Chelton vs Avidyne

[Charles Talleyrand]

Ray Andraka > wrote in message >...
..

I called an aviation supply house today. I'm told that you cannot get a
Garmin 1000 for any price, and that they do not intend to market to the
refit market. So the answer is .... no.

I'm told an Avidyne would not recieve a field approval from any field office.
It would need an actual STC. This supply house says they are on good terms
with the local FAA, but there is little chance of success on a field
approval.

The Chelton Flight Systems units seem at least as capable and invasive as an
Avidyne and they have an STC for something like 650 models.

I have no idea why the difference. Anyone?

[Bravo Delta]

> I called an aviation supply house today. I'm told that you cannot get a
> Garmin 1000 for any price, and that they do not intend to market to the
> refit market. So the answer is .... no.
>
> I'm told an Avidyne would not recieve a field approval from any field
office.
> It would need an actual STC. This supply house says they are on good
terms
> with the local FAA, but there is little chance of success on a field
> approval.
>
> The Chelton Flight Systems units seem at least as capable and invasive as
an
> Avidyne and they have an STC for something like 650 models.
>
> I have no idea why the difference. Anyone?

Chelton got the STC covering all the aircraft models because of the Capstone
program in Alaska.

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Bravo Delta" > wrote in message >...
> > I called an aviation supply house today. I'm told that you cannot get a
> > Garmin 1000 for any price, and that they do not intend to market to the
> > refit market. So the answer is .... no.
> >
> > I'm told an Avidyne would not recieve a field approval from any field
> office.
> > It would need an actual STC. This supply house says they are on good
> terms
> > with the local FAA, but there is little chance of success on a field
> > approval.
> >
> > The Chelton Flight Systems units seem at least as capable and invasive as
> an
> > Avidyne and they have an STC for something like 650 models.
> >
> > I have no idea why the difference. Anyone?
>
> Chelton got the STC covering all the aircraft models because of the Capstone
> program in Alaska.

Yes, but Chelton only got $8 million from the Capstone program
if I remember right. That's probably not enough to get an STC for
sooo many different models. Chelton on their web site says that they
have 650 models STCed. I also read that the capstone program is to equip
only 210 different airplanes (presumably lots of them of the same
model).

I really wonder if Chelton and Avidyne are being held to different
requirements/standards.

[Doug Vetter]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> Yes, but Chelton only got $8 million from the Capstone program
> if I remember right. That's probably not enough to get an STC for
> sooo many different models. Chelton on their web site says that they
> have 650 models STCed. I also read that the capstone program is to equip
> only 210 different airplanes (presumably lots of them of the same
> model).
>
> I really wonder if Chelton and Avidyne are being held to different
> requirements/standards.

Perhaps. I heard that the Capstone project timeline and budget were
such that the FAA needed to reduce the regulatory hurdles associated
with the approvals to get a number of diverse aircraft types involved in
the project. The only way to do that quickly was to issue a "blanket"
STC. IMHO, there's nothing special about the hardware or software of
the Chelton gear, aside from the fact that it's been flying longer than
the Avidyne equipment in experimental aircraft.

Just goes to show you how much the FAA is intentionally slowing
innovation, how much faster it can move when properly motivated, and why
so many people are building experimental airplanes to avoid all the
hassle. I just can't see why the FAA can't get out of its own way to
allow these installations. How a 40 year old automotive style analog
gauge is more accurate or safe than a solid state transducer coupled to
an electronic display is beyond me. I'll agree that "new" isn't always
better, particularly if it's not properly tested, but com'on!

To respond to the OP regarding the G1000, I heard from my avionics guy
(who is quite close to people inside Garmin) that certification in the
aftermarket is "at least 3 years out" assuming they do it at all. While
not particularly encouraging, it's not exactly the same as "no way hose
a". Perhaps there is hope after all.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------