Avionics Upgrade at your location!!

[mschmuff]

I just finished the avionics upgrade in my 1967 M20F and wanted to give a huge shout out to Drew Brown at Absolute Aviation LLC in Edgewater, FL  (www.aviationaddiction.com).  I don’t know about the rest of you out there but I priced out installing a GTX327 and a GNS430W linked to my Century III auto pilot, HSI and GPS696.  Estimates ranged from $4,500 - $6,900 for the install alone. 

 

Drew did the entire job for $2,700!! He is a great guy, totally professional and the hardest working avionics guy I have ever met.

 

I basically wrote off upgrading my plane after getting the initial estimates and only because of Drew’s pricing was I able to afford to do the work…..  Or could even justify the spend on such an old plane.  I know there are a ton of threads out there on avionics upgrade Vs. new plane due to the high price of these installs.  By saving $4,000 – I say upgrade!  He is also a pilot (CFI) so he understands what pilots want and need.  If you are considering an upgrade I would highly recommend getting a quote from Drew. 

BTW, he came highly recommended to me by Baltimore Helicopters who used him for a Garmin upgrade in a Bell 407.  While doing my install he also helped MedSTAR trouble shoot their aircraft for no charge.  Oh, and did I mention he came to my airport to do the work?!?!?

 

 

[bnicolette]

So just to clarify, he came to DC from Florida?  How long did it take him to do the install?  What fees did you have on top of the $2700?  Hotel, per diem, airline, rental car, etc?  Just curious what the total cost would be?  If Avidyne would ever release the IFD540 I might just need Drew.

[Bennett]

I flew about 650 miles from San Carlos to Executive Aircraft Maintenance in Scottsdale. Returned via Southwest - they drove me to the airport. When the new panel and avionics were completed, I used Southwest to return to Phoenix (closest airport to Scottsdale) where they picked me up. The return flight to San Carlos was uneventful and everything worked as it should. A few weeks later the GTN 750 had a "hiccup" (this was one of the first GTN. Installations in the country) and Garmin agreed to replace the unit. Executive Aircraft Maintenance flew out a techie at their expense who swapped out the unit with a new one, and adjusted and setup everything to match the previous unit. To me, this is great swrvice. I decided to use EAM based on a very competitive bid, and because several San Carlos pilots I respect recommended them. In my opinion, good work performed reasonably trumps the convenience of a local shop.

[flhelo]

I am going to assume that was just for the install!!  How long did it take him for the installation?

[Sabremech]

One thing to be aware of when having someone come to your hangar to do maintenance is of the airport having an ordinance protecting the on field maintenance facilities. UGN has an ordinance stating that in order to do maintenance you must have the same size facility as those on the field already and pay the associated fees. I believe this is the right thing to do and if I want someone other than the maintenance facility on my airport to do the work, then I should bring my airplane to them. These maint shops have a huge investment in their buildings and equipment so is it right to bring someone else in who doesn't have the investment and undercut them?

David

[Cruiser]

Interesting. My avionics shop said their FAA license is strictly limited to their physical premise. They are not allowed by FAA regs to work offsite. 

I assumed this was a standard FAA requirement.

[N601RX]

Interesting. My avionics shop said their FAA license is strictly limited to their physical premise. They are not allowed by FAA regs to work offsite. 

I assumed this was a standard FAA requirement.

When working under a repair station license that is usually true. When installing avionics under a A&P or IA license you can go anywhere you want to.

[tony]

One thing to be aware of when having someone come to your hangar to do maintenance is of the airport having an ordinance protecting the on field maintenance facilities. UGN has an ordinance stating that in order to do maintenance you must have the same size facility as those on the field already and pay the associated fees. I believe this is the right thing to do and if I want someone other than the maintenance facility on my airport to do the work, then I should bring my airplane to them. These maint shops have a huge investment in their buildings and equipment so is it right to bring someone else in who doesn't have the investment and undercut them?

David

 

If the field I was hangared at had an ordinance like that, I would probably find someplace else to nest the old girl.  If that was impossible, then you can rest assured I would always find someplace else to perform the work I needed done.  This is still America and I have no intention of submitting my freedoms to an idiotic rule like that.  Wonder if they let you change your own oil......

[danb35]

These maint shops have a huge investment in their buildings and equipment so is it right to bring someone else in who doesn't have the investment and undercut them?

Absolutely.  The amount of the on-field shop's investment in their facilities is only relevant to me if I'm using those facilities--and if I am, I should pay them in one form or another.  If I'm just renting a hangar there, though, I should be free to have the work done in my hangar by whomever I choose.  A rule requiring any competing shop to have the same size facility as the existing shop is pure protectionism, and probably violates the FAA grant assurances if the airport receives any federal funding.

 

Let me turn the question around: why should the existence of an on-field shop obligate me to have them do my work?

[N601RX]

What happens behind closed doors stays behind closed doors. I agree with Dan about the FAA assurance grants.  I'm guessing they would change their tune in a hurry if someone pressed the issue. 

[Sabremech]

I understand the philosophy of the ordinance here at UGN. As an A&P/IA I agree with it and don't do Maint for other owners for the simple reason that I'm not here to undercut the shop and give airplane owners cheap Maint. It would be a different story if the shop was incompetent or grossly over charging their customers.

This was just a note to inform you to check for rules at your airport if you have on field Maint before having someone come in and work on your aircraft. You could get a surprise you didn't expect.

David

[N601RX]

It appears to me that this AC bans this practice if the airport has ever accepted any federal money, which I sure most have unless privately owned.

150_5190_6.pdf

[mschmuff]

Just to clarify the pricing - the $2700 included his round trip ticket.  He stayed with me the four days it took to do the install and I paid for his food.  No hotel, rental car or per diem.....  Not sure he would do this for everyone, or everyone would be comfortable with that arrangement. 

I can tell you, I spoke with him at length prior to him coming up and got great feedback from his reference.  I also was able to get him in the ride-a-long program for the medevac I fly so he came with us on a flight which I'm sure he enjoyed.  He is very professional and just a good guy to hang out with.....as a pilot should be!!

He is coming back up to do another 430 install for one of the other medevac pilots at my base as well as do some more work for BHI so those two will split his travel cost......

i.e. so if you have someone else at your airport that needs some work done you can split the cost.  His hourly rate is currently $65/hr!!!

[danb35]

I understand the philosophy of the ordinance here at UGN.

...and your question of "is it right" suggests that you find it morally questionable, at least, for me to have an off-field mechanic come to do work on my plane in my hangar.  Why is this?  I'm asking seriously, as I don't understand how it would be.  Again, this is with the assumption that I'm not using the on-field shop's facilities--if I am, they have every right to expect compensation for their use.

[Sabremech]

Hi Dan, for instance, I learned the UGN requires mechanics to carry $2 million in liability insurance to work on the airport from the one shop based here. How many free lance A&P's carry the required insurance to legally work here? The AC referred to by N601RX isn't necessarily applicable because the on field maint shop is given no exclusive rights. The airport authority has set a basic standard that all must follow in order to work on the field. Does that make it exclusive? The airport is merely protecting itself by setting a standard that must be followed to work on the airport, including free lance A&P's, Avionics technicians etc.

Here's the real issue at hand, is it fair for me to under cut a based maint facility to make some extra money and lower my rates so that I can satisfy cheap aircraft owners who don't want to pay what we are worth? The issue is cheap airplane owners, some who probably shouldn't even own an aircraft. As an A&P, it really chaps my butt to hear that another A&P will do an annual for $200. Really? Who wins, cheap airplane owners, who loses, all A&P's as the bar keeps getting set lower by those willing to sign their license for nothing.

With this said, I will not compete with the on field maint facility just so an owner can get cheap maint at the expense of A&P's.

so to answer your question Dan, if your airport has rules or ordinances that are not being followed so you can take advantage of mechanics, both by short changing the on field maint and the free lance A&P, then yes, it is morally questionable.

David

[N601RX]

The last paragraph of the document I posted above also prohibits any unreasonable requirements that prevents or limits competion. How much would 2M in insurance cost a mechanic? Many would consider that unreasonable. Also requiring them to have the same size facility could be considered unreasonable. Until someone pushes the issue we will never know.

[Bennett]

Marinas have a somewhat similar problem in that many of them have a boatyard or two as part of the

complex, while a fair number of free lance mechanics and other boat maintenance folks wander around

the docks, working at lower cost than the boat yards. There is no equivalent to A&Ps here, but there

still is a fairness issue. I personally split my work between the two. Paint, varnish, and polish to the freelancers where investment in capital equipment in minimal, and the boat yards for engine, bottom, and

rigging work. This may be a bit of situational ethics, but it seems to be a common approach at my marina.

[Sabremech]

It is an issue that certainly needs to be discussed. I especially want A&P's to not sell themselves short. Our licenses did not come to us for free and our skills are worth more than many are willing to pay.

I hope to have a copy of the UGN document in the next couple of days.

The insurance requirement may seem unreasonable to us, but are we going to challenge the airport and win a lower rate? Doubtful when the word "safety" is invoked!

David

[danb35]

If the airport's standard can only be met by one shop, it is de facto an exclusive arrangement.  If they require a certain minimum size shop, and there's only one facility on the field of that size, that's an exclusive arrangement.  Insurance?  What business is it of the airport's whether a mechanic carries liability insurance?  That's properly a matter between the mechanic and the aircraft owner.

 

I, as an owner, do not owe it to A&Ps, as a group, to ensure that they are paid what they think they're worth.  Nor do I have an obligation to ensure than an on-field shop stays in business.  It may be in my own interest to pursue these goals, but that does not translate to a moral imperative.  All of that said, I do use the shop on my home field most of the time, I make a point of paying his bills quickly and without arguing, and if anything I think the labor rate he charges is too low.

 

Your use of the term "short-changing" bothers me, though--it suggests that the on-field shop is rightly entitled to my business, and by taking my business elsewhere I'm depriving them of their just due.  I could not more strongly disagree with this position--no business concern has a right or entitlement to a customer base.

[bnicolette]

Our airport (Arnold Palmer Regional/Latrobe, PA) has no such ordinance as far as I know.  However, I surely understand why they may.  The shop/mechanic I use at the airport pays a huge fee just for the right to hang a sign there.  Yet freelance mechanics are free to come along and work on folks airplanes at will.  Well maybe not "at will" but if the airport does have this ordinance it is surely not enforced.  I feel bad when this sort of thing happens as the shop that I use struggles to keep his prices fair while maintaining his hangar, airport fees, insurance, etc at this airport.  Not sure what the answer is but I try to use him as my budget allows.  He is very convenient for me as he's located right there, he is very meticulous and I can rest easy that when something is done, it is done right.  He is pricey though!

 

I asked about the avionics guy the OP posted about as my shop doesn't do that kind of work.  It would sure be nice to involve him though if I were to use a freelance guy.

[moodychief]

Airports develop Minimum Standards to ensure everyone has equal opportunity to have an aviation related business at the airport. The insurances required also protect the airport's interests as they usually own the hangars the businesses lease. What this guy is doing is a "Through-the-fence" operation.

Think of the airport like a mall. Businesses are investing money (rent, build-outs, etc) to establish their shop in the mall hoping the mall environment will attract the type and quantity of business to keep their business alive. Do you think the mall will let a person stand in front of Zales Jewelry store with watches up both arms, rings on every finger, and necklaces hanging on the inside of their coat with the "psssst.....hey buddy! Want a great deal on necklace?"

If we don't protect and utilize our legitimate aviation businesses that play by the rules, and carry the insurances to protect everyone involved, we will lose some great talent and the aviation world dies a little bit more. This includes the airports these businesses reside as they use the rent monies to keep the airport alive.

You can have a guy in a pickup install a $2,000 dollar roof on your house but can you find him when you need him for warranty work he said he guarantees?

I'm done!

[tony]

….but if I chose to put on a $2000 dollar roof on my house, it’s my choice and I live with the consequences.  I really don't want a rule or a piece of legislation to protect me from myself. I’m an adult and I would like to be responsible for myself.   Therefore, if Jethro shows up outside my hanger, I would like to be able to make up my own mind if I want to pay for his service or not. 

 

I have my own A and P, which I trust and have used for years.  Trust is a great thing and remember, I am ultimately responsible for the airworthiness of my aircraft.   As a favor to me, he travels to my hanger to do my annual. Given your scenario I guess I can't use him anymore and I have to use the local guy on the field who has never seen a Mooney before in his life.

[Sabremech]

Hi Tony,

It depends on your airport and who owns the land or the lease. I just received a stack of documents from the airport manager to go through. If the airport owns the land, they can set the rules regarding what you can and can't do in your hangar as well as require anyone who performs commercial services on the airport to have a commercial permit, pay a fee to the airport, insurance requirements, etc. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the requirements from the FAA and whether the airport accepts Federal grants, has no bearing on the airport and it's lease agreements. I'll post more as I go through the information I received tonight from the UGN airport management.

This is not to say that you can't or shouldn't use your own Mooney familiar A&P, but to possibly make you aware that there may be rules and requirements that have to be followed that are required by the airport.

David

[Sabremech]

Here's highlights from the Ordinance at my home airport, UGN. These are all rules put in place by the airport authority to protect themselves and the public with operations allowed on the airport property. I've known about the ordinance, but until very recently had never had a copy of it or the detail. I've marked the sections that would apply to A&P operations at UGN.

 Does your airport have an ordinance like this? I'd recommend asking your airport manager if there are any rules or regulations at your airport regarding aircraft maintenance and A&P's traveling to your hangar to work on your aircraft.

 David

 

UGN doc.pdf

[LunkenPilot]

I just finished the avionics upgrade in my 1967 M20F and wanted to give a huge shout out to Drew Brown at Absolute Aviation LLC in Edgewater, FL  (www.aviationaddiction.com).  I don’t know about the rest of you out there but I priced out installing a GTX327 and a GNS430W linked to my Century III auto pilot, HSI and GPS696.  Estimates ranged from $4,500 - $6,900 for the install alone. 

 

mschmuff,

 

Do you have before/after photos?  I also have a '67 M20F.  I had all but given up on upgrading the panel.  I'd love to see what you have done.

 

John