Avionics company jacking up price to work with equipment purchased elsewhere

JnsV wrote:

No shipping costs in either case.

On my quotations these shipping cost are included and paid from the margin I would make on the equipment.
Is making the design (required for the approval, even under CS-STAN) included?

JnsV wrote:

Is the situation really that bad for new equipment sourced from within the EU?

Yes on has to be carefull with this. Not everbody is honest.

Another example. Customer request quotation for GTN-650. He did choose for another installer (no avionics shop)
When installation was done he asked about how about nav data. Did have a look at the installation and found
- GTN was with software version 2.x, now we are 6.x, so the unit he bought was not new
- The used antenna was a non WAAS antenna, which means the installation is not compliant
- The TSO-ed data card was missing
- Non compatible indicator (only NAV data displayed, unable to display GPS)
- Installation didn’t use seperate CB’s, but one single CB for the whole installation, not compliant
- No approval, no AFMS supplement, No sign off.

So the installation was cheap, the installation + repair far more expensive then a brand new GTN unit when done
correctly at once.

Most respectable avionics shop will do their best to keep their good names.

JnsV wrote:

In principle, why would it be unreasonable? Just as you said above, avionics fixes can rarely be done within a day or two. Even with my modest utilization level, if the plane is grounded for more than a week, it will affect my plans. Also, the closest maintenance company is 50 kms, while the closest avionics company is 200 kms away from me, meaning that any unscheduled maintenance will mean a sizeable amount of time lost.

I can not imagine any shop which would agree by that. Especially if you trying to get lowest possible price. Shipping the warranty units is at least for me also paid out of the margin. These costs are not included in the warranty of the manufacturer. Time for troubleshooting an issue within an avionics box, is not included in the warranty of the manufacturer. I can not speak for the Hungarian shop, but I wouldn’t charge my customers for these costs.

Another example. Installed a JPI units, had some probes failing within a short time after installation. The probes where replaced under warranty. Postage and labour are not included in their warranty. I don’t charge my customers for these costs. This service must be paid for some way or another.

JnsV wrote:

Hourly rates for such works are also interesting. They mean that if the mechanic (let him be a car mechanic, a GA mechanic or an avionics installer) goes in the wrong direction with the installation or troubleshooting, the customer will pay extra for the unnecessary work. Fair, isn’t it?

If you get a quotation for the installation. I would expect you would have to pay for the time that is quoted. Not for troubleshooting etc. I just did a GNC-255A on a TB-20 which was very hard to get installed, cost me more time then anticipated, but didn’t charge the customer for this extra time. On the other hand, some installation go smoother then expected and will be finished earlier then expected. This is the same price. That is fare isn’t it?

Offcourse it can be different if you ask me to repair other items, or if I need to repair other items, you would need to pay extra. Think of replacing the radio, while you antenna isn’t good due to corrosion under the mounting points. This would require repair, not to damage the new equipment and get the unit functioning as expected. This would be considered extra work.

JnsV wrote:

Ah, the dreaded software update. Is my guess correct that it is regular practice among avionics shops to charge for software updates, even if they did the original installation?

I will do software updates free of charge as long as I have supplied the unit and the unit is under warranty. When the warranty is expired or when I didn’t supply the equipment I would charge my regular labour for the time.

Feel free to post a component list, I would be happy to give you an detailed indication for your information. Sofar it seems to me that this shop is being fair.

IMHO a warranty is a warranty.

Obviously if you buy something worth $10 from a firm on Jupiter, you can’t expect them to pay for the shipping

But if you pay for the shipping, both ways (the usual scenario with stuff bought in the USA which packs up within the warranty term), the manufacturer should IMHO absolutely support you, given that they sold it to you in the first place. The Q is whether their European outlet will support you. Sometimes not.

In reality this often doesn’t happen at all, as anyone who bought e.g. a grey import phone, camera, etc, had discovered. Buy a dual-SIM Samsung S7 from an amazon.co.uk trader…

Ethically speaking, every customary privilege not expressly excluded should be included, so if you buy something from a US outlet and not hear of any exclusions…

So I don’t recommend anyone buys stuff from the USA unless they are prepared to deal with any fallout, at their expense.

JasonC wrote:

What is it exactly that makes people believe this is illegal between the US and Europe? Perhaps under EU law you can’t deny coverage in another member state but even that should be regulated by contract no? If the warranty has geographical limits, is that really illegal?

There is a difference between business to business warranty and business to individual within EU.
If you buy anything directly from the US then you agree to there warranty items.

On most avionics from larger manufactures it is not allowed to sell products over the counter. As an end customer you should not be able to buy the higher end avionics without installation as part of the manufacturer program. Sometimes this is done anyway as experimental with harnass. In that case the warranty is likely not registered at all or on another aircraft. When you claim warranty at the manufacturer they might refuse warranty as you didn’t get it with the dealer installation. The leading manufacturers require their dealers to follow their courses.

JnsV wrote:

Thanks for your kind offer. The component list is very simple:
- Trig TT-21 transponder
- Comant CI 105 antenna

- Trig TT-21 transponder 2087,00 Euro
- Comant CI-105 antenna 175,00 Euro
- CB, pullable 50,00 Euro
- Aviation wiring 25,00 Euro
- RG-400 low loss coax cable 4 m @ 7,00 = 28,00 Euro
- quality TNC connector 7,50 Euro
- quality BNC connector 5,00 Euro

Total materials 2377,50 Euro ex VAT = 2876.78 Euro incl VAT and incl incoming costs

Labour would be somewhere between 550-800 Euro (I don’t know your aircraft, nor didn’t see detaild photos). Would be 665,50 – 968,00 Euro Incl VAT

Labour would be for installation, pitot static testing / encoder calibration, transponder programming, and testing of transponder with test set.

Possible extra labour / risk area would be leaking pitot / static system (if it has static system), which would require repair, before pitot static testing is possible. Another risk would be altimeter out of tolerance, needing adjustment or replacement.

JnsV wrote:

Jesse, thanks for the quote. It makes the Hungarian one look a bit better.

Your welcome. If it is inline, I am quite sure they charge a fair price for quality products.

JnsV wrote:

What is the tolerance here?

It depends on the altitude, at low altitude it is only 20 Ft, increasing to over 100Ft when one goes up. On most altimeters the subscale is adjustable, then sometimes an error is adjustable. Sometimes you can not bring it into tolerance over the whole range, then the altimeter needs to be repaired or renewed. Often this will become renewed, as there are many different P/N’s which require a lot of different manuals etc, in general it is not worthwhile to keep al this manuals current.

The calibration of encoders are often overlooked. They must be within 125 Ft or your primary altimeter (including the error on your altimeter), so you need to calibrate the encoder to the primary altimeter, not to the pitot static test set.

As far as freelance engineers, most of them will not have the required calibrated pitot static tester and transponder test set to do these test. Some installation therefore do not meet the requirements without the owner knowing. For example, this was an issue on Filser Transponder, which had side lobe suppression issues and frequency tollerance errors. Some of these errors where discovered while out of tolerance, as they where not propperly tested after installation. At these cases testing would have saved the customer money, as the unit could have been repaired under warranty instead of out or warranty.

Jesse wrote:

It depends on the altitude, at low altitude it is only 20 Ft, increasing to over 100Ft when one goes up.

Actually isn’t it more like 250ft at RVSM levels?

JasonC wrote:

Actually isn’t it more like 250ft at RVSM levels?

80 Ft at 10.000 Ft
100 Ft at 14.000 Ft
120 Ft at 18.000 Ft
130 Ft at 20.000 Ft
180 Ft at 30.000 Ft (non RVSM)

18.000 / 20.000 Ft are typical test levels for unpressurised aircraft.

I know is a normal practice in many businesses, but I get really worked up about it. Being in finance myself, we would literally end up in jail by doing anything similar (though granted it was common a few decades ago).

As costumer, I have a very strong interest in the businesses I buy from are making a decent profit. Otherwise they will either go out of business or be forced to cut corners. I am just much more comfortable by someone quoting an hourly charge that gives me comfort that the guy is making money and can hire talented staff. I think it is a gross misconception that being transparent on pricing means that you will be squeezed on the margins.

I registered with a parts supplier a while ago and they very friendly asked if I was a private individual of a maintenance shop, so that they could apply the right pricing. I pointed out that I would expect pricing to depend on volume rather than the color of my underpants, and that was when they stopped replying.

Most UK maintenance outfits I have seen, look like a back alley car garage from the last century, working out of unheated shelters with rotting airplanes dotted around. I make a point of my wife never seeing where we get the plane maintained, as she would probably never trust it to get airborne.