Avidyne has been very helpful in getting me the procedure to download the logs from the IFD540 and have them sent to them for analysis, but in the end it doesn’t seem like I will need to: The IFD cutting out was due to low voltage, as they day after the batteries were below 20V and the igniters wouldn’t even come on when they came to run it. Somehow the generators must have dropped offline on last flight (I checked on startup, but not during flight). And as voltage dropped, the IFD with it’s 16W radio cut out, whereas the Garmin with 10W continued to work. Which makes sense, as in hindsight the problem of radio cutting out got progressively, but subtly, worse. With the batteries charged the IFD works perfectly again. But this is on the ground. Somehow, stuff has a magic tendency to work really well on ground and then fu*k up in the air… 
It’s a little strange the whole affair, as I landed in Paso Robles I had to motor the left engine on the starter (with the igniters off), to cool the core down from 300C to 200C degrees, which is max start temperature to avoid hot start. It spun up quick and cooled everything down and when it was below 200C I put the igniters on and she started up fine, well below max temp. That’s not what you’d expect if the battery had been depleted – then she would have run much hotter, taken longer to spin up and potentially had a hung start. So to then go from that to having completely depleted batteries 45min later is a little odd, but I guess that last start could have been the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak. We’re putting solid state regulators/relays in now, as the generators are newly overhauled and batteries are new.
Often the problem with exotic complex aircraft is that shops are not qualified to fly them and need the owner. Also owners tend to push them to get an initial install done and test it.
I have never received my aircraft after a large avionics project with obvious faults that the installer did not point out to me. However, I have never had a larger install that didn’t require at least one additional appointment to resolve issues.
Anders wrote:
When installing the equipment in the aircraft the shop must have done that according to the installation description. I would assume that there are also post installation testing that needs to be signed off.
What does those test reports say? Have they been filled in?
If the installation is not done according to the installation description is it then in compliance with the STC?
Anders is spot on.
ALL major avionics equipment STC instructions include a “check-out” survey that must be accomplished BEFORE signing off on the installation and the first flight post install.
This clearly was missed on multiple items.
When installing the equipment in the aircraft the shop must have done that according to the installation description. I would assume that there are also post installation testing that needs to be signed off.
What does those test reports say? Have they been filled in?
If the installation is not done according to the installation description is it then in compliance with the STC?
I can see a way to achieve this situation, with a plane, with a house, with a car, with anything… and that is by getting work done without being there in person periodically to check it.
Whether this applies to Adam I have no idea.
I had a TAS605 system installed over a 2 week period by a “reputable” UK firm. I popped up halfway through to take a look and found this nice neat bit of wiring
The “installer” said that hatch is rarely used…
The rest of the report is here and no discussion of who did it please because they threatened litigation over some past thread here 
I doubt American installers are better than European installers but there is much more business out there so with due diligence it should be easier to find a good firm, whereas here in Europe the more DD you do the faster you will abandon any idea of letting somebody work on your plane.
your saga really amazes me. You buy an airplane and 2 years later it is still not in an acceptable shape. First you are kept waiting by some expert for essential work on it, then you are served very badly by the avionics shop and now you need to fix the pressurisation? Heavens, what did that guy do the first year or so? And that avionics shop, who would sign off an airplane like that? Isn’t that a question to be asked to the local branch of the FAA?
Sorry, you appear to have been served absymally badly by the organisations who worked on your plane. This is one horror example on how things should not happen.
I agree it’s not acceptable. That’s why we’re having a dispute over the invoice and the services rendered.
Adam, it is not acceptable to have this happen. Glitches are one thing but major new components not working is just sloppy.
It is strange, to me as an electronics engineer who knows a fair bit about avionics, that a shop which has the test kit e.g. an IFR4000, IFR6000 etc etc will send out a plane with bits which they worked on not working.
But it’s happened to me, and every shop I have used for installation work has done it.
It has also resulted in threats of legal action when reported here but don’t let anyone get put off by that, so long as the company name is not posted.
All I can speak of is my experience and it has happened to me everytime I’ve done panel work. And I’ve used the high end shops as well, not just the lower rung. Look at most aviation forums and every second thread is about the avionics not working….
