What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Congrats to Dynon on the STC

This was brought to my attention today by a local RV'er. There are just so many positive things to be said about this news. As a guy who flies both homebuilt and certificated aircraft, I've been missing the nice glass in the certificated aircraft. The only way to go from here is up - I can't wait until the STC applicability grows!
 
This is even better than most people think because while Dynon did the hard work along with the FAA and EAA, the STC was written (according to Jack Pelton) broad enough to allow any similar devices to be installed under the same agreement - so its not just the D10A, but potentially other Dynon equipment AND equipment from other manufacturers that that are similar in nature, scope, and engineering. So this could bust things wide open for everyone in many ways.

Paul
 
Piggy Back STC

This is bigger news that I thought. Being able to piggy back on the STC is an amazing feat and almost hard to believe. Those of us who were considering glass for our certified planes are just chomping at the bit. The Experimental Avionic suppliers have been given (or earned) a path to grow their business model exponentially. Just fyi, last week my potential EFIS upgrade cost was $10,000 - $20,000 (for my Twin Comanche). This week we are about one order of magnitude less. Now that significant. Again, the EAA has proved once again that they are the leaders in flying innovation.


This is even better than most people think because while Dynon did the hard work along with the FAA and EAA, the STC was written (according to Jack Pelton) broad enough to allow any similar devices to be installed under the same agreement - so its not just the D10A, but potentially other Dynon equipment AND equipment from other manufacturers that that are similar in nature, scope, and engineering. So this could bust things wide open for everyone in many ways.

Paul
 
Last edited:
It's not the equipment for this STC that is so fantastic (though it is, in it's own right), it's the way the STC was done and the fact that it allows other equipment to be STC'd while non-TSO'd.

I predict we will very shortly see an explosive growth of experimental ADSB technology opened up for GA certificated STC's.
 
"This allows innovations developed for the amateur-built aircraft fleet to make their way into specific Cessna and Piper models."

"EAA and FAA are ready and eager to work with other companies to develop similar STCs for their products and expand the approved model list for additional type-certificated aircraft.?

I hope orphan aircraft like Bellanca, Luscombe, Stinson etc can be included in a broad mandate.
 
Good for them and the industry.

Break

Am I the only one worried that the prices will go up? Are certification hoops not "the reason" why certified glass cost so much more compared to experimental only?
 
In part..

Good for them and the industry.

Break

Am I the only one worried that the prices will go up? Are certification hoops not "the reason" why certified glass cost so much more compared to experimental only?

I share part of this sentiment, but only part. My concern is that FUTURE projects that would have remained on the experimental side of the house will become more costly (due to development direction to align with STC) in order to market the equipment to both sides of the house.

On the bright side...after all the G3X upgrades on the -4 I won't be able to afford anything else until the market finishes telling its story on this one, it may be all positives for the experimental side!:p
 
It's the whole system

It's not the equipment for this STC that is so fantastic (though it is, in it's own right), it's the way the STC was done and the fact that it allows other equipment to be STC'd while non-TSO'd.

I predict we will very shortly see an explosive growth of experimental ADSB technology opened up for GA certificated STC's.

I think the ADSB technology will simply be a by-product of letting an experimental avionics system be installed on a certified plane.

Once an 'experimental' glass screen is in the panel - engine monitoring, moving maps, Mode S/ADBS, and even autopilots are on the list, not just an EFIS.

As an example, a certified 2-axis autopilot for my Tiger is about $20,000 - put in a Dynon and it is a $1,500 add-on.


Garmin's response will be interesting since they cater to both markets..
 
Good for them and the industry.

Break

Am I the only one worried that the prices will go up? Are certification hoops not "the reason" why certified glass cost so much more compared to experimental only?

That's what is so interesting here. The Dynon box is not certified (carries no TSO or PMA approval). Of course part 91 doesn't require TSO'd insruments - that requirement, for normally certified airplanes, is found in their type certificate requirements. Hence the STC, which changes those requirements.

And if I read the announcement correctly (big 'if'), the STC is held by the EAA?

One note: At least for now, the EFIS only replaces the AI. All of the other usual flight instruments in the panel need to remain, presumably as backups.
 
Am I the only one worried that the prices will go up? Are certification hoops not "the reason" why certified glass cost so much more compared to experimental only?

Thats why this is ground-breaking in more ways than most people realize. This product has not gone thru the usual process that ends up with a TSO. They don't even have a TSO. Normally you'd need to certify that your software development was done according to DO-178B/C, which is where the expense comes in. Its a HUGE undertaking.

For this though, Dynon helped write a new standard (ATSM-3153-15) that relies only on system-level testing. Thats a GIANT departure from DO-178, and explains why this can be offered so cheap.

Its very surprising to me they got the FAA to buy in on this. A massive shift in philosophy was required to get that STC. Hopefully this opens the floodgates to more common sense upgrades.
 
As an example, a certified 2-axis autopilot for my Tiger is about $20,000 - put in a Dynon and it is a $1,500 add-on.

This is where I think there will be some disappointment. If you read the announcement and materials on Dynon's site, the autopilot is specifically not covered under this STC. You'd need to find another path to adding those servos to your type-certificated aircraft.

Totally understandable why it'd be outside the STC - I'm not arguing that the AP should be included - just pointing out that it will be a bit of a disappointment for folks who were thinking of adding a couple of servos and an AP74 along with the D10A to their Warrior's panel.
 
This is where I think there will be some disappointment. If you read the announcement and materials on Dynon's site, the autopilot is specifically not covered under this STC. You'd need to find another path to adding those servos to your type-certificated aircraft.

Totally understandable why it'd be outside the STC - I'm not arguing that the AP should be included - just pointing out that it will be a bit of a disappointment for folks who were thinking of adding a couple of servos and an AP74 along with the D10A to their Warrior's panel.

Somewhere in the middle of all this is the fact that my Warrior has an old Century/Piper autopilot, which is directed by the attitude indicator. I pinged Dynon, and there is no provision for data from the D10A to drive the old, pre-existing autopilot. So for me, to keep the autopilot working I'd need to keep the vacuum attitudfe indicator the panel and perhaps remove a piece of non-required equipment like the VSI (which would be fine since the D10A has a VSI display as well).

Dynon clarified that the STC allows the D10A to be installed as a visual replacement for the old attitude indicator. So everything else is extra info, not certified as replacements for anything else in the panel, and autopilot is outside the scope.
 
This is where I think there will be some disappointment. If you read the announcement and materials on Dynon's site, the autopilot is specifically not covered under this STC.

On this initial STC the autopilot function can't be used, sure. But maybe the next one will include it...

The big picture to me is just that, bigger. I'm clearly an optimist, this is one small step for the FAA, one giant leap for flying kind.
 
ASTM system-level testing ... brilliant, and about time. The DO 178 approach to things is just so insanely complex, that it can have a perverse effect and exponential cost. It doesn't matter that a specific function returns a specific thing under a specific circumstance, it only matters that the entire system perform that way!

39$, I'm tempted to buy the standard!

As a Canadian, I'm curious to see how Transport Canada, or any other non-FAA regulator that accepts FAA STCs, is going to react. I'm not going to take it for granted that this STC is going to apply here in Canada right away. In fact the FAQ from Dynon specifically mentions this.

That being said, congrats to Dynon! I wanted to get into homebuilts in part to get the new "toys" ... now I can just put them in my Warrior! ;)

I presume some parts of the FAA regs must have changed for this to occur?
 
Thats why this is ground-breaking in more ways than most people realize. This product has not gone thru the usual process that ends up with a TSO. They don't even have a TSO. Normally you'd need to certify that your software development was done according to DO-178B/C, which is where the expense comes in. Its a HUGE undertaking.

For this though, Dynon helped write a new standard (ATSM-3153-15) that relies only on system-level testing. Thats a GIANT departure from DO-178, and explains why this can be offered so cheap.

Its very surprising to me they got the FAA to buy in on this. A massive shift in philosophy was required to get that STC. Hopefully this opens the floodgates to more common sense upgrades.

IMHO this is the most significant part of the announcement. Not the actual STC, but the "massve shift in philosophy" required by the FAA to approve something like this. Hopefully this signals that the FAA has finally entered the 21st century.

...this is one small step for the FAA, one giant leap for flying kind.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
I presume some parts of the FAA regs must have changed for this to occur?

Nope. The only place in the FAA regs where flight instruments are required to be TSO/PMA'd is in the type certificate process, at least for part 91 aircraft. The STC changes the type certificate requirements.
 
Nope. The only place in the FAA regs where flight instruments are required to be TSO/PMA'd is in the type certificate process, at least for part 91 aircraft. The STC changes the type certificate requirements.

And the type certificate process itself isn't regulated in the FARs?

Nice ...
 
All electric

The other 'biggie' for actual IFR pilots may be adding a D10A and a TSO'd electrical Directional Gyro - $1500 OH.

Combined with the Dynon internal battery this would give a vacuum free panel for certified planes and still maintain the two separate power sources requirement for the 6-pack instruments.

Certified guys might finally be able to totally get rid of the lowest reliability item in their IFR suite - the vacuum pump. :)
 
Last edited:
This is, of course, is great news. Is an STC really is necessary? Normally, yes, I know. However, I recall reading a few months back in Aviation Safety or Aviation Consumer, that the FAA had published a Letter of Policy essentially stating that it was permissible to replace a tso'd vacuum gyro (i.e., attitude indicator) in a type certificated aircraft with a modern, non-tso'd digital unit, so long as none of the other instruments in the aircraft were removed. I don't have the publications in front of me to verify, but I know I'm not making this up.
 
Last edited:
They make it clear the dynon uni is supposed to be an attitude indicator first in this scenario. All the other things it happens to display are therefore secondary and not certified for anything, even under ASTM I presume ... sounds like they went through the process just for the AI part ... hence the need to keep the other instruments.

A good first step, possibly as a "first experiment". Presuming there is business success with this, then it would make sense to keep certifying the unit for its other functions ... so you install a D10A for AI, but then at some point later, hey look at that you can now remove your airspeed indicator, your altimeter, etc. as the unit gets approved for more and more functions ...

I wonder if the Skyview SE is at play in this whole thing ...
 
As a Canadian, I'm curious to see how Transport Canada, or any other non-FAA regulator that accepts FAA STCs, is going to react. I'm not going to take it for granted that this STC is going to apply here in Canada right away. In fact the FAQ from Dynon specifically mentions this.

That's a darn good question. The project I work on is audited by the faa, trans Canada and easa. Some of the TC folks are some real sticklers, taking things to an unnecessary extreme and ramming it down our throats. If I had to guess which country gets the shaft here, it would be our northern neighbors.
 
It's a great foot-in-the-door to the future... But for now, it's notably limited. You can replace your artificial horizon with it, but you can't remove the entire set of steam gauges that it could really replace.

So without your TSO, you're essentially taking what is arguably the least useful VFR instrument and replacing it with a digital version. I wonder if this is acceptable if the aircraft will be flying IFR, night, etc. or if it's limited to day VFR?

On the other hand, removing an entire 6-pack and installing just the D10A would probably require a new W&B... :)
 
It's a great foot-in-the-door to the future... But for now, it's notably limited. You can replace your artificial horizon with it, but you can't remove the entire set of steam gauges that it could really replace.

So without your TSO, you're essentially taking what is arguably the least useful VFR instrument and replacing it with a digital version. I wonder if this is acceptable if the aircraft will be flying IFR, night, etc. or if it's limited to day VFR?

On the other hand, removing an entire 6-pack and installing just the D10A would probably require a new W&B... :)

An AI isn't required at all for vfr, so hopefully we're talking about ifr here. OTOH it is hard to see the faa approving removing all flight instruments and replacing them with a single source, no backup, efis for ifr use.
 
The STC doesn't change the operating limitations of the aircraft, so if it was IFR before, it' still IFR.

A G1000, G500, or Aspen install in a TC'd aircraft requires you to keep backup airspeed, altitude, and attitude, so the requirement for backups with the D10A is not unusual for an EFIS in a TC'd plane. However, our install requires no backup attitude, which is an interesting step forward.
 
... However, our install requires no backup attitude, which is an interesting step forward.

Yes, but all the panels have a turn coordinator - with the ASI & VSI it provides the ability to adequately control the aircraft in the event of AI failure. Basic 6-pack mitigation, vacuum AI & DI, electric TC. I'm guessing the D10 must have a back-up battery?

Pete
 
In my earlier post, I mentioned a relevant FAA letter of policy. This is the link, just FYI.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/media/PS-ACE-23-08.pdf

I may be wrong, but I'm reading that the policy doesn't imply or require a TSO'd electronic attitude indicator. Although an STC is nice & direct, is it really necessary?

Well this is a "yes and no" answer (but mostly yes). For the time being the answer is basically a yes - MOST (note I said not all) FSDO's and their associated PAI's will not allow a non TSO'd or non STC'd primary replacement...it has been done more than once, but is not at all common, typical, or easy and even then typically has required it be an addition, not a replacement.

Cheers,
Stein.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top