Is the Avionics business full of sharks and, if so, why, despite labour rates so much lower than your BMW dealer?

We didn’t do pre-input flight testing but I usually did the post-installation flight with the owner.

OK; however that misses NCyankee’s point that a pre-job fight test picks up dud avionics which the customer might then claim were working beforehand, resulting in a dispute.

It seems an obvious thing to do but I also know perfectly well that most avionics installers don’t have a PPL. I don’t know about various countries but in the UK nearly all installers are ex RAF technicians who never had a flying position in the RAF. OK; the installer could still come along for a flight with the customer, but IME most UK GA maintenance people will not fly in the plane they work on, citing “insurance” issues.

These things can easily set up the landscape for a dispute.

I think if I was going to have a go at listing dispute reasons, with most important first, it would be something like this

• using a firm which is too far away to visit them periodically during the job – this is a classic example
• turning up with a plane full of problems – that’s the nature of GA, and the customer is often unaware of non-working stuff
• using a firm whose comms are semi-illiterate or suspicious – quite common e.g. you send them 4 questions and they reply to 3 of them, and one of the replies is ambiguous and results in 2 more questions, and then the whole thing degenerates, and eventually the shop tells you to p1ss off
• not knowing enough about avionics to write a job spec, or understand a job spec written by the shop – no solution to this one
• The shop has little or no understanding of avionics, beyond the wiring diagrams in the back of the IM – this is very common, but becomes less of a problem over time as new installs become increasingly standard
• unsuitable equipment recommended – this is a consequence of mods being hard to do in Europe unless you know the process, so shops much prefer AML STC stuff

Peter wrote:

using a firm whose comms are semi-illiterate or suspicious – quite common e.g. you send them 4 questions and they reply to 3 of them, and one of the replies is ambiguous and results in 2 more questions, and then the whole thing degenerates

That particular issue is by no means limited to avionics shops. It is pervasive in society.

Sure it is. Lots of reasons… but the end result is the same.

However – perhaps inadvertently when trying to make the usual contrarian point to my post – you have hit the nail right on the head:

We expect (well, I expect) people who purport to be specialists in their trade – “professionals” – to communicate professionally yet many do not? Why not? This is a pretty central topic, isn’t it?

If I get a guy to come and fix my electric garage door, I expect to get somebody who knows about garage doors, available models, and who communicates adequately in writing. Why in writing? Because one who does everything by phone is very likely at best incompetent and more likely a crook.

So why do so many avionics people – people who we expect to know more than how to use a spanner – not communicate professionally? Bad comms is almost certainly going to be tied to bad work, because if you have the IQ necessary to do avionics, you must have the literacy to communicate. So if you can’t communicate, you are not capable of installing avionics!

I don’t know the full extent of what went so badly wrong with that “how to lose your plane” case but I do know quite a bit, and it looks like the comms were done largely with Whatsapp one-liners. That should have rung big alarm bells with the customer. But it didn’t. Why not? A big chunk of why that job went badly wrong lies right there. Upon “lost comms” the customer did eventually drive down (11hrs) and found the panel had been cut up for the new avionics, for which there was no STC! But one of the things you can do with Whatsapp rather easily is send photos!

So we come back to my point #1: use a firm nearby. Why doesn’t everybody? Possible reasons:

• no firm nearby (that’s true for most of Europe’s geographical extent)
• all nearby firms have a bad reputation
• one firm has a fanatical following in your own country, or in your type-specific community, so everybody goes there (and they behave accordingly arrogantly)
• you have had disputes with nearby firms and they have blacklisted you
• a firm initially chosen tried to do something excessive (probably revenue-generation stuff) and when you pointed them to a forum discussion proving them wrong, they told you to f-off and told you to never contact them again
• some version of above

Peter wrote:

However – perhaps inadvertently when trying to make the usual contrarian point to my post

I was not!

– you have hit the nail right on the head:

That was my point, yes!

Your shop, presumably

That’s excellent.

You can comment. From our guidelines:

We want to encourage businesses to participate – because a lot of the time they are the only ones who might have answers. The only conditions are that it is done under the company’s full name and that the poster does genuinely participate in the forum generally. Conversely we do not allow people to promote their company’s products or services while appearing to be mere users; this is misleading and undermines the integrity of the forum.

The problem we’ve had over the years is that avionics installers didn’t want to play by those rules. They aren’t onerous, and if it was me I would jump at the opportunity.

A_and_C wrote:

I know of one U.K. Avionic installer that all the Avionic certifying staff are pilots and the certification of IFR avionics is limited to those who also have an IFR pilot qualification

If that was ever a requirement then you’d instantly shut down all airlines as well as GA! Despite being a mere VFR PPL-holder, I’ve been certifying IFR avionics from light singles, helicopters and heavy airliners for over 40 years without any thought that I’m under-qualified or lacking in the required system knowledge. It’s experience that’s key – not just a qualification.