question for Dynon about autopilots moving forward

Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
66
When the Baron ap was announced. They also announced "ELECTRIC TRIM CONTROL WITH AUTOPILOT AUTO-TRIM NOW APPROVED FOR ALL AUTOPILOT-EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT"

Now, they did leave out the 172 in listing models. But the 172 would be part of "all autopilot equipped aircraft".... Also, if you go to the 172 specific ap page you see "Trim control features including Autopilot Auto-Trim require the installation of the SV-AP-TRIMAMP and SV-AP-PANEL. The aircraft must also have an electric trim system installed via original equipment, an existing STC, or other certification means. The SkyView STC is not grounds for installation of a trim motor."

So stc doesn't allow you to add a trim motor. But if you previously had an electric trim motor, the Dynon will control it.


 

airguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,150
Location
Gods Country - west Texas
Did you not have electric trim previously? I thought if your plane had electric trim of any flavor, the Dynon AP could drive it?
Physically? Yes. Legally? No.

The trim motors have always been there, but it's the STC for it that is lacking. I'm perfectly aware what the Dynon marketing says - but marketing and reality are not the same when it comes to the autotrim functionality.

It needs the Trimamp module and it will work perfectly fine - but the FAA wanted them to run through an STC for each particular model before issuing it, Dynon said "Nope, that's too much work, screw it" and there we sit. The result being you can get the full Dynon STC for the screens and everything that comes with them, including full autopilot functionality - EXCEPT the autotrim. No soup for you.
 

M20Driver

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2021
Messages
42
Its painful to hear the frustration from so many. 3 companies with autopilots making snail slow progress if that. They've each had the same results. I still defend dynon. Thye have little traction with the ones who hold the authority. I'm still waiting (3 years in Nov) for what should have been a no brainer approval from the FAA. Just a small example of a broken system.
 

airguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,150
Location
Gods Country - west Texas
Its painful to hear the frustration from so many. 3 companies with autopilots making snail slow progress if that. They've each had the same results. I still defend dynon. Thye have little traction with the ones who hold the authority. I'm still waiting (3 years in Nov) for what should have been a no brainer approval from the FAA. Just a small example of a broken system.
Yeah, no, sorry you lost me there. It's more than 5 YEARS after the promised autotrim, and I still have no autotrim. You don't get to pass that off to the FAA. They are slow, but not that slow.
 

greentips

Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
31
Yeah, no, sorry you lost me there. It's more than 5 YEARS after the promised autotrim, and I still have no autotrim. You don't get to pass that off to the FAA. They are slow, but not that slow.
They might be. I deal the Aeromedical side of the house. I have had student pilots wait for over a year and a half for OKC review of deferrals for childhood conditions long resolved. Only recently has enough pressure been put on them to fix the problem. In December, in response to congressional pressure, the deputy federal air surgeon announced they were going to institute a new policy of denying all AME deferred medicals and just let the denied airman candidates re-apply with a list of documents they want. Fortunately, they nearly immediately changed their minds as the ramification of having a denial was broad and devastating. Their reasoning? Congress measured the time to issue on special issuances, but didn't on denials, in essence moving a reported quality measure to an unreported quality measure. This would remove the lengthy review process from scrutiny, but would a.) increase their overall workload, b.) increase the workload and expense for the AMEs and c.) immediately ground pilots who were flying on BMed/LSA or current FAA Medical Certs being renewed.

Why is this relevant to the Dynon autopilot situation? Because, if the same thought processes are pervasive in other divisions of the FAA, the responsible ACO for Dynon autopilots could well be taking extraordinary time and Dynon's customers are fewer than all of us who are dealing with medical certification. The real question is, how can the non Part 23 crowd convince the FAA it has to do better in this area? It probably affects much more than the Dynon autopilot issues, I suspect.
 

airguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,150
Location
Gods Country - west Texas
They might be. I deal the Aeromedical side of the house. I have had student pilots wait for over a year and a half for OKC review of deferrals for childhood conditions long resolved. Only recently has enough pressure been put on them to fix the problem. In December, in response to congressional pressure, the deputy federal air surgeon announced they were going to institute a new policy of denying all AME deferred medicals and just let the denied airman candidates re-apply with a list of documents they want. Fortunately, they nearly immediately changed their minds as the ramification of having a denial was broad and devastating. Their reasoning? Congress measured the time to issue on special issuances, but didn't on denials, in essence moving a reported quality measure to an unreported quality measure. This would remove the lengthy review process from scrutiny, but would a.) increase their overall workload, b.) increase the workload and expense for the AMEs and c.) immediately ground pilots who were flying on BMed/LSA or current FAA Medical Certs being renewed.

Why is this relevant to the Dynon autopilot situation? Because, if the same thought processes are pervasive in other divisions of the FAA, the responsible ACO for Dynon autopilots could well be taking extraordinary time and Dynon's customers are fewer than all of us who are dealing with medical certification. The real question is, how can the non Part 23 crowd convince the FAA it has to do better in this area? It probably affects much more than the Dynon autopilot issues, I suspect.
I hear what you're saying - but I don't see Garmin having the same problem pushing new hardware through FAA approval. Something doesn't add up here.
 
Top