New D30
- Thread starter tcbc8222
- Start date
Bill Putney
Active Member
I’m working as an inspector now at a relatively large Part 145 repair station. We mostly work on turbine engine stuff. King Airs, Cessna Jets and Pilatus PC-12s. A lot of that stuff has or is converting to Garmin because it’s all integrated with the aircraft systems. Garmin provides all the 337 language citing an STC and they provide the AFMS. A lot of this is signed by one FAA person. My guess is that because of the kind of money involved and the fact that a lot of the aircraft involved are Part 135 carriers, Garmin has been assigned their own ACO people that don’t get shared with all the other requests that would normally pile up in the FAAs in basket.
Setting that aside, the FAAs does tend to be arcane and/or arbitrary. This makes working through a project tiresome unless you can have one to one discussions with them as you work through the process. Having your own assigned Agency people gives you that. The rest of us (Dynon included) are left to work up a package based on what you understand is a common sense application of the FARs, submitting that and waiting for a response from the Agency. This makes for a very long iterative process.
i kind of hoped at some point the FAA would apply some scientific method and logic to this process. Once you have established that the servos work as designed on a couple of dozen aircraft types. And, determined that the logic controlling them is sound and reliable. And, the aircraft in question are conditionally stable and amenable to A/P control. What remains should be sheet metal mounts and rigging. That should be easy work for a DER and after some test flights, the approval should be pro forma. But, as has been pointed out to me on multiple occasions, that’s not the way the Agency works. The follow on question of why doesn’t it work that way never elicits a satisfactory response.
Setting that aside, the FAAs does tend to be arcane and/or arbitrary. This makes working through a project tiresome unless you can have one to one discussions with them as you work through the process. Having your own assigned Agency people gives you that. The rest of us (Dynon included) are left to work up a package based on what you understand is a common sense application of the FARs, submitting that and waiting for a response from the Agency. This makes for a very long iterative process.
i kind of hoped at some point the FAA would apply some scientific method and logic to this process. Once you have established that the servos work as designed on a couple of dozen aircraft types. And, determined that the logic controlling them is sound and reliable. And, the aircraft in question are conditionally stable and amenable to A/P control. What remains should be sheet metal mounts and rigging. That should be easy work for a DER and after some test flights, the approval should be pro forma. But, as has been pointed out to me on multiple occasions, that’s not the way the Agency works. The follow on question of why doesn’t it work that way never elicits a satisfactory response.
dominikos
New Member
What’s political about this statement? The system and regulatory framework is broken. The innovation in GA is stiffened unless you have big pockets.
Could Dynon be more efficient, probably yes… but that’s not just them, see how many modern engines we got in certified GA since 70s…
What really hit me, visiting lone star aviation museum and looking at Continental’s DC-3A, 1936, 33 years after Wright’s first flight.
I would argue that not much changed in GA since my ‘78 Mooney was produced.
If you think it’s political, act on it, get engaged and help to fix it.
Not for now, since they're mostly part of Dynon Certified installations. But will re-eval over time.
I would love the D30 to come over to experimental. I hate having a G5 as a backup. If it could display all of the SkyView displays (1at a time) Engine, Nav, Com, Auto Pilot… I would get 2 and eBay my G5 in a minute. My RV-8 is stingy with panel real estate with my 10 SkyView and I was thinking about going to two 7 inch. The 4 inch format would be a lot more useful in my application and I could keep the 10 inch.