Owner assisted installs/Budget ideas?

[BlueSky247]

Apologies for the newbie question. I see a lot of people assisting on annuals and maintenance work but when it comes to avionics, it seems like that is a complete no-go zone. 
 

Is that due to FAA issues, shops not wanting to debug amatuer work, or just general apprehension? 

Not trying to be a cheapskate or dismiss how critical these systems are for safety, but when the experimental guys can put in the same gear for a third of the price, there has to be something we can do on the certified side to help with the overall expense of modernizing.

 

[McMooney]

I assist when possible, Find a friendly AP/IA, wiring/connecting avionics is pretty simple.

i defer fabricating to the professionals, i'm terrified of drilling/cutting/bending ANYTHING in birdy.

[toto]

29 minutes ago, BlueSky247 said:

Apologies for the newbie question. I see a lot of people assisting on annuals and maintenance work but when it comes to avionics, it seems like that is a complete no-go zone. 
 

Is that due to FAA issues, shops not wanting to debug amatuer work, or just general apprehension? 

Not trying to be a cheapskate or dismiss how critical these systems are for safety, but when the experimental guys can put in the same gear for a third of the price, there has to be something we can do on the certified side to help with the overall expense of modernizing.

 

I think it’s basically that radio repair stations are far rarer than A&Ps, and always busy. My experience with A&Ps is that they will defer to an avionics shop anything that touches navigation or communication. 

There are definitely things that you can do as an owner. Slide-in replacements are anticipated by 14 CFR Part 43, so swapping a Garmin audio panel for a PS Engineering audio panel is frequently done by owners, as is swapping out a bad KX-155 for a good one, etc. See attached for examples. 

Appendix A to Part 43_ Title 14 (up to date as of 5-22-2024).pdf

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, BlueSky247 said:

Apologies for the newbie question. I see a lot of people assisting on annuals and maintenance work but when it comes to avionics, it seems like that is a complete no-go zone. 
 

Is that due to FAA issues, shops not wanting to debug amatuer work, or just general apprehension? 

Not trying to be a cheapskate or dismiss how critical these systems are for safety, but when the experimental guys can put in the same gear for a third of the price, there has to be something we can do on the certified side to help with the overall expense of modernizing.

 

The degree to which one can participate in maintenance is determined entirely by the mechanic whose signature will be in the logs. 
 

Avionics installation is specialized work. Many IA/A&Ps will install a single box but a complete panel upgrade is typically the domain of a repair station.  

One of the unique aspects of a repair station is that the shop work force need not be credentialed mechanics. This means very defined protocols for the completion of maintenance coupled with a hierarchy of maintenance professionals on the floor. An IA serves as the Chief Inspector that makes the final determination on airworthiness. There just isn’t much room in that process to allow owner assistance.

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, BlueSky247 said:

when it comes to avionics, it seems like that is a complete no-go

First, you find both an A&P and an AI rated, equipped, and experienced in installing avionics.  Both the FAA and the FCC have requirements that must be satisfied.  Then, you have to convince your unicorn A&P and AI, that you can do the work and not screw anything up.  That said, 65.81 prohibits a mechanic from working on instruments, and autopilots are "instruments" by definition, so probably they can't touch the autopilot or anything connected to it.
Also, the vendors try to protect against installation and maintenance screw-ups by restricting access to install documentation, and you are unlikely to get anything working without the documentation.
Avionics shops are usually Repair Stations, and they have ratings such as:

- Radio
- instrument
- Airframe
- Accessory
- Limited Airframe
- Limited Specialized Service
- Limited Emergency Equipment
- Limited Accessories
- Limited Non-Destructive Testing
- etc.

[Shadrach]

11 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

That said, 65.81 prohibits a mechanic from working on instruments, and autopilots are "instruments" by definition, so probably they can't touch the autopilot or anything connected to it.

65.81 prohibits mechanics from working on instruments it does not prevent a mechanic from installing instruments. It is perfectly legal in most cases for a mechanic to install an Auto pilot or a new Display or indicator. Replacing AP servos and other components is also within the purview of A&P/IA. 

[Fly Boomer]

6 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

65.81 prohibits mechanics from working on instruments it does not prevent a mechanic from installing instruments. It is perfectly legal in most cases for a mechanic to install an Auto pilot or a new Display or indicator. Replacing AP servos and other components is also within the purview of A&P/IA. 

This paragraph from an AOPA article uses the terms "repair to or alteration of" so I guess that means he can install it, but if it has problems, somebody else has to fix it?

However, section 65.81 specifically prohibits the mechanic from performing “any repair to, or alteration of, instruments.” (Remember that autopilots and other “electronic devices for automatically controlling an aircraft in flight”are instruments by definition.) Appendix A to Part 43 defines the calibration and repair of instruments (including autopilots) as an appliance major repair.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2009/september/15/shop-talk-avionics-installations

[BlueSky247]

On a related note, are Garmin the only AP option on these? I got excited about the Dynon setup after seeing a nice older mooney panel upgrade on yt but then found out about their AP holdups. That sucks. 

[toto]

1 minute ago, BlueSky247 said:

On a related note, are Garmin the only AP option on these? I got excited about the Dynon setup after seeing a nice older mooney panel upgrade on yt but then found out about their AP holdups. That sucks. 

I believe the TruTrak / BK Aerocruze AP is certified for the M20 series. But I’m also pretty sure that they aren’t approach certified yet. 

Dynon’s integrated autopilot is always a year away. 

[Shadrach]

On 5/27/2024 at 12:59 PM, Fly Boomer said:

This paragraph from an AOPA article uses the terms "repair to or alteration of" so I guess that means he can install it, but if it has problems, somebody else has to fix it?

However, section 65.81 specifically prohibits the mechanic from performing “any repair to, or alteration of, instruments.” (Remember that autopilots and other “electronic devices for automatically controlling an aircraft in flight”are instruments by definition.) Appendix A to Part 43 defines the calibration and repair of instruments (including autopilots) as an appliance major repair.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2009/september/15/shop-talk-avionics-installations

I guess it’s open for interpretation. Most instruments, including comm radios, indicators, gyros and AP boxes are sealed and have a tamper proof security labels. I don’t know of any A&P’s that will break one of those and start working said radio, indicator, gyro, etc. However, I know many APs that will replace Brittain Auto Pilot servos without hesitation. Indeed, I know some that have repaired servos with new boots. I supposed to some degree it depends on the system and what the manufacturer says is allowed. Is an antenna part of an instrument?

[ArtVandelay]

I believe the TruTrak / BK Aerocruze AP is certified for the M20 series. But I’m also pretty sure that they aren’t approach certified yet. 
Dynon’s integrated autopilot is always a year away. 

IIRC they were certified to 700’, no auto trim and GPS only.

[philiplane]

5 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

This paragraph from an AOPA article uses the terms "repair to or alteration of" so I guess that means he can install it, but if it has problems, somebody else has to fix it?

However, section 65.81 specifically prohibits the mechanic from performing “any repair to, or alteration of, instruments.” (Remember that autopilots and other “electronic devices for automatically controlling an aircraft in flight”are instruments by definition.) Appendix A to Part 43 defines the calibration and repair of instruments (including autopilots) as an appliance major repair.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2009/september/15/shop-talk-avionics-installations

"instrument repairs" means opening up individual instruments for repair. That's all. Avionics repair stations are only needed to do the altimeter and transponder 24 month inspections, and to open up radios or instruments such as altimeters and airspeed indicators. Everything else on the plane is the domain of A&P's. Including auto pilot installations, and changes of their components. 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, philiplane said:

"instrument repairs" means opening up individual instruments for repair. That's all. Avionics repair stations are only needed to do the altimeter and transponder 24 month inspections, and to open up radios or instruments such as altimeters and airspeed indicators. Everything else on the plane is the domain of A&P's. Including auto pilot installations, and changes of their components. 

Good to know.  I got a completely different impression from the AOPA article. Thanks.

[Shadrach]

20 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Good to know.  I got a completely different impression from the AOPA article. Thanks.

Yea. As I was reading that article I noticed some very interesting implications but not outright interpretations of the regs.  It made me wonder who wrote it, so I skipped to the end to see before finishing. As it turns out, no one put their name on it because it was submitted to AOPA by the Aircraft Electronics Association

I found a number of statements made in the article to be disingenuous. It reads like an industry rep trying to regulate installations out of the hands of independent maintenance professionals. These two paragraphs are protectionist garbage…

So, an A&P mechanic can install and/or supervise the installation of avionics equipment, provided that he or she meets all of the same requirements that a technician at a repair station does for the same job.

If he or she does not meet the same personal and professional requirements of an avionics technician, it is the responsibility of the avionics industry to document the unqualified work and report it to your local FAA office. Keep in mind that the FAA can only monitor the individual A&P while the mechanic is performing maintenance; they do not operate from a repair station, so there is no business to audit like there is for a repair station. Your help in identifying these un-safe actions is required.

In what way is it a repair stations job to make judgement calls about another credentialed mechanics personal and professional requirements? If the airworthiness of an installation is physically questionable, then by all means it should be flagged. Encouraging repair stations to try to sick the FSDO on an IA because they installed a transponder and said repair station does not believes that said IA meets the requirements is not grounded in regulatory reality. How does the repair station know?

The really put heir money where their mouth is at the end of this unsigned piece

AEA offers this column in order to foster greater understanding of the Federal Aviation Regulations and the rules that govern the industry. AEA strives to make them as accurate as possible at the time they are written, but rules change so you should verify the information. AEA disclaims any warranty for the accuracy of the information provided. This information is not meant to serve as legal advice.

[EricJ]

The main barrier to A&Ps supervising avionics installations is the comfort level of the A&P to do so, and many don't like dealing with anything electrical, let alone avionics.   I know a number of aircraft owners who have installed their own avionics.   It's always been somebody competent to do so, and they had a cooperative A&P.  In my observation it has gone as well as with many shops.

Also A&Ps can crack open most avionics and work on them (as mentioned, not instruments), but they must have the pertinent maintenance or overhaul manuals, and cannot make any adjustments affecting transmit output power or transmit signal characteristics (that requires an FCC GROL).  Most A&Ps seem to have zero interest in doing so.

[DCarlton]

It’s gotten to the point that if you’re not capable or empowered to help yourself, it’s difficult to continue flying.  Troubleshooting failures, investigating schematics and part numbers, ordering parts; prepping the plane for maintenance; you’ve gotta know your limits but anything helps reduce the downtime.  Getting timely access to an experienced mechanic that you can completely trust without being involved or getting your hands dirty is just getting too hard.  But the experienced folks that participate on Mooneyspace help a ton.  

[OR75]

a big difference is that when it comes to avionics, many equipments cannot be purchased without buying the install from the service center 

[Fly Boomer]

11 hours ago, Shadrach said:

As it turns out, no one put their name on it because it was submitted to AOPA by the Aircraft Electronics Association

I guess I didn't give it the critical eye.  When I saw "AOPA", I jumped to the conclusion that it must be reasoned and well researched.

[Fly Boomer]

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

that requires an FCC GROL

You just filtered out 999,999 out of a million.

[LANCECASPER]

With today's panels you'll need continuous support on your avionics - updates, service bulletins. gremlins, etc. 

Even though it may be satisfying to learn, you can't spread yourself so thin that you try to be the best at everything. It doesn't mean you can't get a working knowledge of the concept. 

Whatever you do for a living has enabled you to make enough money to buy an airplane. If possible, to fund your project, take some more time and do more of that and hire someone that's really good at what they do, avionics, and let them do your airplane. Develop a good relationship with them so that they are happy to see you when you come in and let them take care of that part of your life. 

 

[Fly Boomer]

2 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

With today's panels you'll need continuous support on your avionics - updates, service bulletins. gremlins, etc. 

Even though it may be satisfying to learn, you can't spread yourself so thin that you try to be the best at everything. It doesn't mean you can't get a working knowledge of the concept. 

Whatever you do for a living has enabled you to make enough money to buy an airplane. If possible, to fund your project, take some more time and do more of that and hire someone that's really good at what they do, avionics, and let them do your airplane. Develop a good relationship with them so that they are happy to see you when you come in and let them take care of that part of your life. 

 

Wow!  This is a life lesson.  I could have used this advice 50 years ago.

[Shadrach]

8 hours ago, DCarlton said:

It’s gotten to the point that if you’re not capable or empowered to help yourself, it’s difficult to continue flying.  Troubleshooting failures, investigating schematics and part numbers, ordering parts; prepping the plane for maintenance; you’ve gotta know your limits but anything helps reduce the downtime.  Getting timely access to an experienced mechanic that you can completely trust without being involved or getting your hands dirty is just getting too hard.  But the experienced folks that participate on Mooneyspace help a ton.  

There is an alternative, but it involves spending lots and lots of money relative to the value of the aircraft. That will in most cases guarantee thorough repair station log book entries. In terms of the quality of the work completed, it’s still a faith based endeavor. I’ve had some excellent work performed by local repair stations. I have also paid dearly for lousy work from both repair stations and independent IAs. One of the bigger challenges in my area is that I reside close to DC. Many of the regional repair stations are performing work down stream of government contracts. The market forces that control costs are severely diminished when there’s a federal procurement contract at the top of the of the transaction. There are at least 3 government contractors on my field. All of them have in-house MX departments, but sub out a substantial amount of maintenance to other companies.  Why fight to be competitive in the GA world when there are companies with multiple fleets of contractor C208s and KA200s that will pay 200k a piece to have a 12 year old Garmin panel upgraded or 40k to have 15 year old paint replaced. It’s why many folks in my area fly 100s of miles to find more competitive service providers. There are exceptions for simple airframe and power plant repairs, but specialty work has been impacted by an almost unrestricted flow of taxpayer funds and corporate turbine money whose expenditures are a means of reducing taxable corporate profits. It’s a double edged sword. GA enjoys an infrastructure that is largely financed by turbine operations but is also being squeezed by that same market.  

[N201MKTurbo]

After I was done with my avionics installation in 2017, the dealer who sold me all the equipment, asked how long it took. I said it was about 70 hours. He said that sounds about right. With just working nights and weekends, It took about 6 weeks before it was done. It's a lot more work than it seems.

[Shadrach]

58 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I guess I didn't give it the critical eye.  When I saw "AOPA", I jumped to the conclusion that it must be reasoned and well researched.

I’m not saying it was unreasonable for AOPA to publish it. Only that it was written from the perspective of an advocacy group that stands to gain from trying to minimize the scope of the work that independent mechanics can perform. The author(s) did not take a lot of care to disguise their interests/bias. I would put more stock in an article like that if authored by an aviation attorney specializing in FAR case law over an advocacy group.

[BlueSky247]

@LANCECASPER Great point. I guess it would also come down to what is even usable for a certain model.  With all the shops being backed up and prices in general, I was just hoping there might be an option that wouldn't be getting into second-mortgage territory.