The International Cessna 170 Association

You dont have to hold your breath. It's already been approved.
You can now, under and STC, install a non TSO'd or PMA'd artificial horizon into a certified aircraft and use it as a primary flight instrument.
This isnt like the medical reform that might happen any day now. This did happen.

To day "yeah but it's not for the 170" is just sour grapes.

bagarre wrote:You dont have to hold your breath. It's already been approved.
You can now, under and STC, install a non TSO'd or PMA'd artificial horizon into a certified aircraft and use it as a primary flight instrument.
This isnt like the medical reform that might happen any day now. This did happen.

To day "yeah but it's not for the 170" is just sour grapes.

A particular non TSO'd etc. horizon. And it's not just sour grapes, there is an AML that doesn't include the 170. This looks to me like the very first baby step toward real progress, which won't involve an STC or AML or a manufacturer's approval.

DaveF wrote:

bagarre wrote:You dont have to hold your breath. It's already been approved.
You can now, under and STC, install a non TSO'd or PMA'd artificial horizon into a certified aircraft and use it as a primary flight instrument.
This isnt like the medical reform that might happen any day now. This did happen.

To day "yeah but it's not for the 170" is just sour grapes.

A particular non TSO'd etc. horizon. And it's not just sour grapes, there is an AML that doesn't include the 170. This looks to me like the very first baby step toward real progress, which won't involve an STC or AML or a manufacturer's approval.

Well, I wouldn't expect the FAA to issue an STC unless it was for a particular horizon. It would be kind of silly to be holding out for an STC that stated 'any horizon will do'. I don't think we will ever see the FAA allow anything to be installed without some sort of approval.
And so what if the AML doesn't list the 170. Does every little good thing that happens in aviation need to include the 170?
The 172 is on there which makes very good grounds to also have the 170 approved.

From the Danon site -

"The initial STC allows the EFIS-D10A to replace the existing primary attitude indicator in Cessna 150, 152, 172 and Piper PA-28 and PA-38 series aircraft with a modern EFIS that contains no moving parts. More aircraft approvals are expected to follow."

I agree that being able to install noncertified avionics is progress, but I think given the restrictions of STC, AML, and manufacturer approval, it's not the progress they're making it out to be. Ok, I admit to being cynical because I don't want a D10, I want the new Garmin G5. If Garmin goes for this, then you'll see me on the bandwagon!

lowNslow wrote:From the Danon site -

"The initial STC allows the EFIS-D10A to replace the existing primary attitude indicator in Cessna 150, 152, 172 and Piper PA-28 and PA-38 series aircraft with a modern EFIS that contains no moving parts. More aircraft approvals are expected to follow."

I guess the real question is how do we make our collective voices heard to both Dynon and the FAA so we can get the 170 on the next list that will likely come out. Who in the C170 association would be best to put together a letter? Sorry, I just recently joined this group and am not sure who does what yet. I'm happy to help but don't want to step on any toes.

You can fill out the survey here.