An update on Dynon Certified projects

[CanucksUnlimited]

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,

Canada has this category - 'Owner Maintenance' - I almost put my current project into this classification because it would have allowed some amazing improvements to the 172B that I'm working on. It has allowed owners of many older aircraft to keep them flying and improve the safety of those flights with updated equipment and materials that they otherwise wouldn't be able to use.
But the FAA doesn't acknowledge it and won't allow these aircraft into U.S. airspace, kind of cuts off a big chunk of places we fly to.

 

[gtae07]

In 2016 there was a push to create a "Vintage" aircraft airworthiness classification that would do what you suggest in your closing remarks.

In 2013 the FAA's own Part 23 rewrite committee suggested the "Primary Non-Commercial" category that would allow aircraft over 20 years old to transition to that category, and cited Canada's program as an example of "see, it can work". They included a path back to standard TC configuration (basically "put it all back the way it was and get it signed off") because they thought a permanent conversion would be undesireable and hurt resale value for some reason; if anything I'd expect the value to go up. See https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...ittees/documents/media/Part23RARC-8152011.pdf

Others in the FAA said "over my dead body".

There's still a little hope that some form of PNC might come in through the MOSAIC deal... but I'm not holding my breath.

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.

That's pretty much the same for homebuilts/E-AB too.

 

[Bill Putney]

I guess that vote must have been taken in secret somewhere within the agency. I'd love to find out over who's dead body that proposal would be implemented. It's possible that by now that person is dead and things can proceed. I guess there's no way of knowing but, I wonder if it was actually an industry representative rather than an FAA person?

I wrote an eMail to Earl Lawrence at the FAA to ask more or less that question. That was a week ago and I haven't heard anything back. He seems to have been the Manager, Small Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service at that time.

I read parts of the document you referenced and the proposals go a lot further than I was anticipating. At this point, I'd settle for allowing already certified equipment to be installed in "Non-Commercial" category aircraft by some more abbreviated process, such as a field approval.

I can see why the Canadians may have been much more amenable to this kind of proposal. They long ago grappled with the concept of setting higher bars for aircraft above 12,500 pounds (not sure that's the determinator). In the US, an A&P can pick up a hammer and work on anything from an Ercoupe to the Space Shuttle with a little on the job training. The requirement is that you've done the procedure under supervision of someone else that's done the procedure and that you have the required documents. In Canada, as I understand it, mechanics are qualified like pilots are and have to have an endorsement to on their certificate to work on commercial class aircraft for each aircraft type. I think that the way the Canadians do this is more the rule in the world and the US is the exception.

 

[Bill Putney]

Canada has this category - 'Owner Maintenance' - I almost put my current project into this classification because it would have allowed some amazing improvements to the 172B that I'm working on. It has allowed owners of many older aircraft to keep them flying and improve the safety of those flights with updated equipment and materials that they otherwise wouldn't be able to use.
But the FAA doesn't acknowledge it and won't allow these aircraft into U.S. airspace, kind of cuts off a big chunk of places we fly to.

How does the FAA know what class airworthiness certificate your 172 has? Is it a different ICAO code? I'm surprised that the FAA can bar aircraft certified by another country who's a signatory to an air navigation treaty. If the ICAO code isn't different, do you think the Border and Customs people would know to check? Or how to check? I suppose your insurance carrier might be the enforcement agent here.

 

[N7600J]

The TruTrack AeroCruze 100 and the Trio AutoPilots work with the HDX but have limitations, Does anyone know if the Stec 3100 fully compatible with the Certified Skyview HDX? I've already installed the HDX but left my old Stec 50 AP installed. It works for GPS Steering and Alt Hold. So upgrading to the 3100 won't cost "too much." I would like to wait for the Dynon AP, but I have to say I'm not convinced it will be certified in the next year.

 

[M20Driver]

I had to look, I didn't see any model Mooney on the AML for the 3100. I also do not believe HDX will output any attitude info.

 

[Rhino]

The Bonanza 36 release got approved today.

 

[M20Driver]

Dynon, any progress on any of the projects?

 

[JSmith]

Dynon, any progress on any of the projects?

Well seeing as the 36 got released in December 2021, I’d guess December 2022 at the earliest until the next one comes out. I love the HDX system but at this rate, I should of spent the extra money and went with Garmin. Very discouraged and even more so since Dynon doesn’t keep us customers in to loop.

 

[OgieOglethorpe]

Apparently none of you have been following the GAMI unleaded fuel saga. They've proven their solution works. And mixing with any quantity doesn't degrade octane. All they need was a signature from AIR-1. What does the FAA do? Form another letter initiative in EAGLE to solve the problem PAFI didn't. A solution that GAMI already has. When gami asks for what else they want or need, they rarely get a response.

I'm sure Dynon could go the GAMI route and go on a humorous rant on how broken the government certification system is. I'd at least get a kick out of it. But in the grand scheme of things, it isn't helpful. Dynon has been very forthcoming and say upfront not to choose an hdx system expecting an autopilot solution. I have two planes in the hangar, a PA28 180 and a pa32 300. Would love to put a Dynon autopilot in both. I won't go the big G route for numerous reasons. Spite mostly. But I also don't want there to be only one solution.

 

[M20Driver]

OgieOglethorpe, I've been following it. Its ridiculous, and it just shows how broken the system is. After reading the article calling out the faa, I lost any hope of anything productive from the FAA. It's a good example of why years later, were still waiting, and only one company can somehow get anything approved, whether in house or not. I refuse to buy anything from G.

 

[JSmith]

I have been following it and I get it. When my HDX was installed back in 2020, a rep from Dynon was very convinced that the AP would be released within the year. I agree with most here and hate G. It’s just frustrating. Back in October when the 36 was close to approval, Dynon did say the 182 would be right behind it. Again, it’s the FAA but it would be nice to hear from Dynon every few months and update the current projects like the 182 and the M20. That’s all I am saying.

 

[OgieOglethorpe]

I have been following it and I get it. When my HDX was installed back in 2020, a rep from Dynon was very convinced that the AP would be released within the year. I agree with most here and hate G. It’s just frustrating. Back in October when the 36 was close to approval, Dynon did say the 182 would be right behind it. Again, it’s the FAA but it would be nice to hear from Dynon every few months and update the current projects like the 182 and the M20. That’s all I am saying.

Unfortunately I think Dynon can't really say how they're doing because of the feedback, or lack thereof from the FAA. It's like running a race and not knowing where the finish line is and every time you think you know, it gets moved. Even Garmin has been complaining lately of how long it's taking them to get approved.

That said, last we heard. Dynon seemed to think the feedback they last got on the 182 meant they were further along than even they thought. But perhaps that's not the case. Who knows. And the people that should know (the FAA) probably don't either.

My latest Garmin beef is over an e collar for the hunting dog. Not a cheap unit. Handset instead of vibrating the collar, was shocking her to the point she was yelping.

 

[Rhino]

Dynon can't give you an update they don't have. If the FAA isn't telling them anything, there isn't anything they can tell you. All they could do is guess, and that could very well be counterproductive. They have been forthcoming with information, but they rarely get any. They might be interested in hearing privately about any reps who give reassurances on dates when they simply don't know. Maybe a little retraining of the reps is in order.

 

[lavallejd]

A Cardinal Flyers forum member called your competitor to inquire if the 177A was on their radar. He got this back: "I spoke to the guy that is making those decisions. He said the 177 and 177A will get certified. Best guess is 1.5-2 years. It is #10 on the list."

Your competitor is not giving his prospective customer false hope. To a person, while it is a "best guess" and stated as such, it is very much a critical piece of data for decision making. Please reconsider.

I agree that false hopes has been the way of this process. Hence, I went to Bendix King for an inexpensive tie over until the Dynon is certified for Cardinals. I feel the bendix king install was very easy, spot on and easy to replicate for both the FG and RG. Roll servos need to be in the right wing so that it uses the bell crank already installed.

 

[Bill Putney]

I’ve seen some servos who’s mounting and dimensions are exactly the same or very close to Dynon’s servos. I wonder if a Bendix-King autopilot is installed, if the move to a Dynon autopilot, once it’s STCd from that point is a swap out on the same brackets and control surface linkage? I suppose it depends on how Dynon’s STC physically comes out and/or how much latitude the FAA would give an installer. But, I wonder if you’ve compared the B-K servos to Dynon’s.

 

[VIFlyer]

I’ve seen some servos who’s mounting and dimensions are exactly the same or very close to Dynon’s servos. I wonder if a Bendix-King autopilot is installed, if the move to a Dynon autopilot, once it’s STCd from that point is a swap out on the same brackets and control surface linkage? I suppose it depends on how Dynon’s STC physically comes out and/or how much latitude the FAA would give an installer. But, I wonder if you’ve compared the B-K servos to Dynon’s.

That's a good question Dynon. Dimensionally are your servos similar to any other brand? This may be a route to install another brand of AP and retrofit just the brains when the Dynon system is finally approved. Please give us some guidance. I installed my system over two years ago and have seen other manufacturers get approval (Grumman AA-5B) during this time. One even works with your system.
Please let us know. Thank you

 

[GKC Aviation]

That's a good question Dynon. Dimensionally are your servos similar to any other brand? This may be a route to install another brand of AP and retrofit just the brains when the Dynon system is finally approved.

I have installed Dynon servos in where a Trutrak was fitted. The Dynon servos bolted straight into the Trutrak brackets.
The Dynon and Trutrak servos look pretty much identical.
Bendix-King bought Trutrak, so I would think the servo brackets from a BK Aerocruze would fit the Dynon servos.

 

[Dynon]

Sorry to report that using 3rd party brackets with Dynon autopilot servos isn't an approved or supported way to install our autopilot.

 

[Bill Putney]

Canada has this category - 'Owner Maintenance' - I almost put my current project into this classification because it would have allowed some amazing improvements to the 172B that I'm working on. It has allowed owners of many older aircraft to keep them flying and improve the safety of those flights with updated equipment and materials that they otherwise wouldn't be able to use.
But the FAA doesn't acknowledge it and won't allow these aircraft into U.S. airspace, kind of cuts off a big chunk of places we fly to.

I read through that section of the CARs. It’s an interesting model. It recognizes a lot of issues we face in the USA but don’t have a solution for. Here any aircraft that has been type accepted in normal category can only be put in experimental exhibition or developmental, which are very restrictive.

Philosophically, it seems very strange that the FAA doesn’t just say, Canadian Owner Maintained category aircraft will be treated as if they were owner built experimental aircraft in US airspace. Allowing Canadian owner maintained amateur built experimentals in but not Canadian owner maintained aircraft that have a type design seems totally arbitrary. Maybe they don’t want Canadian owners who maintain their airplanes to talk to US owners who can’t. Could foment discontent at the FAA booth at Oshkosh.

I looked through the applicability list (507 appendix H) and didn’t find the Navion, although seems to tick every box until I get to the last one. For some reason they don’t allow variable pitch props and retractable gear. I don’t really understand why they wanted that specific restriction. Improper maintenance of a fixed pitch propeller is just as hazardous. Most propellers fail as a result of improper maintenance and inspection in the area near the tips. Retractable gear can be complicated, but I don’t think many people die from a malfunctioning retractable gear. They could have just added something that allowed those types like the Navion in but say, here’s a short list of things the owner can’t modify or maintain without an STC, Repair Station License or Mechanic’s certificate under this category.