Dynon Certified

[bnt83]

I haven't seen anything posted recently around here and this is the latest I've read about. The most interesting thing to me is, per their Facebook page, they will be selling these STC kits over the counter and they will not be limited to dealer installation. They could change their mind at anytime of course but it would be foolish to do so IMHO. I like what I'm seeing even though I'm not really in the market.

Here is a pricing guide that was posted elsewhere for an idea of equipment costs.

http://www.dynonavionics.com/certified/pdfs/Bonanza-sheet.pdf

 

[Ravioli]

WOW! That is the ultimate setup. Skyview AND a Bo!

Where do I sign? (of course I can only afford the Skyview, but this a thing of PoA dreams)

 

[Grum.Man]

Man I want that in my plane but at the same time I cringe thinking about the wiring nightmare that would result from the installation.

 

[Badger]

The Dynon rep at Oshkosh told me the same thing...available from retailers to be installed locally.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

The sad part: $2,500 for "permission to install". Really? I understand that you had to get the STC, but then you get to sell nearly thirty grand worth of equipment!

 

[bnt83]

The sad part: $2,500 for "permission to install". Really? I understand that you had to get the STC, but then you get to sell nearly thirty grand worth of equipment!

They are separating the certification costs of the installation approval (STC) and the equipment. The same thing is going on with Garmin G5 (paying Garmin ~$600 for the STC), TruTrak (paying EAA $100 for the STC), Dynon D10A (paying EAA a $100 for the STC) Dynon Skyview (Paying EAA ~$2500 for the STC).

EAA is the STC holder, someone paid folks to create the engineering data and technicians to install it, then test pilots to prove it works, then an ODA to review and approve it. I bet the STC cost them >$100k to get.

EAA expanding their STC approvals, knowledge and reach is good for everyone. Maybe someday they will start PMA parts business and give McFarlane some competition. McFarlane seems pretty darn slow getting new products developed and approved.

 

[CC268]

Wow that’s the tits right there man

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

ok....now I want dat.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

They are separating the certification costs of the installation approval (STC) and the equipment. The same thing is going on with Garmin G5 (paying Garmin ~$600 for the STC), TruTrak (paying EAA $100 for the STC), Dynon D10A (paying EAA a $100 for the STC) Dynon Skyview (Paying EAA ~$2500 for the STC).

EAA is the STC holder, someone paid folks to create the engineering data and technicians to install it, then test pilots to prove it works, then an ODA to review and approve it. I bet the STC cost them >$100k to get.

EAA expanding their STC approvals, knowledge and reach is good for everyone. Maybe someday they will start PMA parts business and give McFarlane some competition. McFarlane seems pretty darn slow getting new products developed and approved.

In that case, I'm in. What's an ODA? In my world (jet engine certification) it has an exact meaning, which won't fit your context.

 

[bnt83]

In that case, I'm in. What's an ODA? In my world (jet engine certification) it has an exact meaning, which won't fit your context.

organization designation authorization. I cant recall if EAA has an ODA but I know Garmin does.

In hindsight, I don't know if EAA used an ODA or the FAA to get the STC. The STC certificates would say tho.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I'm thinking the EAA "used" an ODA for the approval....think of an ODA as an office/company outside the FAA that is given authority to approve STCs or other certification activities.

 

[bnt83]

I'm thinking the EAA "used" an ODA for the approval....think of an ODA as an office/company outside the FAA that is given authority to approve STCs or other certification activities.

I may or may not be well aware of ODAs.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I may or may not be well aware of ODAs.

same....

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I'm thinking the EAA "used" an ODA for the approval....

Yes. Our company has an ODA (actually, the company for which my company provides services). The folks that do the actual checking are RCEs and RCIs, Regulatory Compliance Engineers and Inspectors. The ODA has limits, of course; the ODA holder cannot completely certify an aircraft or engine without direct FAA involvement. I don't know about STCs, I don't work in that arena.
I'd rather ASTM consensus standards be used, with the manufacturers self-certifying for most types of equipment. Competition may bring lower prices (I got to see how much an airframe manufacturer pays for G1000 NXi and G3000 equipment.)

 

[bnt83]

I'm curios if these Dynon display have an adapter to interface the legacy radios such as the KX155. Last I knew the adapter they had was for the experimental market only.

 

[tspear]

Which plane will be next?

Tim

 

[bnt83]

There sure are a lot more folks on POA these days that know a lot about bureaucracy, how projects are organized and approved in the aviation world.

 

[Grum.Man]

I'm curios if these Dynon display have an adapter to interface the legacy radios such as the KX155. Last I knew the adapter they had was for the experimental market only.

When I talked to them at OSH they did not have anything that would interface with the older analog radios. I think GRT were the only people who said they could talk to the old radio and my old GPS.

 

[German guy]

Which plane will be next?

Tim

They told my at KOSH that they expect an STC for Mooney M20s before the end of this year.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

There sure are a lot more folks on POA these days that know a lot about bureaucracy, how projects are organized and approved in the aviation world.

It's been my job for 17 years, and I see that it's the job of others here. I keep wanting to correct anyone who says "FAR xyz says" when we aren't allowed to use "FAR" (unless it means fuel/air ratio) since those regulations were pulled under the umbrella of the Code of Federal Regulations as Title 14!

 

[bnt83]

It's been my job for 17 years, and I see that it's the job of others here. I keep wanting to correct anyone who says "FAR xyz says" when we aren't allowed to use "FAR" (unless it means fuel/air ratio) since those regulations were pulled under the umbrella of the Code of Federal Regulations as Title 14!

Mechanics and pilots don't go to school to read and write like lawyers.

 

[Skyrys62]

So is this unit any different hardware/feature wise than the non-certified units for experimental planes...or is it the exact same thing but now approved?

 

[tspear]

So is this unit any different hardware/feature wise than the non-certified units for experimental planes...or is it the exact same thing but now approved?

When I called to ask Dynon to discuss the 172 and where they what was next. The answer HW is the same. SW may not be. The SW on the experimental side will be updated more often, while on the STC side it is more likely to be updated on a set schedule, like every year or two.
Also, on the experimental side you have a lot more flexibility to mix/match; while the STC pretty much has predefined packages you have to follow.

I am not sure this info is still current.

Tim

 

[bnt83]

So is this unit any different hardware/feature wise than the non-certified units for experimental planes...or is it the exact same thing but now approved?

Need to read both the STC installation instructions and the experimental instructions. Are the part numbers the same? Is the software the same? That's a start to answering that question.

 

[WannFly]

not exactly a side by side comparison.. but how does this compare with dual G5 + GFC 500 + JPI 930/900?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

It's been my job for 17 years, and I see that it's the job of others here. I keep wanting to correct anyone who says "FAR xyz says" when we aren't allowed to use "FAR" (unless it means fuel/air ratio) since those regulations were pulled under the umbrella of the Code of Federal Regulations as Title 14!

I haven't been doin it as long as you....but the lil blond lady on the 8th floor lets me clean her office now and again.

 

[Bell206]

I keep wanting to correct anyone who says "FAR xyz says" when we aren't allowed to use "FAR" (unless it means fuel/air ratio)

Not quite. FWIW, and a bit off topic, but the use of FAR is still acceptable except when referencing in official documents like ADs, 8110-30s, etc. The FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) are considered part of Title 14 CFR. Just as the FARs (Federal Acquisition Regulations) are considered part of Title 48 CFR. As the Title 48 FAR version crossed multiple federal departments, to include the DoT, the use on FAR 1 or FAR 43 was stopped in official correspondence within the FAA and substituted with Part 1 or Part 43 of Title 14.

At the time of this big update in the CFRs a number of years ago, it was easier for companies to just stop using the FAR reference. But if you ever call your local ASI/PMI and ask a question on FAR 91.207 or FAR 43.13; or if you visit the FAA website and you're unsure of what regulation you need, you can still search the "Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)" right there on the home page.

I'm thinking the EAA "used" an ODA for the approval

I believe the EAA uses a Managing DER and DAR on staff to organize their approvals. But I could be wrong. A ODA requires a high level of approval and unless you have the work load most companies don't expend the cost for an ODA. It's about as close to a private company having the powers of the FAA there is. Most small companies use varying combinations of DAR-Ts, DAR-Ms, and DERs, both engineering and managing. There were (are) a variant of the DARs called ODARs, but I believe the push now is to have those companies with ODARs covert to an ODA. It's interesting to see how the system works as I still work with several DAR/DERs on projects.

 

[bnt83]

ODAs are pretty neat, it's nice to be able send back approved data for typos and get it back in an hour. Gotta love the repair station auditing the data released by the ODA .

 

[Unit74]

It's been my job for 17 years, and I see that it's the job of others here. I keep wanting to correct anyone who says "FAR xyz says" when we aren't allowed to use "FAR" (unless it means fuel/air ratio) since those regulations were pulled under the umbrella of the Code of Federal Regulations as Title 14!

FAR = Federal acquisitions regulation = contract money to me!

 

[Kenny Phillips]

FAR = Federal acquisitions regulation = contract money to me!

Yep. We still have engineers that use our old company name, as well as FAR, in reports. Both changed a dozen years ago!

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Not quite. FWIW, and a bit off topic, but the use of FAR is still acceptable except when referencing in official documents like ADs, 8110-30s, etc. The FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) are considered part of Title 14 CFR. Just as the FARs (Federal Acquisition Regulations) are considered part of Title 48 CFR. As the Title 48 FAR version crossed multiple federal departments, to include the DoT, the use on FAR 1 or FAR 43 was stopped in official correspondence within the FAA and substituted with Part 1 or Part 43 of Title 14.

At the time of this big update in the CFRs a number of years ago, it was easier for companies to just stop using the FAR reference. But if you ever call your local ASI/PMI and ask a question on FAR 91.207 or FAR 43.13; or if you visit the FAA website and you're unsure of what regulation you need, you can still search the "Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)" right there on the home page.

I believe the EAA uses a Managing DER and DAR on staff to organize their approvals. But I could be wrong. A ODA requires a high level of approval and unless you have the work load most companies don't expend the cost for an ODA. It's about as close to a private company having the powers of the FAA there is. Most small companies use varying combinations of DAR-Ts, DAR-Ms, and DERs, both engineering and managing. There were (are) a variant of the DARs called ODARs, but I believe the push now is to have those companies with ODARs covert to an ODA. It's interesting to see how the system works as I still work with several DAR/DERs on projects.

Yeah, it's a big deal to get ODA status, and after a year, we had converted all of the DERs to RCEs. Sounds cooler. The manual for writing your ODA manual is three hundred pages, and the ODA manual will likely be much larger! The funny thing about the term FAR is that, before ODA, the FAA would reject any document using that to reference regulations, unless it was a reference to legacy certifications.

 

[Bell206]

The funny thing about the term FAR is that, before ODA, the FAA would reject any document using that to reference regulations, unless it was a reference to legacy certifications.

How true. And what's even funnier is that the use of a CAR reference is still valid. Back when the FAR change was happening, I picked up a side job editing FAR references to CFR references on FAA manufacturing applications for an engineering firm. However, they failed to mention it involved over 4000 pages of data.

 

[Raymo]

Man I want that in my plane but at the same time I cringe thinking about the wiring nightmare that would result from the installation.

The wiring harnesses are part of the STC kit. Even the experimental install is quite easy.

 

[Raymo]

I'm curios if these Dynon display have an adapter to interface the legacy radios such as the KX155. Last I knew the adapter they had was for the experimental market only.

The NAV side of the KX155 can be fed into the Dynon via serial connection. if that is what you are referring to by "interface." Newer digital radios can also interconnect for com frequency selection.

 

[bnt83]

The NAV side of the KX155 can be fed into the Dynon via serial connection. if that is what you are referring to by "interface." Newer digital radios can also interconnect for com frequency selection.

For clarity, an old analog only KX155 can be displayed on these STC approved Dynon systems? I know Aspen can.

(I knew there was no tuning abilities but for comparison, the Garmin G5s can't do anything with a KX155)

 

[Raymo]

So is this unit any different hardware/feature wise than the non-certified units for experimental planes...or is it the exact same thing but now approved?

You can bet, just like Garmin products, there will be limitations imposed with the STC'd stuff. It'll be the same hardware but the configuration will be more locked down.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

You can bet, just like Garmin products, there will be limitations imposed with the STC'd stuff. It'll be the same hardware but the configuration will be more locked down.

you'd think....but it doesn't appear that way.

 

[Raymo]

not exactly a side by side comparison.. but how does this compare with dual G5 + GFC 500 + JPI 930/900?

Having all that information on a single or dual screen setup is very nice. I fly with a 40/20/40 screen configuration (PFD/Eng/Map) and love it but mine is the "legacy" SV1000T so you can't put the engine info on the bottom of the screen.

 

[wayne]

Which plane will be next?

Tim

Here's their schedule:

http://www.dynonavionics.com/certified/aml.php



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

if you could kindly spare an extra $35K.....I'd gladly do this to my Bo.