Ok, let´s talk plain language, I had all this work done by Avionik Straubing, as you can see on the 530 
the installation of the A/P was also done by them: I can absolutely recommend this shop, quality of work and precision is top notch; they followed the planned schedule and the the cost plan.
In the planning of the installation they were absolutely flexible and listened to my whishes; as described above I changed the plan 3 or 4 times, every time I got an updated calculation of costs, so absolutely no complaint here. The 530W and as well the KX165A were not sold by them, I bought them privately, without Form1 and they did the recertification. The head of installation called me and informed about the “weakening” AI, which was discovered during the test flight (see other thread), so again: I cannot complain.
Best regards
Frank
The 530W and as well the KX165A were not sold by them, I bought them privately, without Form1 and they did the recertification
That’s interesting. How did they know they were genuine?
Peter wrote:
That’s interesting. How did they know they were genuine?
What do you want to achieve with this? That some regulatory reads your comment and forbids all usage of second hand parts, and making GA even more expensive?
The 530W was sent to Garmin UK for certification and testing because it needed a front screen exchange, the KX165A was bought privately, but removed from the aircraft it was previously installed in by another avionics shop. The absence of Form 1 / 8130 made the whole thing a little bit more expensive, but not by much, if I look at the final figure.
Best regards
Frank
Peter wrote:
That’s interesting. How did they know they were genuine?
Had the same thing with a DME I bought from a user here. Bench test and check out of all functions. No problem at all.
Garmins usually get sent to Garmin for recertification.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Bench test and check out of all functions. No problem at all.
This is normal operation, again for EASA and FAA, I wonder why Peter is amazed.
Lots of things amaze me. It is a function of age.
Post 122 omitted the return to Garmin.
There is also this which is a “useful” route since an 8130-3 is not acceptable for installing a used item on an EASA-reg plane unless the 8130-3 is issued by the original manufacturer (according to a post here by wigglyamp) whereas clearly an EASA-1 form is thus acceptable.
Peter wrote:
There is also this which is a “useful” route since an 8130-3 is not acceptable for installing a used item on an EASA-reg plane unless the 8130-3 is issued by the original manufacturer (according to a post here by wigglyamp) whereas clearly an EASA-1 form is thus acceptable
From your link:
Which in practice is what I said, because the vast majority of FAA 145 companies cannot do dual release. Especially the most reputable US engine shops.
So this is a one sided restrictive practice by Europe.
Peter wrote:
Which in practice is what I said,
