The modernisation of the legacy GA Fleet

Chris, this is a great point. I'd love to know more about your line of thought - when you speak of 'well proven avionics suites' are you thinking of anything specific? And can I ask what's wrong with the vacuum based instruments with electronic back up?

I,'m a Flight Instructor vfr/ifr,
For me the G1000 suite for example is a very good source of information as well as for the situation awarness, but the use of this avionic for a single pilot use is not so safe. Because I saw too many pilots keeping their head too much time inside trying to find what they need( specially trying to exit from a page)
What I raccommand when you fly this kind of avionic to have two person, one pilot the plane and the other as a operator system.
I can tell you when I start to fly and teach on G1000 I started spent many days at home studing all the manual, plus the use of the pc Simulator. Them I spend two days on the plane with the external power connected practicing on the real switchies.
After all this time I was able to catch the unpreparedness studend, for example it was funny asking a very simple question as what was fhe outside temperature and see the studend lost in the instruments trying to find the answer. The outside temperature is just displayed on the pfd screen! Renato

Hello Hannah,
A couple of lines of thought specifically.

Regarding Avionics, primary flight displays and the usage (or not) of vacuum-driven instruments:

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing 'wrong' with vac driven gyros in the cockpit. It's just that we can do better, right now today while significantly improving situational awareness and conspicuity. Particularly with the ADSB trials currently underway.

Just looking at the Garmin product ecosystem, the G3X and associated autopilot, GTN750, transponder, radio's etc. These systems are built on the back of millions of hours of flight experience by Garmin. The technology used is very similar and in many cases, due to the ease of regulation in the US Light Sport and Experimental market, significantly more advanced/refined than certified avionics - yet due to the cost of certification on an airframe it's cost prohibitive to use them on legacy certified aircraft (although, the XCUB has fitted and Certified the G3X in one of their aircraft)

Cost is another factor. Due to the cost of certifying something like a G500/600 txi (effectively a certified version of the G3X) plus the need to actually have it certified to an aircraft. Basic quotes to get a G500 setup fitted to an aircraft like a 172/177 have been over $100k in the United States without install and nearly impossible to do on a UK registered aircraft at all. In stark contrast, a similar G3X suite with 2x 10.5" flight displays, already being flown globally daily and certified in an xCub can be purchased for £34k.

The functionality of a G3X suite far outstrips any sort of safety, conspicuity and situational awareness (it includes synthetic vision) that could be achieved with regular steam gauges. Not to mention comprehensive engine monitoring and warning that is inbuilt. Further working to reduce pilot workload and provide backup alerting if missed by the pilot.

With regards to engine control systems and the modernisation of power plants. Right now today, thousands of experimental aircraft have flown hundreds of thousands of hours with Motec ECU's but many others as well.

Not only does electronic fuel injection and ignition provide significantly more efficiency, but installed correctly it also provides heightened reliability over carbureted or standard mechanical injection engines.

While magnetos are undoubtedly reliable, they do not allow for any sort of efficiency in tuning and absolutely zero closed loop functionality that can be provided by a digital, data-based engine control system.

Simple things like adopting a twin magneto to a coil on plug driven system on something like an io360 engine, would (when tracked back) would give a significantly better risk profile for failure than two magnetos with significant upsides in the ability to tune in real time for altitude and conditions.

Direct fuel injection could provide cleaner running engines while a closed loop system using 4x simple AFR sensors, married to a set of EGT and IAT sensors could provide optimal fuel flow and heat management in real time and with a minimal pilot workload.

All of this could be done today. Right now. With technology already proven in aviation. All of this could make pilots safer, aircraft easier & cheaper to fly and give better conspicuity.

I have an interesting idea for a flight test programme to prove this idea out if anybody is interested :-)

Magnus Aircraft uses Dynon avionics in their planes, pilots flying it like it pretty much

Hello Hanna - yes the Dynon Skyview is also a great well-proven system. Which cannot be installed in certified light, non-complex aircraft? But can be installed in more complex and faster light sport?

It doesn't make sense.

You are not well informed... SInce many years now, EASA has approved aircraft using G3X or Dynon avionics : Pipistrel, Tecnam, Tomark, CTL-S and many others...

Hey Dominique, thanks for your reply. These are new aircraft, yes? This thread isn't about new aircraft using these systems. It's about being able to use them on legacy aircraft (hence the thread title) do you know any instances of people using the aforementioned avionics retrofit to older certified aircraft? If you have, I'd be really interested in hearing any input on the process that needs to be undertaken to initiate that?

As with many things Aviation, it's sometimes the case that things either have been done or rules have been passed to allow things to be done easily but due to the complexity it's not been widely communicated! :-) It's one of the reasons why the GA Roadmap is so important. We've got to remember that General Aviation is full of part-time recreational pilots. Not full-time aviators and businesses!

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best

Hi Chris,

It is the same with old aircraft. I have personally approved installation of Dynon and Garmin G3X on old DR400...

Dominique, that's extremely interesting. Would you have the time to discuss this in any further detail? I'd very much appreciate your expert knowledge in this area.

I appreciate your time is extremely valuable and you've probably got a lot going on. However correspondence via email or phone on the process to be undertaken to do this sort of thing would be hugely appreciated.

Thank you for your input so far. Highly appreciated.

Best

Chris

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA%20CM-AS-007.pdf

here is the link to a certificiation memo for the installation of non ETSo'd avionics in ELA 1 aeroplane for vfr day

For exame, we removed our Cessna 175's vacuum system and replaced it with dual Garmin G5 (AI and HSI...and a GTN650). Now flying IFR the first time since 1959!
So EASA has achieved a lot for legacy aircraft but Part-M light is very much needed, as well as other reforms, to make modern avionics more accessible to old planes.

Well, that's amazing news ? great job EASA GA Team! Onto my other point then. What about electronic engine control systems?

Dear Chris,
We already have approved design where a G3X or other non qualified avionics is used for the EMS (Engine Monitoring System) functions. Each configuration need to be assessed in accordance with the category of product and the type of operations (VFR, Night VFR, IFR).

Chris, there is no need to give up on this discussion. Even though it appears that there are regulatory possibilities to put "new instruments in old aircrafts" it is still not common practice. If it is due to costs or to things not being as simple as it sometimes is described I don't know, however lines like "configuration need to be assessed in accordance with the category of product and the type of operations" says that it is still not easy. Being a microlight pilot I enjoy an easyness in our regulatory framework (that is not EASA), meaning it is very easy to purchase of-the-shelf solutions and put them in - not meaning that doing so is allowed unsupervised or that anything goes. I believe that the certification process is still a big issue. Even though use of instruments are getting better, engines are still a different thing. GA roadmap still have a lot to prove when it comes to producing a regulation that promotes safety, not only hindering it first and then allow a little second.

I have a particular interest in this topic also.

Are there any agreements in place with the FAA to accept their STCs for the installation of digital instruments into certified aircraft, namely ELA1 and ELA2 by EASA?
The maintenance cost for glass cockpit plus the improved cockpit management of systems like Dynon Skyview really help improving safety and operational costs for GA.

Responding to a comment above, G1000 is an overkill for the weekend driver and not as user friendly for the occasional pilots, but there are other simpler instruments that give you the information at a glance and improve situational awareness and general navigation.
Steam gages… nothing wrong with that, but why limit options just because a legacy system is still working in the age of the internet? Kind of like sticking to a pencil when pens have also been invented.

I’m interested in finding out if Dynon Skyview could be installed on an old PA 32 that is being upgraded.

This would include night flying and IFR, coupled with an approved GPS system and ILS/VOR.

Also important to state that the EASA bureaucracy is not justifiable when compared to the well proven approach taken by the FAA for similar aircraft, so safety is not an excuse.
Also, consider this, how can a ICAO airplane land in EASAland with a foreign STC and be allowed to flyover safely as they should but similar EASA registered airplanes wouldn’t be deemed safe under the same circumstances?
Kind of like saying the same brand and model, when painted in red is safe and when painted in blue is unsafe.

There needs to be a level of coherence and logic applied to legislation, EASA should represent efficiency, standardization and safety, not complexity and problem finders.

Thanks in advance