Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Installation of parts and appliances released without an EASA Form 1 or equivalent

It happens because in the certified sphere, avionics are “not supposed to” be sold mail order.

Garmin has a specific item-by-item policy on this, created for marketing reasons and to enhance their bottom line, and that of their dealers. In markets where buyers will flat out refuse to use a dealer for installation and buy something else instead, they sell to anybody because it makes them money they would otherwise lose. Where they can successfully coerce buyers into using their dealers, they make it mandatory. The manipulation of STCs is part of the enforcement mechanism.

This is part of the 21st century business model in which the customer is viewed as subservient to the provider. Garmin, Apple, BMW and modern government are good examples.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 18 Oct 14:23

Anecdotally I have heard that the US version of the experimental G5 comes with a FAA 8130 in the box

That is actually quite common

It happens because in the certified sphere, avionics are “not supposed to” be sold mail order. They are supposed to be sold only via installers. Who draws the line, I have no idea, but a lot of “peripheral” stuff can and is sold mail order. For example I bought a new Sandel SN3500 EHSI mail order, from Sarasota Avionics, and they advertised it “with an Experimental harness”. Well, in the box was a) NO harness and b) an 8130-3 Go figure…

which should be fine for a EASA installation

Only if the item is brand new.

The rest, I have no idea but obviously you aren’t supposed to

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

If you install the G5 under an STC, I’m sure the STC is valid only if you buy the certified version. If you install it under a Standard Change it might be possible, but there are lots of conditions and limitations in those cases so you have to read the Standard Change rule very carefully.

Anecdotally I have heard that the US version of the experimental G5 comes with a FAA 8130 in the box which should be fine for a EASA installation.

Also 010-12493-20 – Garmin G5 STC Permission Letter Redemption Code – exists, which the description of would indicate that you can turn an experimental version into a certified one?

Last Edited by slider at 18 Oct 09:30
Germany

Wingover wrote:

Ultranomad, what about the same item, lets say a G5 that is non certified (i.e. for experimental or LSA aircraft) can an owner accept responsibility in an ELA1/2 plane? The only difference is price, it is the identical product….

If you install the G5 under an STC, I’m sure the STC is valid only if you buy the certified version. If you install it under a Standard Change it might be possible, but there are lots of conditions and limitations in those cases so you have to read the Standard Change rule very carefully.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Wingover wrote:

Ultranomad, what about the same item, lets say a G5 that is non certified (i.e. for experimental or LSA aircraft) can an owner accept responsibility in an ELA1/2 plane? The only difference is price, it is the identical product….

G5 is perfect in that respect: both hardware and firmware are exactly the same. However, the difference in price is less than you think, as the certified one includes a backup battery and the uncertified one doesn’t, so you need to buy one additionally to satisfy the STC requirements. Maybe also the lightning protection module, don’t remember exactly.

Fly310 wrote:

Thanks for saying that. It is my understanding as well. But the person doing the ARC must also believe so.

I am working on getting an ARC issuance authorisation :-)

Last Edited by Ultranomad at 26 Sep 23:54
LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

I suspect it depends on where and what.

The “mechanical” maint business really does care about making the 25% margin on “aviation parts”. They also don’t want to be installing customer-supplied parts, and don’t want to be procuring commercial parts simply because 25% of €100 is a lot less than 25% of €500.

In avionics, the 5 digit jobs are nice but they are 5 digit jobs only because the customer isn’t supplying the installer with a €10000 part he bought on US Ebay for €2500 There are some “progressive” installers who will fit customer issued parts but because they have to warranty the finished job, and take the risk of breaking something existing while working, they charge extra for the work. This is to be expected.

And yes learning about new EASA concessions is not a high priority. Look at how much work goes on EuroGA into deciphering regs; the average shop simply won’t have anybody at all willing or able to do that. Especially as understanding it is not going to increase revenue.

Best solution as always is to use a freelance installer, but that option is stitched-up for most owners by a ban on working in the hangar. Of course there are exceptions…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Yes most of the industry boycotts this concession because it is revenue reducing.

I am not sure I agree – from where I sit, everyone in “the industry” has more work than they can handle, and this has been the case for years.

I could agree that most of “the industry” doesn’t give a flying saucer about things that are not what they are used to, and at the same time cannot be bothered (due to point 1, above) to learn new ways.

tmo
EPKP - Kraków, Poland

Ultranomad wrote:

Not exactly but close: for an ELA1/ELA2 aircraft, an owner can accept responsibility for installation of a part without Form 1 that is neither life-limited, nor part of a primary structure, nor part of the flight controls, and is identified for installation in the aircraft in question. Accordingly, a G5 can be installed if your aircraft is on the AML (approved model list) for the respective STC. An autopilot cannot be installed under this provision, and even if it could, it’s very difficult to verify its proper operation without a dedicated test set, whereas maintenance organisations that have these test sets would normally be able to issue you a Form 1 anyway.
For buying new parts in the US, Form 8130-3 can be used in lieu of Form 1 even without a dual release.

Ultranomad, what about the same item, lets say a G5 that is non certified (i.e. for experimental or LSA aircraft) can an owner accept responsibility in an ELA1/2 plane? The only difference is price, it is the identical product….

Portugal

Ultranomad wrote:

Fly310, for avionics, the nameplate should be sufficient to fulfil that requirement.

Thanks for saying that. It is my understanding as well. But the person doing the ARC must also believe so.

ESSZ, Sweden

Identical topics merged.

Yes most of the industry boycotts this concession because it is revenue reducing.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
219 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top