An update on Dynon Certified projects

[chriscalandro]

The only thing I’m really asking for while I’m on the short body Mooney waitlist is regular status updates that make me feel confident that my HDX system will someday include an autopilot.

 

[OgieOglethorpe]

Been a year and a few days since the PA34 approval. I'm sure Dynon is as frustrated as we are that nothing has been approved since. I've got my Cherokee 180 on a lift above my dads Cherokee Six in the hangar and would love to put in an hdx plus autopilot system in both of them. I hate garmin as every product I've owned has had issues and I dont like that only a dealer can help troubleshoot. The aerocruz would be just a stop gap until the better dynon system is available and I really only want to open the panel up once. Maybe by the time the Cherokee gets put on the list there will be a d10a upgrade as that just seems out of place. Was hoping once the Seneca got approval that would have pushed the other projects along, but alas it sounds like government is acting like government does.

 

[M20Driver]

Even BK thought they had a slam dunk approval of the Aerocruz for the Mooney, it too has made it to someones desk to age, and go no where fast. Our government approval process is broken, unless your Garmin. I'd pay Garmin autopilot prices at this point for Dynon's autopilot system.

 

[Bill Putney]

It's not just a frustration to Dynon and their customers. The FAA has been convinced by incumbent manufacturers that autopilots are dangerous and need extra special care on every installation. There is no statistical evidence to back up that phobia. The recent Boeing 737 Max autopilot incidents which were problems with a completely new system and there is a mountain of documentation on how that turned so tragic. The Dynon autopilots have been installed by amateur builders on thousands of aircraft of many types with little oversight. These autopilots have also been fully characterized on half a dozen certified types from C172's to Bonanzas and Senecas. In short, the Dynon autopilots have a lot more flying time than the Boeing 737 Max autopilots and there have been no accidents or incidents recorded in the NTSB files. But the B737 Max incidents have reenforced the phobia for the FAA.

Loss of Control and Flight Into Terrain accidents lead the GA death rate and have for years. The Agency should be looking for constructive ways to get technology into GA that will help push those statistics down and autopilots are proven tech that can do that safely. The Agency has chosen to double down on fear in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary. It's not that the FAA doesn't know the truth, their own studies and reports back that up. Every Agency person I've ever spoken to recognizes it, but they don't seem to be able to translate that into action in the form of guidance to their people in the field that have to make the day to day decisions.

Folks like Garmin have an army of people working this problem and they are brut forcing their way through. Everyone else is doing what Dynon is doing, going along with a broken process. I think there are ways to beat this problem that doesn't require hiring an army of engineers and lawyers but it requires some thinking outside the box that we haven't arrived at up to now.

 

[M20Driver]

Well said ! Its extremely frustrating that there's little anyone can do proactively that I can see.

 

[OgieOglethorpe]

I guess the best solution is to ditch the type certificate planes and build an RV. If only there was a 6 place RV. Not necessarily for people but 4 people and baggage space.

 

[Bill Putney]

I guess the best solution is to ditch the type certificate planes and build an RV. If only there was a 6 place RV. Not necessarily for people but 4 people and baggage space.

I don't know how successful Vans has been at its larger models. There are so many really nice, fast, comfortable 1940's-1960's airplanes for less money than a kit. At one time the FAA considered creating a "Classic" category that would have been older aircraft types that were factory built but less supported with new avionics and safety equipment due to declining numbers. They would have treated aircraft in that category the same as experimental for equipment installations, thereby insuring that older types could get all the safety enhancing equipment that newer (or more plentiful) types enjoyed. I guess that made too much sense and cooler heads at the Agency prevailed.

 

[OgieOglethorpe]

I don't know how successful Vans has been at its larger models. There are so many really nice, fast, comfortable 1940's-1960's airplanes for less money than a kit.

And I've got 2 of them in the hangar. Problem being I can't put what id like to in either one because of arcane government regulation.

 

[JSmith]

At this point I wish Dynon would just admit that nothing else is going to happen this year. It’s extremely frustrating really. Earlier this year, I went in on a C182 partnership that already had dual HDXs installed and was wired for the AP. I was looking at a similarity equipped C182 but with Garmin and GFC500. I was thinking the AP in Dynon would of been out by now so I went with the Dynon plane. Foolish me I suppose.

 

[M20Driver]

And to add to the frustration of nearly impossible certifications these days.. I just read an article that the FAA sponsored an "inclusive language summit" last week regarding emasculating language in aviation. This is where the FAA priorities are right now, political correctness. Until we get rid of "airMEN" we cant have autopilots. Rant over

 

[OgieOglethorpe]

And to add to the frustration of nearly impossible certifications these days.. I just read an article that the FAA sponsored an "inclusive language summit" last week regarding emasculating language in aviation. This is where the FAA priorities are right now, political correctness. Until we get rid of "airMEN" we cant have autopilots. Rant over

Didn't they already get rid of "student pilot" in favor of learner and also cockpit in favor of flight deck. Stupid. Before you know it we won't be hearing about the lunar landings because Neil Armstrong was a misogynist for saying "mankind"

 

[Bill Putney]

I like Dynon. I like their philosophy, their way of doing business and their products. The choice of Dynon or Garmin isn't a contest. Garmin over the years has made me want to do anything but buy a single thing from them.

OK, that's out of the way. I don't want to tell Dynon their business, but... Isn't it time to recognize that they have a huge amount of work on their plate and they could never hire enough competent engineers to do all this work. When faced with dilemma most businesses would contract it out. I think that might work for those cases where there are so many aircraft of a type that they could be sure they were going to recoup their costs. Out of the 600 (minus the 6 they've done) types that might apply to 20% of them. 80% of the types will never get autopilot or they will be done as time permits (or just before the Sun goes dark). Now you have to ask yourself, who benefits in an STC for a type being approved for autopilot? Owners of the type. Who represents them in a lot of cases? Type clubs. Who has the most data available to them about a type. Same guys... Hmm...

As an individual owner who has already committed to the cost of an HDX system, the cost to add a 2 axis autopilot is under $2000 plus a mechanic's time. S-Tec 3100 2 axis $20,000 plus avionics shop rate to install. So, I have about $18,000 to spend on having a fully integrated autopilot vs a sidecar. The last century designed S-Tec 30 is $13,000 plus avionics shop rate. So even there, I have $11,000 to spend. What's an STC cost to do? Depending on who you ask and how much sweat equity you can contribute, for just an STC to add servos and control linkage to an existing autopilot capable EFIS is between $10,000 to $15,000. That sounds like a win to me. I've been told by a DER, that if they could get the already vetted design data and test plans from Dynon, that price could be cut in half.

What if instead of trying to figure out which types could be guaranteed to return the cost of getting an STC to Dynon, they instead took one of their engineer's off the job for a few weeks and gave them the task of creating a DIY autopilot STC paperwork kit. The deal for Dynon might be structured like this; they offer the DIY kit with a cost and a contract. The contract is an NDA for the paperwork and an agreement to return the rights to the STC to Dynon in exchange for the fee they would charge up front for the kit if the project is completed within a year. You want to price the kit to keep the lookie loo's out and give a buyer an incentive to finish the project. Say $5,000. That would include so many hours of Dynon engineering consulting time after which time would be billed at some onerous rate. That would discourage people from sidetracking Dynon's engineering staff but still keep them on task. Since this would be a multiple (not one aircraft SN) STC, a type club could pass the hat to raise the money and it would be a big win for the owners.

Best of all, Garmin and S-Tec woudn't get any of the cash!

 

[OgieOglethorpe]

I like Dynon. I like their philosophy, their way of doing business and their products. The choice of Dynon or Garmin isn't a contest. Garmin over the years has made me want to do anything but buy a single thing from them.

OK, that's out of the way. I don't want to tell Dynon their business, but... Isn't it time to recognize that they have a huge amount of work on their plate and they could never hire enough competent engineers to do all this work. When faced with dilemma most businesses would contract it out. I think that might work for those cases where there are so many aircraft of a type that they could be sure they were going to recoup their costs. Out of the 600 (minus the 6 they've done) types that might apply to 20% of them. 80% of the types will never get autopilot or they will be done as time permits (or just before the Sun goes dark). Now you have to ask yourself, who benefits in an STC for a type being approved for autopilot? Owners of the type. Who represents them in a lot of cases? Type clubs. Who has the most data available to them about a type. Same guys... Hmm...

As an individual owner who has already committed to the cost of an HDX system, the cost to add a 2 axis autopilot is under $2000 plus a mechanic's time. S-Tec 3100 2 axis $20,000 plus avionics shop rate to install. So, I have about $18,000 to spend on having a fully integrated autopilot vs a sidecar. The last century designed S-Tec 30 is $13,000 plus avionics shop rate. So even there, I have $11,000 to spend. What's an STC cost to do? Depending on who you ask and how much sweat equity you can contribute, for just an STC to add servos and control linkage to an existing autopilot capable EFIS is between $10,000 to $15,000. That sounds like a win to me. I've been told by a DER, that if they could get the already vetted design data and test plans from Dynon, that price could be cut in half.

What if instead of trying to figure out which types could be guaranteed to return the cost of getting an STC to Dynon, they instead took one of their engineer's off the job for a few weeks and gave them the task of creating a DIY autopilot STC paperwork kit. The deal for Dynon might be structured like this; they offer the DIY kit with a cost and a contract. The contract is an NDA for the paperwork and an agreement to return the rights to the STC to Dynon in exchange for the fee they would charge up front for the kit if the project is completed within a year. You want to price the kit to keep the lookie loo's out and give a buyer an incentive to finish the project. Say $5,000. That would include so many hours of Dynon engineering consulting time after which time would be billed at some onerous rate. That would discourage people from sidetracking Dynon's engineering staff but still keep them on task. Since this would be a multiple (not one aircraft SN) STC, a type club could pass the hat to raise the money and it would be a big win for the owners.

Best of all, Garmin and S-Tec woudn't get any of the cash!

But part of the problem as Dynon has previously referenced are the subtle changes that were made between model years. I'm all for trying different methods. Just not sure what you propose is feasible. Garmin announced that within a year they acquired and are about to certify the twin comanche for their AP. If I didn't abhor everything about Garmin from business model down to customer support has really turned me off. For me, Dynon is the answer...except the FAA says its not yet

 

[Bill Putney]

Well, there are some folks that just don't know how to freeze the design.

If you have to redo the paperwork for every version you'll beat your head against the FAA forever. For example, there are Navion models A-H. Is that 8 STCs to do? No, North American designed the control rigging in 1946 and nobody after that thought there was any reason to change it. The flight characteristics didn't change radically, why would the STC or the limitations change? Perhaps there are servo mounting bracket changes between subtypes, but should that restart the STC process? Looking at the AML, even the C172 only has about half of sub-models approved for autopilot. About 1/3 of the Bonanzas approved for autopilot. Did something change so radically that it would change how the autopilot works in the other half of those airplanes? probably not.

OK, if you say, yeah, it's critically important that every subtype be certified individually, I as an individual owner I can justify the cost of creating a multiple STC for their subtype. It's a money saver for me. Or at least it's break even against the S-Tec alternative. It would never be a cost effective thing for Dynon to do unless they charged back the cost of getting the STC prorated by the number of prospective sales they would make to that type/subtype. Imagine you're the owner of a Wing Derringer. Pretty low sales volume against cost. Dynon could come right out and create a list with the title "We will never STC autopilots for this list of types. Don't hold your breath." That would be honest and realistic but it would be a big red flag for prospective buyers of types on that list.

If I compare all the options, The Navion type club or I as an individual doing the STC work is always going to be a financial (and functionality) win. If we had the collaboration of Dynon it would take half the effort to do and cost half as much. And, that is the only way Dynon as a company, that needs to make money to stay healthy (and we all dearly want that), is going to make a mark in the certified market.

 

[M20Driver]

I like Dynon. I like their philosophy, their way of doing business and their products. The choice of Dynon or Garmin isn't a contest. Garmin over the years has made me want to do anything but buy a single thing from them.

..This is exactly my feelings.

I am ready to invest into this if it something that can be done.

I'm in for anything we can do as a type specific groups to go about this whole thing differently. I'm a nuts, bolts, and wires guy. I don't see what is so complicated about installing and proving the system, I guess the legal side of all this is my blindspot. I've asked several times before what the process is, or where the hangup is. There has to be some sort of approval guidelines / checklist. I removed my marginally operating Stec 30 system from my Mooney last year, and the install was nothing more than workshop engineering, flimsy, and nothing complicated, and functionally, it was terrible ( but approved..)

 

[OgieOglethorpe]

Honestly it sounds like after the boeing fiasco someone doesn't have the juevos at that fsdo to green light it.

Dynon was looking for information on where things were located and mentioning how that's a "gotcha". Could you request people copy the documents associated from a legacy install? I mean it seems that part of the leg work should have been done right?

 

[Bill Putney]

I've talked to folks at our FSDO and ACO and I think they understand the problem. But, they have guidance that tells them what has to be done. I've talked to people way up the food chain and they get it and say it has to change. Some middle manager who has the responsibility to change the guidance but don't feel they have the authority is the fly in the ointment. I think if you're going to change the way the FAA works, it has to be from the top down or the result of a major fatal accident like the B737 Max crashes. GA just doesn't kill enough people fast enough or in a dramatic enough way to get the attention of the Agency.

Yes, changing the FAA guidance could help Dynon, but at the end of the day, Dynon has to look at the job they have ahead of them and their resources and make some hard decisions. They need to leverage the resources they have if they're going to get this work done this century.

 

[briantopping]

I guess the best solution is to ditch the type certificate planes and build an RV. If only there was a 6 place RV. Not necessarily for people but 4 people and baggage space.

I'm not super active on these forums, but had an M20F for a couple years with a full steam panel. Any new platform that I get into will be Dynon-ready for reasons around situational awareness and conservation of energy. As we used to say at Apple, "we bleed seven colors...". I'm here for this.

To the extent that I can't get a full (including A/P) Dynon system on a Mooney, I'd frankly rather build a fast plastic cruiser. The OP here is an amazing introspection on why dates are getting missed, these are questions that I couldn't quite understand the source of. Answering "why?" helps differentiate from regular stories in the media about fundamentally broken companies. I wouldn't wan't to be biding my time on a Mooney, only to find I could have been building something while schedules slip. If I had infinite time and resources, I'd just do both, but alas.

 

[gtae07]

I've talked to folks at our FSDO and ACO and I think they understand the problem. But, they have guidance that tells them what has to be done. I've talked to people way up the food chain and they get it and say it has to change. Some middle manager who has the responsibility to change the guidance but don't feel they have the authority is the fly in the ointment. I think if you're going to change the way the FAA works, it has to be from the top down or the result of a major fatal accident

Years ago I was on the ASTM committee (as a private individual) that was working on the new means of compliance standards to go along with the new Part 23. On that committee (and officially in an advisory-only, non-voting position, but we all know who held the reins) were regulators from EASA and the FAA, and they provided input.

I learned a couple of things.

First, while the Europeans tend to be more strict, proactive, and controlling in their regulation, and don't allow as much freedom as we have in the US (with operations, E-AB, etc), they are much more open to discussing new ideas, new ways of doing things, and changing stuff that no longer makes sense or isn't working the way they want. The FAA, on the other hand, tends to be much more reactive, and tends not to regulate unless a need has been demonstrated. But, once they make up their mind, they ain't never gonna change it. Pointing out that a regulation doesn't work, is outdated, or is not having the intended effect merely results in them doubling-down on that regulation (see the new LODA requirement). One regulator stated that certain "breakpoints" in the regulations--specifically, the 61kt single-engine stall speed requirement, and the 12,500lb requirement for a type rating--might as well have been "carved into the third tablet that Moses dropped coming down the mountain". In another case, I asked why they were insisting on retaining the language from the "old" Part 23 that said nav light lenses needed to be "flameproof" but landing and taxi lights need only "not present a fire hazard", instead of making all the language consistent. The response was essentially "yes, we agree that doesn't make sense, no, we don't think it should be written like that, but it's been like that for a long time and we don't know why it was written that way to begin with, so we aren't going to change it".

Keep in mind too that in the eyes of most of the government--FAA, NASA, etc--a "small airplane" is a King Air, or Cirrus Jet, or PC-12. Light piston aircraft barely even register on their radar.

Also keep in mind that the FAA is a government bureaucracy. They move at their own pace, and big players get priority over smaller ones. Even pre-Covid I saw stuff at work that was stuck in FAA limbo, because they didn't have the manpower to get it done faster and they weren't about to put in the overtime that those of us in industry were subject to. I don't know how to check, but I'd suspect Dynon has to work with the same ACO that Boeing does (being in the Seattle area) and thus they're sort of stuck in line behind them.

Finally, unless it just has absolutely no other option, the FAA is going to try and cram anything new into an existing box, even if the new thing only bears the most passing resemblance to the other things in that box. Many new technologies, such as electronic engine controls, were first applied at the airliner level, and the regs were written to the standard that was needed for that application. Anyone who came along later trying to apply that technology to a less critical application (like light airplanes) just got pointed to the existing regs, no matter how "overkill" they may have been.

If you have to redo the paperwork for every version you'll beat your head against the FAA forever. For example, there are Navion models A-H. Is that 8 STCs to do? No, North American designed the control rigging in 1946 and nobody after that thought there was any reason to change it. The flight characteristics didn't change radically, why would the STC or the limitations change? Perhaps there are servo mounting bracket changes between subtypes, but should that restart the STC process? Looking at the AML, even the C172 only has about half of sub-models approved for autopilot. About 1/3 of the Bonanzas approved for autopilot. Did something change so radically that it would change how the autopilot works in the other half of those airplanes? probably not.

Looking through some of the FAA's guidance material--AC23-17C, AC21.101-1B, etc.--there are lots of things that could trigger having to repeat testing on different submodels.
AC 23-33 states (emphasis mine):

The AML STC process should not be applied to those systems whose installation configuration varies significantly among various serial number aircraft of the same model, or those systems that can directly control the aircraft. For example, an AML STC would not be suitable for autopilot installations. For autopilot installations, there may be serial number specific airplane-rigging problems that have to be taken care of on a case-by-case basis.

I have also run across FAA guidance (which I cannot find at the moment, unfortunately) that says autopilot installation automatically requires an STC and can't just be done with a 337.

Now, in a sane world, and even within FAA certification processes (the two don't always overlap), you can get "credit" for certain things based on "similarity", so there are many parts of the integrated Skyview-autopilot system that they shouldn't have to put through the process again, and only the airframe-specific items (structural, handling/performance, electrical load) should have to get redone. But it also wouldn't surprise me if someone along the FAA chain decided out of ignorance to require everything be totally redone for each model.

And then, in AC 23-17C:

Alterations of increased engine horsepower (and either engine horsepower or major changes in exterior cowlings and surfaces), in part 23 airplanes, should consider the compatibility of the autopilot system with the increased horsepower. This is because the malfunction and performance tests of the autopilot are conducted with a defined amount of engine power. An increase in engine horsepower beyond 10 percent may adversely affect the autopilot system malfunctions, performance, controllability, and longitudinal stability characteristics. Therefore, flight testing may be necessary to verify the original approval of the autopilot system is still valid.

(a)The results of malfunction testing determine which flight condition is most critical. The effects of autopilot runaways are more pronounced at aft CG. Also, the phase of flight with the largest contribution to adverse conditions varies with airplane model.
(b)Airplane longitudinal stability is a factor in autopilot system malfunctions. There is an inverse relationship between engine horsepower and longitudinal stability. Although the turbine engine installations replacing reciprocating engines may be flat rated, the turbine is capable of producing increased horsepower at higher temperatures and altitudes, which could reduce longitudinal stability. Therefore, autopilot performance, especially the pitch axis hardover malfunction, should be evaluated for acceptability. This policy is also applicable to power increases on airplanes with reciprocating engines, either engine replacement or engine modifications that add a turbocharger.
(c)Performance and controllability evaluations should be considered, including the configuration of most forward CG and minimum autopilot authority. This configuration is used to show the airplane can be safely controlled by the autopilot when the control surface hinge moment is the highest and the autopilot controllability is at its lowest during corresponding longitudinal trim and airspeed changes.

I'm not super familiar with your example of the Navion, but some Google searching turned up a page with a brief history. It looks like that line, over time, went from 185hp up to 260hp, and may have a variety of auxiliary fuselage or wingtip fuel tanks and a range of gross weights. Even though the mechanics of the control system may not have changed, the FAA guidance suggests that certain flight and performance characteristics (especially around the edges of the autopilot engagement envelope) may be quite different and therefore those different conditions need to be tested. Those of us in the experimental world have the freedom to tune our autopilot parameters as we see fit and don't have to jump through all the regulatory hoops and tests that certified products (including things in an STC) have to--but then, we have no guarantees of performance and all the attendant risk falls back on us. But a certified product, in essence, comes with a guarantee that says (in essence) "if you build/install this thing, exactly per these directions, you will get this performance"--and that means they have to do the tests when there are differences that could affect said performance.


Now, as for the elephant in the room, we could sit down with a few beers and hash out whether this level of scrutiny and tightly-controlled configuration and certification is really necessary for light airplanes. The FAA claims to have addressed this with the Part 23 rewrite, but all that really seems to have done is make it easier to make new "boxes" to put things in, not reduce the testing, paperwork, and configuration control burden that certified aircraft are saddled with. Personally I think the FAA should just provide a pathway for people to irrevocably convert their certified light airplanes to an "experimental-personal" category that would make those airplanes substantially equivalent to secondhand homebuilts.

 

[Bill Putney]

Gtae07,

I agree with much of the forgoing, As an A&P/IA installing something that is under an STC, I have to make a determination that even though there is an STC to install this thing, installing it does not conflict with any other alterations. If you look at airframe design that is as old as the Navion (for instance) after 75 years there are an uncountable number of possible alterations that have been done under STC or Field Approval. If the argument is that any possible alteration can impact how a servo behaves or how much force is applied to the airframe where the servo brackets are attached, you can through out the entire STC system. I don't think that view has ever been asserted. The individual returning the aircraft to service has to make that determination at some point. Trying to push that up to the STC issuing point creates an impossible situation, one no one who now holds an STC would support.

In 2016 there was a push to create a "Vintage" aircraft airworthiness classification that would do what you suggest in your closing remarks. (https://forum.flydynon.com/threads/an-update-on-dynon-certified-projects.13845/) It would have recognized that the aircraft does not fit as an experimental type, but is so old or has so few still flying examples that is financially not viable apply the existing STC process to, but still needs to conform to modern safety and airspace requirements. that An owner could voluntarily put their aircraft into that category and it would allow owners of aircraft to take advantage of products on the same basis as experimental. That being that if you make an alteration that significantly effects, weigh/balance, flight characteristics, etc it has to be reviewed by a FSDO inspector and your operational limitations may be altered and/or you may have to have a flight test plan and fly some number of hours to lift the limitations. Now if you talk to people about that proposal you get blank stares as if it never was a topic of conversation. I emailed one of the foremost proponents of that when he was working at the EAA, who now works for the FAA and I haven't received a reply. I guess that's the email version of a blank stare.

- Bill