Why FD must release a customised version of Skyview

[Anticept]

So I had a discussion about Skyview with Dave at FDUSA, and why FD has to release their own cycle updates.

 

First, there are references in the POH to the display which needs to be updated. I recommended to Dave that FD should just point to the dynon user guide just like they do with the engine recommendations to the rotax user guide, and that would solve that issue. He said it would and might pass that along.

 

The real issue is this though: both the FAA and EASA consider software versions as a component of the avionics, and changing anything except for databases is the same as changing the unit physically. If the software changes, the unit must be recertified, and that means flight testing and engineering.

 

Secondly, EASA requires engine monitoring (and I suspect flight data too) to be displayed at ALL times. Since this can easily be hidden on the skyview display, it has to be locked out to follow certification guidelines. I asked why is it a problem now, since I can change the D series display and hide it? Dave responded with the fact FD Germany did NOT know until late in the service life of the D series panels, and at this point decided that they will focus on skyview, rather than rewrite the d series software for panels that aren't being sold anymore.

 

I suggested putting in a POH limitaation requiring engine monitoring to be displayed at all times, but he said that would only solve the issue with the FAA, but not necessarily with EASA.

 

Finally, I had asked why other manufacturers are not doing this, and Dave stated more and more are moving to release cycles, because they are finding out the hard way from the FAA and EASA.

[Tom Baker]

Something else to remember is the CTLS is now EASA type certified, and with that I am sure there are things that have to be done differently than with an aircraft that just meets ASTM standards. I was hoping the type certification was going to allow greater use of the aircraft here in the US, but I don't think that is going to happen.

[S4Flier]

"I suggested putting in a POH limitaation requiring engine monitoring to be displayed at all times, but he said that would only solve the issue with the FAA, but not necessarily with EASA."

 

This is a bit of a weak argument. FD already has to specially configure planes bound to the US (-6 degree flap limitation) so doing a soft limit would be a good solution for the US. They could still have a single manual since the limitation applies globally, it's only in the US that the owner could change it.

 

FD could also publish a list of approved Dynon software versions that is updated as they test them.

 

What does FD do with a non-Dynon EFIS that doesn't allow for a locked down mode?

[Doug G.]

They have not only done this with Rotax, but with Matco as an add on to the maintenance manual. It would seem a simple thing to work out with Dynon. Then add that sentence to the POH and everyone is happy.