, I'd think there'd be a huge market for a low-cost wing leveler done under NORSEE, but they don't seem to be available.

[cliffy]

I also noticed that distinction but they didn't make the same caveat on the NORSEE policy letter. 

I'm left wondering if the ACOs only quote the STC route as a way to avoid diving into NORSEE

Maybe they also do that the the manufacturer.

It would be a Section 2 "Raises above minor" situation in NORSEE but the hurdles are not that much higher. 

I'm going to draft a letter to my Washington contact to inquire about the situation. 

[Shep.G]

Just thought I'd add to this, in case the news had not broke yet for anyone.

Got off the phone with Dynon rep a moment ago, chatting about a Skyview package. Rep alluded that their AP STC is only going to cover J/K models (I saw they were trying to umbrella many short/mid bodies together). "Hopeful" expectations for the C, but it would require ACQUIRING a C - and backtracking to attain another STC. Unfortunate

[KSMooniac]

The FAA has definitely been putting all autopilots under the STC route, and restricting the AML tighter than ever for several years now.  Dynon has been at an extreme disadvantage as a relative newcomer to the certified world when compared to Garmin or King/Honeywell (chuckle), AND they have had until very recently, the unfortunate luck of having to report to the same ACO that got pantsed by Boeing with the Max fiasco.  That office will never get embarrassed again!  They'll protect themselves by not approving anything.  A Dynon rep told me at OSH that due to the latest FAA re-org, they now have to report through Alaska, and he was unsure if that will be an improvement or not compared to Seattle.

I know the FAA is short-staffed and just did a major re-org this summer, nation-wide.  From what I've gleaned from my contacts, it is likely not for the better.  It is frustrating that it has evolved this way.

I've been holding out for Dynon to finish their A/P before I make the leap.  That, and waiting for the budget to catch up.   I hope it is soon.  If I had to choose today, I'm going for the GFC 500.

[FlybyNite]

On 9/13/2023 at 11:41 AM, Lionudakis said:

I'm installing the Aerocruze in a friends J, paired with an Aspen ProMax. I got the plans some time ago, looks pretty straight forward compared to the GFC install. I installed an Aerocruze in a 172 earlier this year coupled to an Aspen E5. The owner loves it. His instructor who owns a 172 with GFC said aside from the UI, it handles turbulance much better. Thats just one comparison, but good to hear. 

How is the Aurocruze 230? I pulled the plug yesterday after my installer informed me that I would have to buy a separate ADHRS module for an extra $3500. He was also not impressed on how it will only send analog attitude data to the aerocruze from my Aspen MAX. 

[Navi]

I have this combo in my Piper Warrior.

Aspen (E5) and AeroCruise 100. It is slick...   Navigators are a Garmin 796 on the yoke, synched to the new 175 in the panel. 

Either Nav can be switched to the  AP, (no GPSS from the 796 of course). 

Not legal for IFR approaches, but in an emergency, this combination WILL put your nose wheel on the centerline in a 5 knot crosswind. (Yes, it has been tested!)

The baro, alt and hdg are set on the Aspen, the AP listens to all those.  The Aspen ACU translates the ILS  to display on the Aspen for legal approaches if needed. 

We have the Air Data option on the Aspen and an unexpected benefit of the AeroCruise "buttonolgy" is that, with experience, you can operate it by feel (one knob and two buttons) without having to look at it.

The 175 does the WAAS heavy lifting with the approaches and AP, and the 796  with the big screen is better for touch operation with the big screen. 

The 175 touch screen is a BEAR to operate in rough air, but it was the only navigator that would fit in our panel. Fortunately , the zoom function is on the KNOB!

FWIW.. The AeroCruise  100 handles rough very well. We switch off Alt Hld at some point and use the "VS 0"  (recommended for a smoother ride) and when too rough, as with all APs, we have to switch it off.

Nav 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Navi
Points added

[Navi]

Hmmmm...

Word is around that they tried to get Garmin to do this voluntarily... but... 

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/ad-mandates-garmin-autopilot-software-fix/

I am astounded that there are "only" 5900 of these APs in the field...  There has been suggestions from Garmin fans that there were this many in the Piper aircraft alone... 

Nav

 

[ZuluZulu]

On 10/9/2023 at 9:02 AM, Navi said:

Hmmmm...

Word is around that they tried to get Garmin to do this voluntarily... but... 

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/ad-mandates-garmin-autopilot-software-fix/

I am astounded that there are "only" 5900 of these APs in the field...  There has been suggestions from Garmin fans that there were this many in the Piper aircraft alone... 

Nav

 

From the link:

Meanwhile, many of those affected have already resolved the issue since Garmin released the software fix earlier this year. “The updated GFC 500 software for GI 275, G5 and G3X Touch installations allows pitch trim to be enabled as a closing action to Service Alert 22109 and STC Service Bulletin 22110,” Garmin said in a statement to AVweb. “The Aviation Service Document Notification describes the software update procedures for impacted owners and operators.

I mean, that sounds pretty voluntary to me.  They developed a fix, issued Service Bulletins, and put press releases out about it.  What more is Garmin supposed to do, take over the FAA so it can unilaterally issue ADs?  You seem to be suggesting Garmin didn't cooperate, is there any evidence of that?

[Navi]

8 minutes ago, ZuluZulu said:

From the link:

Meanwhile, many of those affected have already resolved the issue since Garmin released the software fix earlier this year. “The updated GFC 500 software for GI 275, G5 and G3X Touch installations allows pitch trim to be enabled as a closing action to Service Alert 22109 and STC Service Bulletin 22110,” Garmin said in a statement to AVweb. “The Aviation Service Document Notification describes the software update procedures for impacted owners and operators.

I mean, that sounds pretty voluntary to me.  They developed a fix, issued Service Bulletins, and put press releases out about it.  What more is Garmin supposed to do, take over the FAA so it can unilaterally issue ADs?  You seem to be suggesting Garmin didn't cooperate, is there any evidence of that?

Not suggesting anything.  I only related comments of others that indicated the possibility, now discounted . The FAA DID find it necessary to issue an AD AFTER the SB/update came out.  The reason it became an AD  is speculation.  A Manufacturer CAN request an AD be issued, perhaps they did.  Most likely the FAA issued the AD to make sure the SB was carried out. SBs are not mandatory in some operations, but this makes it mandatory for ALL operations.  As an aside...... Garmin is often very slow to admit there is a problem, and tend to downplay the seriousness of issues with their equipment.  Some "fixes" are quietly distributed to dealers only. It took months for them to admit the issue with their servos. The porposing issue with Piper Arrows caused grief for owners for almost a year before Garmin took the issue seriously and fixed it.  

Not a Garmin hater, I have lots of their equipment. But is is a challenge sometimes getting them to "take ownership" of a problem  and start a fix.  My issue took 3 calls and lots of testing before they finally "upped " my issue to someone who FINALLY admitted that the issue WAS with the Garmin unit. After that fiasco, we were able determine a solution.

FWIW !  

Nav

[ZuluZulu]

29 minutes ago, Navi said:

Not suggesting anything.  I only related comments of others that indicated the possibility, now discounted . The FAA DID find it necessary to issue an AD AFTER the SB/update came out.  The reason it became an AD  is speculation.  A Manufacturer CAN request an AD be issued, perhaps they did.  Most likely the FAA issued the AD to make sure the SB was carried out. SBs are not mandatory in some operations, but this makes it mandatory for ALL operations.  As an aside...... Garmin is often very slow to admit there is a problem, and tend to downplay the seriousness of issues with their equipment.  Some "fixes" are quietly distributed to dealers only. It took months for them to admit the issue with their servos. The porposing issue with Piper Arrows caused grief for owners for almost a year before Garmin took the issue seriously and fixed it.  

Not a Garmin hater, I have lots of their equipment. But is is a challenge sometimes getting them to "take ownership" of a problem  and start a fix.  My issue took 3 calls and lots of testing before they finally "upped " my issue to someone who FINALLY admitted that the issue WAS with the Garmin unit. After that fiasco, we were able determine a solution.

FWIW !  

Nav

Thanks for the explanation! Makes more sense.