Thank you Peter!
Yes, the key question is the piece parts. They have not really indicated anything about the future availability of service parts only that they would accept them back for dealers who may have current stock. On a higher level, getting some service parts for legacy parts is already an issue because there are not vendors out there making some of these parts for 30 year units anymore (displays and programmed ICs are good examples). So, inevitably, piece parts could become a moot subject with them.
Last week, they clarified that they would allow access to MMs still for “Return to Service” testing only. I am not sure what exactly that means since they would have to restrict access to many people if they want to accomplish what they want.
Unfortunately, they cannot have it one way or the other. Other OEMs that want to control service work like this just flat out do not give you any access to maintenance manuals or service parts on any level. L3 Avionics is a good example. As a result, no one can really do any sort of repairs on their equipment.
I am sure they are getting a lot of pressure from a lot of different angles. However, like I said, if there goal is to truly ‘pull in’ these repairs somehow then it will mean that most dealers and non-dealers would not have any access to parts or manuals. If they don’t do this, then the so called ‘gray market’ and non-dealer market will continue as it is and/or grow even more as people find ways to maneuver around their system.
Obviously nobody will delete PDFs from their computer. The way this is supposed to work is that without access to the PDFs on the HBK server you cannot release the repaired item IAW the “current” MM.
But is it viable to not release the current MM to “channel partners” while releasing it to non “channel partners”? The whole idea of not releasing the MM is that the repair shop cannot verify it is the latest version. With a KI256 whose MM may be dated 1988 this may be obvious but that is legally irrelevant.
In the same way, can HBK sell parts to non “channel partners” and not others? That would be nonsense because the former could pass them on to the latter, with a margin added…
Can a repair shop issue an 8130-3 “IAW MM dated 23 July 1988”? I don’t know. Well, everybody knows they can and the repair would be acceptable to everybody sensible, but you get my drift? I don’t know how the US system works in that detail. AIUI, an FAA A&P has the authority to establish the airworthiness of an item by suitable inspection / verification of non-fake etc, and an 8130-3 from a big instrument repair shop “IAW MM dated 23 July 1988” would be good enough. Does the US Part 91 system even need an 8130-3? I don’t think so.
I doubt this is acceptable in Europe (i.e. for European registered aircraft which need an EASA-1 form for any non-new item) but again I don’t know the detail. Well, I am very familiar with reality which is that most maintenance companies will not touch a repair unless it comes with an EASA-1.
Maybe life will carry on as before because nobody reads what the 8130-3 says anyway 
Otherwise, I suspect most people in GA have not yet realised what a bombshell this is. On the face of it, beneficiaries will be avionics installers, but many aircraft will be scrapped because only a small % of people can “go glass”.
For better or worse, there are a lot of ways people in the US push the lines of what is a maintenance release and what is not. That is, we have seen creative means of how someone certifies a unit with an 8130. One of my favorites is the “Removed Serviceable” method. There are repair stations that basically just reference an aircraft maintenance manual as the means of how they tested a unit. That is, tested in the aircraft, removed serviceable, or visually inspected or something like that. They have no component manuals and no test equipment, and they do all this outside of any approved dealer network or service center agreement. We have even caught 8130s with the Pilots Guide referenced. People get away with all this and lately the FAA just shrugs their shoulders because I guess they think they have other things to worry about.
So, you have a point that many people are obviously not reading what is in the Remarks on the 8130. Unless Honeywell BendixKing does this right, more of the creative ways mentioned above will take place as a result.
I heard that the 1st July deadline has been extended to 31st August.
Yes it has. They have removed certain items like KI-256, KX-155, and KX-165 from the list as well.
Do you have an updated list, @joesea?
There is an obvious market opportunity to go for the low hanging fruit with a plug-in replacement for the KX155/155A/165/165A (8.33 to open the European market) and perhaps some other stuff.
Garmin obviously won’t do it because they have their own radios and have their own installers who need supporting with wiring work. But someone like Trig has all the technology in-house.
Replacing the KI256 with something different is also very expensive. Castleberry Instruments already make an electric version of it and they used to make the real KI256 for King years ago.
No, there is not an updated list per se. They just indicated that the KI-256, KX-155/165 would not be included. No other updates so far this week.
It gets better… this latest price list has popped up in the USA
KI256 (-00): $7,525 ex (core $17,857)
KI256 (-01): $9,132 ex (core $39,934)
KX165A: $2,750 ex (core $4,121-$4,286 dep on dash num)
KI525A (-07): ex $4,205 (core $9,244)
KG102A (-01): ex $6,120 (core $7,233)
GNS-XLS (-0101): ex $52,852 (core $91,162)
SP-200 (-921 SPZ-200A in a KA F90): ex $24,319 (core $31,926)
SP-200 (-916 SPZ-200A in a KA 200): ex $6,016 (core $14,355)
KT-76C: ex $1,560 (core $2,225)
I might buy shares in Ebay Almost nobody is going to spend that sort of money fixing this stuff. They will rip it out. Avionics shops will be very happy – on top of being very happy about 8.33.
Absolutely crazy. $6K exchange for a KG102A gyro when approved third-party shops in the US have been offering them for around $2.5K! At $6K it’ll definitely push owners towards fitting an Aspen EFD1000 or other replacement systems and Honeywell will end up with nothing. Sounds like the end of Bendix-King.
