Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Avionics upgrade

my maintenance unit says it’s two for new regs, but one for already registered planes.

My contact with FOCA has specifically been about a retrofit (of an already HB registered plane).

It’s all heresay, that’s why I’d like to know the source.

LSZK, Switzerland

My source is Airbase in Bern – obviously whatever the OFAC says we must eventually abide by.

That is completely outrageous.

I wonder what makes you think that. You can not compare US pricing and EU pricing, not on aircraft, not on parts, not on avionics.
You often complain about poor quality, installs which are bare minimum installation etc. You will be able to find a lower price, not a better service. To give an indication, I’ve visited Anders in Sweden to discuss the posibilities and with some demo equipment. I am quite sure not many avionics shops would do that.

Betch ’ya there is no breakdown other than the VAT

I also wonder what makes you think that? All my quotes are detailed, with parts and labour specified, as well as what items are included and which are not. As well as what work would be considerd as extra work.

In general I think one needs to look into the particular details of an aircraft in order to determine how munch a specific avionics upgrade will cost. There seems to be so many dependencies to type of aircraft, avionics compatibility, etc that affect the final cost.

Anders makes a valid point. When a customer is requesting different equipment my quotes will have several options, with combinations. For example, installation of a GTN and an EFD1000 in the same go, save a lot of labour. I therefore would quote the combination, as well as separate units, which are more expensive, as the aircraft has to be opened up twice.

Another point is that people tend to underestimate the amount of work (time) involved to do a good (avionics) job.

Last Edited by Jesse at 21 Jan 19:30

That was why I asked “Could you please post the breakdown of the quotation, and some info on the aircraft it is to go into?”

The explanation must be a high labour cost, in an aircraft where a lot of work is involved.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Why is fitting two well proven modern units a " major change " ?

This is some EASA reasoning nobody understands, They have argued complexity, but I don’t know why it should be more complex. With a Garmin GTN, which comes with an AML STC for the majority of GA aircraft, you don’t have this problem. Though this STC is so wide, EASA requires an minor change when using the STC, to describe the used configuration.

When a project becomes classified as a major, things become very expensive. I never seen a major change made for 1000 Euro. I was quoted always much higher than that. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to go the major change route. It would be less expensive to have a GTN installed, unless the aircraft is not on the AML STC list.

My plan has been to look out for another 430 or possible a 430W to augment my current one at this time.

A second 430 will be a major change, if their is no other excisting approval or STC for you specific aircraft. You might get away with a GNS-430W as you would have only one GNS-430, though this is dark gray area. It is important to note that only non WAAS communicate well with eachother, as well WAAS models. Mixing non WAAS and WAAS units is therefore not the best idea.

In the case of Casimirs plane: Isn’t the installation of the Autopilot in itself a major change? In which case, if done together, there would be “only” one of those?

Typically autopilots come with an STC by the manufacturer. Because of the STC you don’t need an major change. The sames is true for the Garmin GTN series for example. So no. A major change can only be done by a design organisation, they must generate a lot of data which is labour intensive and therefore expensive, as well as the organisation which is expensive.



the very same guy inspected our installation last week, that is where I heard that standing today two WILL be needed from 2017, but so far one is sufficient.

2013 is ages ago in terms of changes going on in this matter. Germany also tried to impose two but relented eventually.

LSZH, Switzerland

Flyer59 20-Jan-15 21:58 #20
What you are saying is simply incorrect. The european regs are (in almost all easa countries) that you need all instruments that are required for the approach.
Exactly, and since nobody is flying an NDB approach, nobody needs an ADF.

I’ve never seen an ILS approach that requires an ADF. Or maybe i forgot.

Last Edited by Flyer59 at 20 Jan 22:00

… Also check out Ingolstad. As both the ndb as well as the vor have the same name .. But are at different locations .. You would need to be very aware what you are doing in a Cirrus.

The ndb does not necessarely have to be in the glidepath part. If it is in the procedure like for example Rotterdam or Ingolstad .. Then you legally need to have an adf .. (And probably a dme)..

Rotterdam does not have a gnss approach. It has an rnav approach which brings you on to the glideslope. The vertical guidance is given by the ILS.

As for the major mod discussion. I would wait for the BASA which should come this year. It is rumoured that faa stc s will be accepted then as well. It would make life so much easier.

Last Edited by Commander at 22 Jan 06:53

Betch ’ya there is no breakdown other than the VAT
I also wonder what makes you think that? All my quotes are detailed, with parts and labour specified, as well as what items are included and which are not. As well as what work would be considerd as extra work.

Jesse – This was NOT meant to be personal and directed at you. All too often I see 1 line avionics quotes, no detail, no explaination.

Clearly, that’s not the case here and it’s easy to see why you won the OP’s business.


I have a friend here in Denmark who wants to upgrade his plane from old bendix king NAV/COM to a GTN 650 and a few other things. In the wonderful "world champions in taxation " Denmark prices are high.

Can anyone recommend getting such an upgrade done somewhere else in EU? If so where?

EKRK, Denmark

@Casimir_D – How did it go?

Last Edited by Jonas at 07 Sep 14:26
ESOW Västerås, Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top