Hi for everyone!
Recently I purchased a Cessna C-152 with low IFR capable. Now I would like to add a DME equipment to the current avionics group. The question would be that if I purchase a King KN 62 DME do I have to entrust a Part-21 ( DOA) organisation to make me an STC for installation or may I entrust a local Part-145 organisation to whom has approval for NAV insatllation? Or what kind of approvals do I need??? It would be really urgent to know what kind of possibilities I have.
Thank you in advance for your help
The installation of the KAS297B and KEA130A in the TB is to an FAA STC owned by Honeywell/Bendix-King, so the full data package exists and is available to the field-installer.
That’s a very good point, but the TC holder may not have followed the King STC. They have no need to follow any STC; they have full authority to do all this in-house.
For example Socata did not follow the Shadin flow totaliser STC. They mounted the transducer elsewhere. Hilariously their installation didn’t work properly and one had to modify it IAW the STC to fix it (not possible overtly on EASA-reg AFAIK) 
In this case one could have retrofitted the KAS297B and KEA130A as a Major Alteration, ignoring the TC and using the STC. But that’s really a different scenario (to discover there is an alternative STC route).
Peter wrote:
Here is a post on a US site from a US avionics shop, concerning a KAP150 installation in a TB20, which confirms what I have been saying (it is one of countless examples I have seen over years)Yes, The KAS-297B preselector and KEA-130A can be added. At least in the FAA domain this would be a minor alteration requiring only a logbook entry, since it is a standard option for the TB20.
For some reason “Europe” sometimes chooses to add additional layers
I was avoiding this thread but once again mis-information is being spread. The installation of the KAS297B and KEA130A in the TB is to an FAA STC owned by Honeywell/Bendix-King, so the full data package exists and is available to the field-installer. The installation does not require any interpretation or adaption of the data from the aircraft maintenance manuals or parts catalogue, as the STC is a fully-approved data source. This isn’t the same as the argument for doing something just because the TC holder had done it themselves and you try to do the same without the full design data.
Peter wrote:
For some reason “Europe” sometimes chooses to add additional layers
No
Here is a post on a US site from a US avionics shop, concerning a KAP150 installation in a TB20, which confirms what I have been saying (it is one of countless examples I have seen over years)
For some reason “Europe” sometimes chooses to add additional layers
Michael wrote:
Not so fast: for $5K (plus taxes & shipping & install) you get the Aspen basic “VFR” Version with an eAI & AHRS, you do not get an eHSI nor do you get GPSS, for that you need the ACU.
Your correct, that wasn’t a fair comparison from me. For the GPSS you should add 1K, as that is also possible with the VFR (which also does EIR), for HSI use you indeed need full version.
The advantage is that the Aspen VFR, when installed with ACU for GPSS) is a software only upgrade, so no need to open panel second time, and investment can be done in two steps. There is no financial penality for doing it in two steps, which is only fair I would say.
Jesse wrote:
For 4995 USD you have the entry model of the Aspen, which would require much less labour to install and wire-up, it is new with warranty, and has more features (GPSS, second altimeter, second VSI, second ASI, wind indication, backup battery etc).
Not so fast: for $5K (plus taxes & shipping & install) you get the Aspen basic “VFR” Version with an eAI & AHRS, you do not get an eHSI nor do you get GPSS, for that you need the ACU.
Right now, for the same features as the Aspen basic “VFR” Version, the Garmin G5 is the best-bang-for-the-buck @ $2.2K , again eHSI is not included.
That said, the full Aspen PFD1000 @ $9K, is STILL the best buy out there, with full HSI, GPSS & emergency battery & GPS.
Michael wrote:
The wiring involved in a retro-fit would pretty much kill this project and anyone that’s “laughing all the way to the bank” most probably have been self installed where the installer does not count his time.
Exactly.
Peter wrote:
The problem is that avionics shops will never recommend installing it, because they want to install new “glass”
This is not true, it is just because the it is so labour intensive to install, that it just doesn’t make sense to install an KCS55 HSI. In many cases I would recommend an dual Aspen over an Garmin G500, because it is dual redundant, and doesn’t have boxes everywhere around the whole airplane like the G500 does.
The KCS55 system is basically the same, boxes all over the places, which need mechanical mounting and lots of wiring. The thickness of the bundle doesn’t say the amount of wiring.
Peter wrote:
I sold the entire kit on US Ebay for about $2500 but that included a spare RMI and other stuff. Somebody got a very good deal.
So this is for 15 year old, or even older kit, if they (Socata) played the same trick as with you other avionics? For 4995 USD you have the entry model of the Aspen, which would require much less labour to install and wire-up, it is new with warranty, and has more features (GPSS, second altimeter, second VSI, second ASI, wind indication, backup battery etc).
Peter wrote:
due to the amount of heat generated within its small case (no ventilation behind the panel – the back of it gets so hot you can’t touch it; I recall a funny situation at Aero EDNY a few years ago when people were nearly burning their fingers on the demo stand)
They use an heater inside, running it at around 80 degrees Celcius, to make the sensors temperature independent. This is a common method, and is used in allmost any altitude encoder, airdata computer and many GPS systems. People often call this a cooling problem which it clearly isn’t.
Peter wrote:
one fairly recently. Aspen claim to have more or less fixed the reliability issues by now, but it isn’t clear.
They have issues in the past. Some problems I have seen are due to poor power systems, suchs as the Rotax generators. They deliver a poorly regulated voltage (see other topic) and tend to break Aspens). The issues I have seen, where all covered under warranty, while the cause was external.
Your statements are not fair.
Peter wrote:
remote sensor module is very installation procedure sensitive, with its notoriously unreliable OAT sensor.
As with some other more complicated products, suchs as TAS systems and stormscopes you have to have someone to install this kind of equipment who knows what he is doing. All failures I have seen on these modules are by fastening these which a much to high torque, leading to cracks and water ingress (like with many other antennas). If the installers uses a torque wrench as dictated by the installation manual, you won’t have issues with this.
Robin_253 wrote:
As I have recently purchased two Aspen displays I would greatly appreciate any first hand feedback on reliability of those units. I can understand that almost every new and complex product is susceptible to teething problems, but I hope by now Aspen is a rock solid product. Am I wrong?
Don’t worry, you will have a good experiance. Some installers for example don’t install the required switching, leaving the Aspen on all the time. Like other modern avionics with switch mode power supplies, it doesn’t like spikes from starting or poor regulation. Aspen services is very good as well, it’s a very un-american company when it comes to service, which I always much appriciate.
Peter wrote:
Anyway, we don’t know if this is what the OP had in mind, but AFAIK any “HSI” is a part of a slaved compass system, otherwise it is rather pointless.
No, a HSI doesn’t have to be part of a slaved compass system and it is certainly not pointless without it. The point of a HSI is that the CDI is positioned inside the gyro compass card and turns with it. Slaving is certainly useful, but not necessary.
Peter wrote:
The problem is that avionics shops will never recommend installing it, because they want to install new “glass” such as the Aspen EFD1000. That delivers a lot more bang for the buck but has suffered from loads of problems, due to the amount of heat generated within its small case (no ventilation behind the panel – the back of it gets so hot you can’t touch it; I recall a funny situation at Aero EDNY a few years ago when people were nearly burning their fingers on the demo stand) and the remote sensor module is very installation procedure sensitive, with its notoriously unreliable OAT sensor. My D-ESPJ friend (the one that crashed last year) got through 3 or 4 of the Aspen boxes, one fairly recently.
As I have recently purchased two Aspen displays I would greatly appreciate any first hand feedback on reliability of those units. I can understand that almost every new and complex product is susceptible to teething problems, but I hope by now Aspen is a rock solid product. Am I wrong?
