Can A&P reinstall repaired radio?
Linwood Ferguson
arranged to send it back to them. My A&P helped pull it yesterday.
However, he told me something rather distressing. The FAA guy (not sure of
his title) has been telling IA's in the area that the FAA's interpretation
of the regulations now is that an A&P (or IA) may *not* install or reinstall a
radio, even one yellow tagged from a manufacturer or repair station. That
only a repair station has suitable test equipment to ensure it is working
properly and so the A&P may not do so.
Now my A&P disagrees, and disagrees so strongly he plans to reinstall the
radio -- this is not just some bull to get out of working on radios, I've
known him 15 years.
I'm wondering if anyone in other parts of the country have heard any leanings
from the FAA in this direction? It would sure make it difficult to get Narco's
worked on, considering they have to go back to the factory (as well as things
like loran updates, new installs, etc.)
Note that I am not talking about _repairing_ a radio, just removal from the
panel (certainly OK) and reinstall after approved repair (that's the rub).
- Linwood Ferguson
ferg...@eisner.decus.org
PS. I considered posting the FAA office, but will refrain so as not to
attract attention. It is a fairly large one in a state capital, not some
small remote office.
Dr. Daniel R. Masys
>
>However, he told me something rather distressing. The FAA guy (not sure of
>his title) has been telling IA's in the area that the FAA's interpretation
>of the regulations now is that an A&P (or IA) may *not* install or reinstall a
>radio, even one yellow tagged from a manufacturer or repair station. That
>only a repair station has suitable test equipment to ensure it is working
>properly and so the A&P may not do so.
>
My A&P/IA sez that the 'critical incident' was one or more episodes of
pilots busting TCA's while following the guidance of A&P installed lorans;
when cited by the FAA, the pilots showed that they were only following the
needles and that the navigation receiver was actually at fault.
However, it cuts both ways. The FAA also discovered that some radio shops
do not do the mechanical installation of radios according to 'good operating
practice' which A&P's know well. So the direction things seem to be going
in is that an A&P will have to do the mechanical installation of radios
(or at least an IA will have to sign off on it) and the radio shop will
have to sign off on the electical and RF performance.
More complexity...
Dan Masys
ma...@nlm.nih.gov
Keith R. Peterson
>My Narco 121 nav started failing, so (since noone can work on Narco now) I
>arranged to send it back to them. My A&P helped pull it yesterday.
>However, he told me something rather distressing. The FAA guy (not sure of
>his title) has been telling IA's in the area that the FAA's interpretation
>of the regulations now is that an A&P (or IA) may *not* install or reinstall a
>radio, even one yellow tagged from a manufacturer or repair station. That
>only a repair station has suitable test equipment to ensure it is working
>properly and so the A&P may not do so.
I've heard that our area (Chicago) has had a similar change. The story is
that a fed wrote a letter stating that any shop installing a radio needed
the equipment to test all other systems to insure that they are not
affected by the installation. A flight test would not be adaquate.
I think this refers to installing the tray, however, not to pulling the
radios out of their trays for whatever reason.
KP
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Peterson pet...@rtsg.mot.com Casa De Aero Air Park
Motorola, Inc 48W591 Immelman
Arlington Heights, IL Hampshire, Illinois 60140
(708) 632-2959 (708) 683-4777
Ham N9GLP Cessna 177-RG 33267
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John Budig
filled out. A weight and balance check may also need to be performed.
john
Disclaimer: These are my views and not Microsoft’s views.
Peter Stelzenmuller
>ferg...@eisner.decus.org (Linwood Ferguson) writes:
>
>>My Narco 121 nav started failing, so (since noone can work on Narco now) I
>>arranged to send it back to them. My A&P helped pull it yesterday.
>
>>However, he told me something rather distressing. The FAA guy (not sure of
>>his title) has been telling IA's in the area that the FAA's interpretation
>>of the regulations now is that an A&P (or IA) may *not* install or reinstall a
>>radio, even one yellow tagged from a manufacturer or repair station. That
>>only a repair station has suitable test equipment to ensure it is working
>>properly and so the A&P may not do so.
>
>I've heard that our area (Chicago) has had a similar change. The story is
>that a fed wrote a letter stating that any shop installing a radio needed
>the equipment to test all other systems to insure that they are not
>affected by the installation. A flight test would not be adaquate.
>
>I think this refers to installing the tray, however, not to pulling the
>radios out of their trays for whatever reason.
>
If the A&P re-installs the unit, the reg's say he must have up to
date installation manuals, and test equipment to verify system
performance. The fact that the accessory has a yellow tag does not
change this situation. A part 145 repair station, or A&P should not
install an accessory in your aircraft and leave you with, "let me know
if it works". Before that aircraft leaves the shop that system
should be verified operational.
Take the Narco Nav-121 in the above example.
The units is inop, so the customer (A&P) pulls the unit and sends it to
Narco. Narco finds it's out of alignment and is due for several service
mods. Narco does the work, and returns the unit. Customer pays the bill,
assumes the problem was repaired. The A&P re-installs the unit but has no
VOR/LOC generator to test the system. The customer does not get around to
flying the aircraft unitl his next trip (and assumes the Nav-121 is working).
When the customer departs on his next trip, IFR, he finds that his Nav-121
still does not work because the real problem was a bad BNC connector on the
NAV-121 coax. (alternate scenario) When the customer departs IFR he
finds that both VOR #1, and VOR #2 both do not work. The A&P had
re-connected the coax incorrectly, with no test equipment the problem
was not discovered until the next flight.
I know that many A&P's are installing equipment (both new installations, and
repaired units) that they should not be. It comes down to how your FSDO
feels about this practice. The regulations are quite clear. If the repair
station or A&P does not have current manuals (sevice
bulletins), and appropriate test equipment they(he) should not
be returning that system to service.
-Peter
Andrew Boyd
Peter Stelzenmuller <pb...@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com> wrote about
a guy having some work done on his VOR:
>
>Narco does the work, and returns the unit. Customer pays the bill,
>assumes the problem was repaired.
warning bells, anyone?
>When the customer departs on his next trip, IFR, he finds that his
>Nav-121 still does not work because the real problem was ...
This is silly. There once was a very smart fellow called darwin,
whose theories can be readily applied to folk who test-fly in IMC.
Doesn't matter who fixes the radio. Doesn't matter who checks out
the rest of the system (tray, coax, antenna, etc). Doesn't matter
who re-installs the radio.
It doesn't matter if jesus christ, queen elizabeth, tony levier
and bill clinton all will swear on a stack of bibles and AIMs
that repair is perfect.
After an a/c is repaired, it gets test flown, day vmc. It doesn't
matter what the regs say: use your brain, or suffer the consequences.
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
Earl Brabandt
>Take the Narco Nav-121 in the above example.
>The units is inop, so the customer (A&P) pulls the unit and sends it to
>Narco. Narco finds it's out of alignment and is due for several service
>mods. Narco does the work, and returns the unit. Customer pays the bill,
>assumes the problem was repaired. The A&P re-installs the unit but has no
>VOR/LOC generator to test the system. The customer does not get around to
>flying the aircraft unitl his next trip (and assumes the Nav-121 is working).
>When the customer departs on his next trip, IFR, he finds that his Nav-121
Well, because he had to sent it to Narco, it has necessarily been more than
30 days in repair. I have a friend who sent in his 121 recently--twice!
Narco didn't get it fixed the first time and each roundtrip to Narco took
2 months for 4 months of downtime total! So a 30-day VOR check is at least
in order before departing IFR.
>still does not work because the real problem was a bad BNC connector on the
>NAV-121 coax. (alternate scenario) When the customer departs IFR he
Even though this is one of the most common radio problems, in my experience,
most shops don't catch problems like this the first time either!
>finds that both VOR #1, and VOR #2 both do not work. The A&P had
>re-connected the coax incorrectly, with no test equipment the problem
>was not discovered until the next flight.
A technician at a radio shop is just as likely to make this sort
of error. Hell, most of the radio shop guys don't even hold an
FAA certificate; the shop has an umbrella certificate. Not that
I've found FAA certification to be any indicator of mechanical competence
in my ten years of owning and flying airplanes.
At many fields, basic functionality could be checked with a VOT or
nearby VOR. Regardless, I'd fault the pilot for taking off IFR with
a newly repaired radio rather than faluting the installation and
repair process.
>I know that many A&P's are installing equipment (both new installations, and
>repaired units) that they should not be. It comes down to how your FSDO
>feels about this practice. The regulations are quite clear. If the repair
>station or A&P does not have current manuals (sevice
>bulletins), and appropriate test equipment they(he) should not
>be returning that system to service.
Sure am glad I'm building an RV-6! Too many PMBs (Petty Militant
Bureaucrats) in factory-built flying.
Earl Brabandt ATP--SMEL, SES; CFI--I, SMA; N66VR (RV-6 in progress)
Linwood Ferguson
> In article <petersk.755197298@walnut16> pet...@rtsg.mot.com (Keith R. Peterson) writes:
>>ferg...@eisner.decus.org (Linwood Ferguson) writes:
>>
>>>My Narco 121 nav started failing, so (since noone can work on Narco now) I
>>>arranged to send it back to them. My A&P helped pull it yesterday.
>>
>>>However, he told me something rather distressing. The FAA guy (not sure of
>>>his title) has been telling IA's in the area that the FAA's interpretation
>>>of the regulations now is that an A&P (or IA) may *not* install or reinstall a
>>>radio, even one yellow tagged from a manufacturer or repair station. That
>>>only a repair station has suitable test equipment to ensure it is working
>>>properly and so the A&P may not do so.
> If the A&P re-installs the unit, the reg's say he must have up to
> date installation manuals, and test equipment to verify system
> performance. The fact that the accessory has a yellow tag does not
> change this situation. A part 145 repair station, or A&P should not
> install an accessory in your aircraft and leave you with, "let me know
> if it works". Before that aircraft leaves the shop that system
> should be verified operational.
>
> Take the Narco Nav-121 in the above example.
> The units is inop, so the customer (A&P) pulls the unit and sends it to
> Narco. Narco finds it's out of alignment and is due for several service
> mods. Narco does the work, and returns the unit. Customer pays the bill,
> assumes the problem was repaired. The A&P re-installs the unit but has no
> VOR/LOC generator to test the system. The customer does not get around to
> flying the aircraft unitl his next trip (and assumes the Nav-121 is working).
> When the customer departs on his next trip, IFR, he finds that his Nav-121
> still does not work because the real problem was a bad BNC connector on the
> NAV-121 coax. (alternate scenario) When the customer departs IFR he
> finds that both VOR #1, and VOR #2 both do not work. The A&P had
> re-connected the coax incorrectly, with no test equipment the problem
> was not discovered until the next flight.
Well, there's another issue in your example of course. The pilot that
departed IFR without checking the VOR's as required every 30 days (and
I hope only an idiot would interpret a test PRIOR to the repair as still
being valid after) is themselves in violation.
> I know that many A&P's are installing equipment (both new installations, and
> repaired units) that they should not be. It comes down to how your FSDO
> feels about this practice. The regulations are quite clear. If the repair
> station or A&P does not have current manuals (sevice
> bulletins), and appropriate test equipment they(he) should not
> be returning that system to service.
But how about Narco? Narco is not (I understand) sending out service
bulletins. So *no* shop has current manuals or information, and this is
why the FAA has baned repair stations from servicing Narco equipment.
So if you say they must have up to date info to do a simple reinstall, then
it would appear NO ONE BUT NARCO can do so. And Narco is not on a field, and
will not themselves work on your airplane (I asked).
So it sounds from your description that if a Narco radio fails, you must
trash it, since even if you get it repaired noone can legally reinstall it.
[I sure hope there is a flaw in that logic somewhere]
- Linwood Ferguson
ferg...@eisner.decus.org
Corwin Nichols
that I would ever install like a Narco Comm 11 in my Colt or anything
like that, but sliding a radio in and turning an allen wrench seems SO
trivial.
Corwin Nichols
Peter Stelzenmuller
>An A/P should be able to perform this work as long as a 337 is
>filled out. A weight and balance check may also need to be performed.
>
>john
>
The 337 form is filled out for a "Major Alteration" to the aircraft. The
re-installtion of a repaired radio is not a Major Alteration. Therefore
a 337 form would not be appropriate in this case.
The A&P can re-install the repaired radio, but he cannot return the
aircraft to service (logbook sign-off's) without appropriate
documentation & test equipment.
-Peter
Peter Stelzenmuller
Earl, I think your overlooking a few points while taking a jab at the
Petty Militant Bureaucrats.
Even though:
1) Narco may be slow to repair units
2) Narco may not fix it the first time
3) An avionics shop may make the same mistake as an A&P
4) Customer should test fly his aircraft after each repair.
This does not change the regs. If the A&P does not have the documentation
and test equipment, he cannot return the aircraft to service.
Some of the regulations do appear excessive. But your scenario assumes
every pilot has the opportunity to "test fly" his aircraft
before taking a "real" flight. This simply isn't accurate. Do you
think US Air runs a 727 around the pattern once without passengers
every time a radio (or accessory) is swapped out? Do you think
every 135 operation takes their aircraft on "test flights" after
radio repair?.
The reg's are written so that the pilot should
have some assurance that the systems have been tested in the
aircraft, and the systems tested operational. Maybe this appears
unnecessary for a 172 that is used VFR on weekends, but that's the
reg. Regulations for repair stations generally do not make exceptions based
on aircraft usage.
-Peter
Peter Stelzenmuller
>In article <1993Dec7.1...@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com>, pb...@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Peter Stelzenmuller) writes:
>> In article <petersk.755197298@walnut16> pet...@rtsg.mot.com (Keith R. Peterson) writes:
>>>ferg...@eisner.decus.org (Linwood Ferguson) writes:
>>>
>>>>My Narco 121 nav started failing, so (since noone can work on Narco now) I
>>>>arranged to send it back to them. My A&P helped pull it yesterday.
>>>
>>>>However, he told me something rather distressing. The FAA guy (not sure of
>>>>his title) has been telling IA's in the area that the FAA's interpretation
>>>>of the regulations now is that an A&P (or IA) may *not* install or reinstall a
>
>But how about Narco? Narco is not (I understand) sending out service
>bulletins. So *no* shop has current manuals or information, and this is
>why the FAA has baned repair stations from servicing Narco equipment.
>
>So if you say they must have up to date info to do a simple reinstall, then
>it would appear NO ONE BUT NARCO can do so. And Narco is not on a field, and
>will not themselves work on your airplane (I asked).
>
>So it sounds from your description that if a Narco radio fails, you must
>trash it, since even if you get it repaired noone can legally reinstall it.
>
>[I sure hope there is a flaw in that logic somewhere]
>
> - Linwood Ferguson
> ferg...@eisner.decus.org
A very good observation. When I reply to your question it will be based
on our FSDO's interpretation of this situation. Another FSDO may agree
or disagree.
If your avionics shop is more than a few years old, they will have the
complete Narco service library including the service bulletins. When
Narco said a year ago they would not sell manuals or service bulletins
they were refering to maintenance not installation. From my communication
with Narco, if an installation related issue developed (in the future)
with a Nav-121 (not likely) the dealers would be notified. Until that
time the service bulletins on file at the avionics shop for the Nav-121
would cover any removal & re-installtion. Our FSDO has no problem with
this. You are correct as far as bench repair of Narco equipment.
Because Narco has said no more service bulletins, the avionics
shop will be in violation if they bench repair & "yellow tag" a unit.
Again, It depends on your FSDO.
When you purchase a new Narco product it will come with a current
installtion manual.
One area that I have not seen resolved is the 91.413 transponder
test. A recent change to the regulation specifies that the
91.413 test be done with the transponder in the aircraft, not
on the bench (most were being done this way anyway, but you
use to be allowed to do this check on the bench). The transponder
antenna & coax in the aircraft can "pull" the transpoder off
frequency. This is corrected by opening the transponder up on the
bench and adjusting it. So, you can have a transponder just back
from Narco that is dead-on frequency on the bench, but is out of
spec in the aircraft. If the avionics shop can't open it up, and Narco
can't simulate your aircraft antenna, then what? (obviously shops
are still opening up these units).
The significant difference between an A&P, and an avionics shop should
still be the ramp test of the system. The avionics shop will be
able to run up the equipment on the ramp (based on existing manuals
and bulletins). With all the possible systems that could be affected
when and accessory is repaired, the reg's put the burden on the shop
(both repair shop & installing shop) to determine that the systems
are operational. Remember these reg's cover part 135 & 121 aircraft
as well as 91. The repair regulations are written for
the operator who cannot "test fly" every avioncs repair.
-Peter
Moshe Braner
that the mesh type are best since they are easier to handle in
wind, fold much smaller, do not trap moisture under them, and
supposedly do keep frost off the plane despite the holes in the
mesh. Is all that true? Where should I buy them from?
If anybody's got used wing covers they'd like to sell, I'd like
to hear about it, too.
- Moshe
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Braner bra...@emba.uvm.edu
47 McGee Road, Essex, VT 05452 (802) 879-0876 (H) 241-2682 (W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Stelzenmuller
>In article <1993Dec7.1...@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com>,
>Peter Stelzenmuller <pb...@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com> wrote about
>a guy having some work done on his VOR:
>>
>>Narco does the work, and returns the unit. Customer pays the bill,
>>assumes the problem was repaired.
>
>warning bells, anyone?
>
>>When the customer departs on his next trip, IFR, he finds that his
>>Nav-121 still does not work because the real problem was ...
>
>This is silly. There once was a very smart fellow called darwin,
>whose theories can be readily applied to folk who test-fly in IMC.
>
If you are implying, that pilots never depart IFR after repairs without
test flights, you may want to spend a little more time around your
local shop. I can tell you it happens to our shop all the time.
I'm not suggesting that owners should'nt flight test their aircraft
after repairs. My point was that repair station regulations for
returning an aircraft to service after repairs, require the
installing agency to have the proper documentation and equipment
to verify correct operation after the repair. IMO an owner
that has an A&P (who does not have documentation and test equipment)
re-install repaired avionics is more likely to NEED a test flight.
As I pointed out in several other post's, many operators (135,121)
cannot accommodate a test flight each time a piece of avionics is
repaired (some repairs require a test flight, but not all).
-Peter
Bluejay Adametz
In article <1993Dec4.102056.1489@eisner>, ferg...@eisner.decus.org (Linwood Ferguson) writes:
>
>However, he told me something rather distressing. The FAA guy (not sure of
>his title) has been telling IA's in the area that the FAA's interpretation
>of the regulations now is that an A&P (or IA) may *not* install or reinstall a
>radio, even one yellow tagged from a manufacturer or repair station. That
>only a repair station has suitable test equipment to ensure it is working
>properly and so the A&P may not do so.
I'll side with your A&P on this one. This is no different (from a regulatory
point of view) than removing & reinstalling, say, an airspeed indicator. The
A&P is _not_ authorized to go inside the case, but may remove and install
it.
As for test equipment, in your case (a NAV radio), all you need is a localizer,
and a VOR transmitter. They're rather common. In fact, there are procedures
to check VOR accuracy published that even a pilot can perform. In fact, IFR
pilots are _required_ to know how to do this.
>PS. I considered posting the FAA office, but will refrain so as not to
>attract attention. It is a fairly large one in a state capital, not some
>small remote office.
Perhaps an anonymous call to your FSDO would be in order. Ask specifically
what regs they're referencing.
--
The fact that my employer lets me post should in no
way be interpreted as approval of anything I say.
---
Me: Bluejay Adametz, A&P, CFII
Mine: AA-5B N45210
Us: AMP-Akzo Co.
Here: Greenville, SC, USA
How: blu...@ampakzo.UUCP
feathr::blu...@ampakz.enet.dec.com
+1 803 675 7425
Linwood Ferguson
As I read part 43, there is no question that a non-A&P, non-repair station
owner may NOT reinstall a radio, or even remove it to send it out for repair
(assuming the aircraft is intended to fly after removal).
Read Part 43, and you will see that "trivial" is not mentioned. :-) Nor is
"makes sense". Consider that an owner may trouble shoot and repair landing
light circuits, which I interpret to include up to replacement of the circuit
breaker. Now on my much crowded panel of the arrow that is a pretty difficult
job, and one where you could easily screw up many circuits on that same bus.
Yet by the same regs I could not fix a broken wire going to the fresh air
blower in the back, or reattach a broken wire from a nav light socket.
We will get nowhere here talking "what makes sense", I'm really trying to
determine what the FAA considers legal. And it sounds like most people are
interpreting it as though to be legal, I have to have a radio shop re-insert
my Narco 121.
Now whether I can find a radio shop who _can_ reinsert it given the status of
Narco is another question. Any repair stations reading this? *can* you
reinsert a narco as you interpret the situation with the FAA and Narco?
- Linwood Ferguson
Earl Brabandt
>
>This does not change the regs. If the A&P does not have the documentation
>and test equipment, he cannot return the aircraft to service.
>
but also among FSDOs and inspectors. Were not discussing changing
regs here at all--only how they are interpreted.
>Some of the regulations do appear excessive. But your scenario assumes
>every pilot has the opportunity to "test fly" his aircraft
>before taking a "real" flight. This simply isn't accurate. Do you
>think US Air runs a 727 around the pattern once without passengers
>every time a radio (or accessory) is swapped out? Do you think
>every 135 operation takes their aircraft on "test flights" after
>radio repair?.
No. Various regulations, operations handbooks and such probably allow for this.
However FAR 91.407(b) (too long to enter here, but I'm sure all interested
readers can consult the reference), does in fact require flight tests before
passengers may be carried in an aircraft that has been "maintained, rebuilt,
or altered in a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight character-
istics or substantially affected its operation in flight." It requires
judgement to determine when radio maintenance falls under this requirement.
FAR 91.407(c) provides a work-around to the flight test in the way of
ground tests, inspection, or both. I would argue that such extensive
ground tests, (rarely adequately performed by radio shops anyway) are
an alternative to the flight test. Obviously the thrust of FAR 91.407
is that flight tests are not only adequate to ensure the quality of the
maintenance, but quite standard. Personally, I don't believe requiring
a radio shop rather than an A&P to do radio replacement adds any quality
at all to the process--especially if a reasonable flight test is used to
return the aircraft to service. I would prefer the flight test anyway.
Earl
Keith R. Peterson
>If your avionics shop is more than a few years old, they will have the
>complete Narco service library including the service bulletins. When
>Narco said a year ago they would not sell manuals or service bulletins
>they were refering to maintenance not installation. From my communication
>with Narco, if an installation related issue developed (in the future)
>with a Nav-121 (not likely) the dealers would be notified. Until that
>time the service bulletins on file at the avionics shop for the Nav-121
>would cover any removal & re-installtion. [more deleted]
I just talked to Radio Ranch, an avionics shop outside Chicago.
He says Narco sent out a bulletin declaring all of their manuals
obsolete. That makes them unusable for any legal purpose.
Also he had several Narco trade-ins that he had tuned up and had for
sale on the used shelf. The FAA guy was out for a visit and mentioned
that he couldn't even sell them again without sending them to Narco
to be re-certified. Evidently this was just because the yellow tag
had the shop name on it, even though the date was before the manuals
were declared obsolete.
A good time not to own Narco...
Peter Stelzenmuller
IMO this discussion does pertain to an owner. If the A&P without
documentation and test equipment can't return the aircraft to service,
I don't see how the owner can. As far as turning an allen wrench, you
have to decide how important accurate airframe logs are to you. Any
maintenance to the aircraft should be entered into the logs. If you
slide in your own radio either you are not going to enter into your logs,
or your have to get someone who is authorized to enter into the logs.
-Peter
Corwin Nichols
radios: note that Sporty's sells "avioincs wrenches" designed for just
this purpose. There must be some kind of market for these tools.
Corwin Nichols
Linwood Ferguson
Well, I can buy all sorts of tools I'm not allowed to use unsupervised.
Yet I can use them quite well if an A&P or IA is supervising the work.
And if I had a homebuilt meeting certain requirements I can use them personally
unsupervised.
Heck, I could buy a 737 (if only I were rich) but that doesn't make me legally
able to fly it.
- Linwood
PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)
!pb...@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Peter Stelzenmuller) writes:
!
!!If your avionics shop is more than a few years old, they will have the
!!complete Narco service library including the service bulletins. When
!!Narco said a year ago they would not sell manuals or service bulletins
!!they were refering to maintenance not installation. From my communication
!!with Narco, if an installation related issue developed (in the future)
!!with a Nav-121 (not likely) the dealers would be notified. Until that
!!time the service bulletins on file at the avionics shop for the Nav-121
!!would cover any removal & re-installtion. [more deleted]
!
!I just talked to Radio Ranch, an avionics shop outside Chicago.
!
!He says Narco sent out a bulletin declaring all of their manuals
!obsolete. That makes them unusable for any legal purpose.
!
!Also he had several Narco trade-ins that he had tuned up and had for
!sale on the used shelf. The FAA guy was out for a visit and mentioned
!that he couldn't even sell them again without sending them to Narco
!to be re-certified. Evidently this was just because the yellow tag
!had the shop name on it, even though the date was before the manuals
!were declared obsolete.
!
!A good time not to own Narco...
Agreed and I own 2 which are currently serving me well.
However, I talked to the Narco rep at Oshkosh about this
and he was totally recalcitrant about their policy. The
bottom line was that they `had to get more cash flowing
through the company'. This approach is completely stupid.
I predict that either Narco will change it's policy OR
go out of business. I will never buy another Narco product
even at half the price of a King.
Stupid people in business deserve to go out of business.
Dave Rogers
Linwood Ferguson
> and he was totally recalcitrant about their policy. The
> bottom line was that they `had to get more cash flowing
> through the company'. This approach is completely stupid.
> I predict that either Narco will change it's policy OR
> go out of business. I will never buy another Narco product
> even at half the price of a King.
Well, since I started this thread, let me tell you how it came out.
I sent in a Narco 121 for repair of a somewhat sticky needle. A radio tech
I talked to (non-Narco) said he thought it probably needed a minor
repair of an hour or two.
Narco said it needed most of the guts replaced for $750.
Considering I could probably pick up a good used one for that price, and
considering their track record of right-the-first-time repairs (I have yet
to talk to ANYONE who didn't have a story of multiple returns to factory),
I told them to send it back. Wish I could figure out how to avoid the
$65 "estimate fee".
So I won't be needing to worry about how to get it reinstalled. And if
Narco goes out of business, I'll have a party to celebrate.
Looks like it is time for a new panel (I have no room for radio stack nav)
and trash the rest of the Narco stuff.
Sigh. So much for my flying budget this year. And next.
- Linwood
Keith R. Peterson
>Well, since I started this thread, let me tell you how it came out.
>I sent in a Narco 121 for repair of a somewhat sticky needle. A radio tech
>I talked to (non-Narco) said he thought it probably needed a minor
>repair of an hour or two.
>Narco said it needed most of the guts replaced for $750.
A friend of my had a good observation on this. His predition is that
Narco radios will stop failing. That is, those slight one hour
adjustments will just happen automagically and never show up in the
logs.
It's certainly not a solution I advocate, but I can see that it will
happen. Perhaps Narco is even more short-sighted than we realize.
Bluejay Adametz
Nope. FAR part 43 spells out exactly those thing that an owner may do on
his/her own, on his or her own aircraft. Removing/installing radios is not
listed. Triviality has some, but not much, to do with the content of that
list.