The FAA just made flying safer.
In case you missed it, the Experimental Aircraft Association announced — at SUN ‘n FUN — a new Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) that will allow Cessna 150s, 152s, 172s and Piper PA-28s and PA-38s owners to install Dynon’s EFIS-D10A.
The EFIS-D10A fits a standard 3-⅛” panel hole and can replace either vacuum or electric attitude indicators.
What makes this such a big deal? The EFIS-D10A isn’t a certified instrument. It was designed and built for the experimental aircraft market.
“Thousands of EFIS-D10s are in the experimental aircraft fleet,” noted Dynon President Robert Hamilton when I caught up with him at SUN ‘n FUN.
This is a titanic shift in the mindset of the FAA. Not often prone to hyperbole, I realize this is just a first step, but I believe it is a HUGE first step.
Not to throw a damper on this announcement, but the Australians have been installing Dynon products in certified airplanes for years.
“Back in the early 2000s I held a Dynon D10 in my hand at AirVenture,” said Horsham Aviation Services‘ Tony Brand. “I knew this would make flying safer in Australia.”
And that is how Brand convinced CASA (Australia’s version of the FAA) to allow the installation of Dynon equipment.
“CASA was happy to allow the Dynon instruments as a supplemental piece of equipment,” continued Brand.
A lot of Australia is unlit at night, so having a quality backup could only help.
Horsham Aviation installs more than just the D10-line.
“We put a Dynon D100 in the middle and ring the main instruments around the monitor,” said Brand.
The company has also installed Dynon’s SkyView and autopilots in all types of Cessnas, Beech Bonanzas, Piper Archers, and more.
It matters not that the FAA is playing catch-up to CASA. What matters is the FAA approved the STC.
And as EAA’s Jack Pelton said, this STC is just the first of many expected from EAA.
The approval of this STC obviates — I believe — the argument that the FAA doesn’t care about general aviation.
I’m thrilled for all concerned. EAA and Dynon for sure, but mostly the owners of the first batch of aircraft on the STC.
And as one commenters said on our website, “Brilliant news and finally! Well done EAA. Can we add the Grumman AA5 series aircraft as well please.”
Bravo FAA, bravo.
The good news is that Ben Sclair is somewhat right when he states that, “This is a titanic shift in the mindset of the FAA. Not often prone to hyperbole, I realize this is just a first step, but I believe it is a HUGE first step.” The bad news is that this is indeed a “huge” step for the FAA – and therein lies the problem.
And, I really must take issue with Mr. Sclair’s statement, that, “The FAA just made flying safer.” If a local thug stops terrorizing a neighborhood, should we praise him and thank him for doing so while giving him credit for “making the neighborhood safer”??? Of course not!!!
We can thank the FAA bureaucrats for the pathetic shape of the lower end of general aviation, and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to predict what will happen if dramatic changes are not made to the way this segment of aviation is regulated.
If the FAA was in charge of regulating private cars the ’56 Chevy would be the pinnacle of certified, automotive technology. Also, most private cars would be home-made and they would of course use more recent 20th and 21st Century (but non-certified) technology such as independent suspension, radial tires, electronic ignition, fuel injection, anti-lock brakes, and air bags.
Sadly, “Miami Mike’s” comment pretty much sums it up. In my opinion the FAA is simply too far gone and cannot be reformed – it must be stripped of any involvement in the lower end of general aviation if this segment of aviation is to survive.
Maybe what we really need is to take the LSA approach to aircraft certification and expand it to cover the same range of aircraft that are allowed under the pending 3rd class medical reform. We know that the simplified certification resulted in an explosian of designs that incorporated the latest technology and design capabilities. With that the legions of legacy designs from the 50’s would rapidly become obsolete and pass into memory.
Maybe the same approach would work to getting it approved, attach it to the FAA reauthorization and force the change onto the FAA, kicking and screaming if necessary. We should have enough evidence from LSA by now that the simplified certification process is safe and does not result in dangerous designs on the market.
I think that would be exactly the right approach.
The next FAA re-authorization bill should contain exact future dates upon which the envelopes for LSA’s weight, speed, horsepower, number of seats, allowed uses etc. etc. would be gradually expanded to predetermined values.
Congress simply needs to reduce and eventually remove the FAA’s role in the lower end of general aviation and leave that role to the thousands of clever and creative people out there.
Can you imagine what the Worldwide Web would have looked like under the FAA’s regulations??
This is very true. I compare FAA to the FDA, when they see something good for you, they take over and try to keep it from you or worse, overegulate it. FAA it’s known for regulate things around and sometimes benefits some manufacturers as well. In my humble opinion, I will say that this device is awesome.
Why would they stop at the Cessna 172? Why not carry on through the 177+B, and 182 models?
Nick,
Those aircraft types are commonly used as trainers and have benign flying qualities that make flying partial panel easy enough to do given enough practice. I speak from experience from my own Instrument ticket training and subsequent flight experience. If the D10A should go Tango Uniform the aircraft is easy enough to handle until out of IFR conditions. In a higher performance aircraft type that becomes more difficult and they are more likely to be engaged in hard IFR conditions. Besides those higher performance models are more likely to have already been updated to a certified glass cockpit system and represent a poor market for the STC.
At least that is the way that I see the situation.
When I started reading the aircraft listed, I was in great hopes that The FAA had finally come to it’s senses and put those aircraft available to Sport Light certifications. That would be actual addition to SAFETY , Appropriate cost effectifness , and actual meat to the intended mission Sport Light Certifications was born of/ to.
So if you can replace the Artificial Horizon can you install a second unit to replace the Directional Gyro ? The D10A has an HSI screen that provides the basic HSI along with pointers for two bearing sources but no moving map. Still it is cheaper than a certified HSI and provides a more useful nav display. The D10A does include nav data on its attitude display but not as useful a format.
Any idea of the STC cost?
I am encouraged to see the FAA begin to recognize the advances in technology and embrace their implementation as a pathway to safer operations.
The D-100 looks like it would be a bit more useful, BUT, I’m happy with the D-10.
Now if they’d just consider the Canadian owner maintenance category as another step in the process of making flying safe, fun and affordable.
Exciting beginning to I hope a long, orderly string of announcements allowing non-TSO’d avionics in Type Certified aircraft.
Finally maybe I can un-stick all the suction cup mounts and actually put something post 1998 in my WW2-technology panel…
Read the STC folks. It’s a great first step but is only for attitude.
The speed and altitude tapes are simply “supplemental meaning you have to keep those old steam gauges even though you have all the info on the EFIS.
How about the DG?
Miami mike I agree whole heartedly! If we could get the FAA out of the mix we could be buying well equipped safe new aircraft for about what a nice Lexus costs.
Time for things like the E-mag, Rotec TBI, Matco wheels etc….
Some STCS are so laughable (MOGAS) and the approval process so inconsistently applied that the entire system is a flawed wreck.
I’d like one of these,if I had a plane..
‘Bout dang time at least SOMEBODY at the FAA realized it isn’t 1940 any more.
There is SO MUCH advanced avionics and instrumentation which could make flying older certificated aircraft immensely safer, cheaper and more capable that it is almost criminal that the FAA’s ossified regulations utterly forbid us from using them. The LSA crowd and the experimental crowd have been using this stuff for years and somehow they survive, how about letting us poor clowns at the low end of certificated GA join the electronic party?
I’m sick and tired of having to use expensive, barely functional electronics with limited and laughable capabilities when all the “good stuff” works wonderfully well, and is widely available for a FRACTION of the cost of the FAA official “blessed by the guv’mint” stuff.
Even Radio Shack has better equipment than a lot of GA airplanes. It is time the FAA discovered that time has left the ADF, A-N radio ranging equipment and similar antique junk far, far behind, most light aircraft avionics and instruments belong in museums (or recycling bins), not in the panels of our airplanes.