It would be really interesting to see input from the avionics installer community.
This is great for owners but finding anyone to install the kit could be a huge challenge. Or, more likely, from the existing well known shops, you will see installation costs that are much higher than you expected, due to the massive shrinkage of the installer discount. The overall economics come down to how much new business will be generated, which may become relevant after the 8.33 bonanza comes to an end (one installer I spoke to the other day reckons it will end with a big crash at the end of 2018).
On an N-reg (which is what these STCs are for at present) you can self install under the supervision of an A&P, and an IA can inspect, sign the 337 and you are done. I am not sure how easy it is to do this on an EASA-reg. It ought to be possible (if/when EASA STCs appear) to use a similar process but AIUI the installation needs to be done by someone with the organisational approval, or a 145 company and the Q is whether they would allow the customer to be involved at this level.
But what would drive EASA STCs? It would have to be Dynon themselves. There is too little money for the traditional EASA21 avionics shops (the few in Europe who generate STCs) to push this one, perhaps… Even the Robin STCs came to nothing, thus far, and those were full price kit, 5 figures.
Peter wrote:
But what would drive EASA STCs? It would have to be Dynon themselves
To get an FAA STC validated by EASA requires the STC holder to apply to their FAA ACO who in turn handle the validation process directly with EASA.
There are occasions when an EASA 21J may produce their own STC based on an FAA version if the owner doesn’t want to seek validation – we did this for the Garmin G500H in the Bell 206/407. It may well not be cost-effective unless several customers can be lined up in advance and the STC holder is willing to support the EASA 21J with design and certification data.
No autopilot though, in most cases
Peter wrote:
No autopilot though, in most cases
… yet.
But they’re working through it, although it’s clearly more complicated than a PFD/MFD, especially in a post-MCAS world. I think this is an awesome development, very impressive of Dynon, and a real credit to the FAA – I was ready to snigger when they said they would promote the infusion of non-certified tech in certified planes, but it’s happening.
Autopilot approved for the Cessna 172 and Bonanza V35, so it’s surely just a matter of time.
Does that autopilot do ILS?
The Trio and Trutrak autopilots don’t, but it was anything but obvious 
No autopilot would be a deal-breaker but I think what they mean is that the Dynon a/p is not yet approved.
Presumably an existing S-TEC, etc. a/p would continue to work – or would it?
Incidentally (i.e. maybe for a different thread), my S-TEC 60-2 flew a practice LPV for me the other day. The transition from GPSS was pretty ragged due to operator error, but it flew the final as if on rails. It seemed to hold the centreline and glide slope much more accurately than when following an ILS.
Is that to be expected, or just a coincidence?
Jacko wrote:
Is that to be expected, or just a coincidence?
Expected. GPS approaches are far more stable than an ILS. Essentially analog vs digitaal.
