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