Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Qualifications for doing avionics work (EASA-reg and N-reg)?

Just a thought….what is the process for becoming a licensed Avionics installer? (FAA or CAA)? So you can sign off an installation?

I have a degree in Electronic Communications Engineering and would have no problem actually installing the kit. If I were planning a major avionics upgrade I am curious if it would be worth somehow becoming licensed and fitting the stuff myself….or changing stuff…… Plus it might be quite handy to offer a service to you buddies

I guess it is not as easy as simply doing a course is it……of course……! But how do these freelance guys operate? Do they have to operate under the umbrella of a maintenance organisation or something?

For the FAA presumably you could do it yourself and have the FAA IA sign off the installation?

Thanks,

EGHS

For EASA you need to pass the test for your Part 66 exams, and have the required experiance on the type of aircraft you would like to work on. Search on Part 66.

You don’t need to be or work for a Part 145 organisation. Basically it is impossible to become and stay current if you don’t really work in aviation, or unable to spend enough time. It is also like that it would be difficult to get experiance locally, as you would become a competator to companies, especially is your help your buddies.

Don’t forget you need a lot of specific test equipment.

You might be better to have the work carried out by a shop, depending on the shop you might be able to give them a hand. I don’t think it would save you a lot of money, however you might learn a lot from doing it that way.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Under FAA regulations you’d need an A&P Mechanics Cerificate to do the work independently – there is no specific certificate for avionics or electrical work.

https://www.faa.gov/mechanics/become/basic/

The work can be also done by anybody such as yourself if supervised by an A&P. For work at the level requiring a Form 337 (major repair or modification with approved data) a signoff by an A&P with Inspection Authorization (IA) is required.

An A&P with very long experience in avionics and electrical helps me in the way you describe when I have those types of projects, and shows up at my hangar with his truck loaded up with everything he needs. Nowadays his day job is working for an airframe manufacturer doing engineering paperwork, and he likes to get hands-on and make a little extra money on the side. He’s been invaluable to me.

For EASA 66 work, isn’t there a practical constraint that the installer needs to be a dealer for the gear vendor, to officially obtain the gear at a discount?

And it is that which drives the requirement to buy the various test equipment. The principals use this as a way of weeding out the “serious” applicants for a dealership.

It would surprise me if there was an EASA reg which stipulated the purchase of test equipment – which could legitimately be rented when required.

(same applies under FAA of course, to become a “dealer”).

Otherwise, there are loads of freelance avionics installers who work in one of the following ways

  • inside the hangar of a maintenance company and then the company signs off the work
  • they get some approvals (not sure what exactly those are) and then they sign off the work
  • on customer aircraft, in “some hangar” and off the books

The US method is clear, as Silvaire says. Normally an A&P is enough as the worker, or a work supervisor when the customer does it, and an IA is needed to signoff a 337 (which implies the work was a Major Alteration, and that includes stuff covered by an STC). There is no organisational approval needed.

Working in a hangar of an FAR 145 Repair Station, or an EASA 145 company, is another way of doing it. Then anybody can work in there, apparently with no qualifications and no skills as I know only too well (that company was both EASA 145 and FAR 145).

Last Edited by Peter at 30 Mar 15:55
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

For EASA 66 work, isn’t there a practical constraint that the installer needs to be a dealer for the gear vendor, to officially obtain the gear at a discount?

No it is not, one doesn’t have to be a dealer to install that equipment either. However some manufacturers tend to make only Part 145 companies dealer.

EASA reg which stipulated the purchase of test equipment. which could legitimately be rented when required.

That is a valid point

Working in a hangar of an FAR 145 Repair Station, or an EASA 145 company, is another way of doing it. Then anybody can work in there,

This is not true. People can work under Part 145 unlicensed, but still should have some basic engineer / aviation knowledge. And they can only work under supervision of a qualified engineer.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

People can work under Part 145 unlicensed, but still should have some basic engineer / aviation knowledge. And they can only work under supervision of a qualified engineer.

Most Part 145 staff in Germany have an apprenticeship as a car mechanic, nothing else in terms of formal qualification. They do all the work and the “supervision” is often just a guy in the office printing and signing the forms. I have seen shops where the supervisor never looks at the aircraft because he trusts the unlicensed staff. I have also seen shops where the inspector isn’t even physically present. Aircraft mechanic pays a tiny bit more than car mechanic which is often the motivation why these people work there.

This whole Part 145 concept is utter BS. It forces shops to spend a lot of money on administrative stuff while the actual work is carried out by people without formal qualification (but usually very qualified) that get paid very little. It would be so much better to have self employed licensed people doing the work but this is so hard to obtain nowadays that these people tend to only push paper for the army of car mechanics.

Thanks all…Ok, I guess then in that case if I want to modify our avionics the easiest way is to do the work myself under the watchful eye of the IA who takes care of our aeroplane….so that is cool.

The only downside is that often the avionics shops can get the equipment cheaper than I can, though I suppose there’d be nothing stopping my buying directly from the USA.

EGHS

Their is a limit on unlicensed staff, I think it is 50%, not sure, one can find out though. The still require some additional training, even if they are unlicensed, and they require supervision.

I think it is wrong that someone is signing off work he didn’t perform, that wouldn’t be my understanding of supervision. I do know this happens. It also because it becomes harder and harder to get a licensed engineer.

I think the idea behind Part 145 isn’t that bad, but that it doesn’t work very well. There costs for Part 145 are too high IMHO for GA. Also Part 145 companies get more audits then “just” a mechanic. I think Part 145 is generally better, and that a freelance mechanic gets away easier. Their is almost no auditing of freelance mechanics which I think is wrong (and unfair for expensive Part 145 organisations).

Also their is this special tools. I think some mechanisch lack these special tools.

Seen multiple times during avionics testing, transponders and ELT which are programmed with incorrect data, which clearly they didn’t verify with test equipment. Direct replacement transponders with dropper resistor still in place, replacement transponder connected to the dimmer instead of bus (no problems when you don’t dim)
That’s the price for getting to lowest possible price. Prices that are just unbeatable if you follow the regulations or are a Part 145 company.

Same for approvals, if installations are “just” carried out, it is obvious that it is less expensive than when approvals are applied for, and installation is legal.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

replacement transponder connected to the dimmer instead of bus (no problems when you don’t dim) That’s the price for getting to lowest possible price.

Believe me, the most reputable (= expensive) shops in Europe do that! I have never had a zero squawk avionics job done on my airplanes but I’m not complaining because my customers never got zero squawk software from me either . Especially in avionics, I am not sure this whole certification stuff adds any value. You need people with knowledge, experience and good craftsmanship, none of that has to do with certification. I am perfectly capable of doing everything the guy charging me 800 € for the annual IFR check does.

Don’t get me wrong, I just think an avionics engineer shouldn’t get the job because he’s got the license but because he does good work.

I think the idea behind Part 145 isn’t that bad, but that it doesn’t work very well.

Here’s one of my favorite stories. A Part 145 I know has had constant issues with audits, especially about their warehouse. There were numerous complaints about how they organized their warehouse, all sorts of really stupid things. So the owner had a great idea. He bought a small cupboard, printed “Warehouse” on it and put in 3 oil filters, neatly organized, an inventory list, etc. On all audit, he says this is his warehouse, the rest is build to order. The door to his “former” warehouse now says “Private” and is not part of the shop anymore. Audit passed, all is fine.

Last Edited by achimha at 30 Mar 18:11

I think we agree.

Everyone makes mistakes, the mistakes indicated would have showed up during testing, showing that no testing has been done. However I sometimes tend to feel (maybe wrong) that avionics guys are expensive “stupid” people, which I don’t agree with.

Which I think is wrong that there are some that fly “IFR with Bendix/King KX-175B and so on”

That would be very hard the German (or Dutch) way, but on some registrations (and mechanics) their justn’t any auditing.
I recognize the thing you say about auditing. I think some auditers lack knowledge. It would be better if GA auditing would be done by people who had a long carreer in GA. Sometimes it is quite hard to convice EASA that one must think in an economic view as well.

The hour rate for a mechnic of avionics engineer is less than that at an A brand car garage in my part of the Netherlands. Still avionics, pitot static testing an doing the compass would take some hours, with this expensive test equipment (and expensive calibrations).

I do see the need for good test equipment, and calibrations. For a freelance mechanic it would be fairly easy just to skip the calibrations, knowbody will know. Which I think is a bad thing. On certification I do see some benefits. Especially for interference. One should really minimize the risk of interference, especially on IFR flight aircraft. Do think these tests make sense.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ
28 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top