beware of "warranty" R&R labor costs

"Justin Case" wrote in message ...
Show me! Show me! Show me! Don't quote numbers that appear to make
up your argument. Although your "43.5" may or may not say that, how
do you know your interpretation is correct.

Do you have a copy of the FAR's? Read 43.5 and come back and we
can have an intelligent discussion. They are available he
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...e?OpenFrameSet
How does anybody know anything is correct. I read what it says. It
says that for a major modification you have to file the paperwork to
the satisfaction of the administrator.

So you first have to agree or disagree with me on that.

Now note that the things left to the discretion of the administrator are a big
can of worms in the FAA. It pretty much means that they don't even have
to write down what they mean by that. They can approve or disapprove
things at whim.

Now it has been my experience and the experience of others here that an
STC is by default acceptable provided you have the appropriate STC paperwork.

Now where does it say
that the "administrator" has the right to disregard other laws when
not in time of emergency.

What laws are you talking about? I can't make any intelligent comment
if you're going to be so vague?

Show me the numbers so that I can see it
for myself. Help me out here, otherwise I'll think you're saying the
"administrator" may decide that there's too much air in everyone's
tires.

No, I am saying the administrator can determine whether a modification has
been done in accordance with her self-adopted standards. And anybody
who doesn't believe that hasn't worked with the FAA field system.

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
snip
That brings us to the STC - the most popular way to install an
autopilot. The autopilot manufacturer is going to own the STC. These
guys have been pushing FSDO's to verify that you have permission to
use the STC. You want permission - you pay a royalty. Or you can
keep the autopilot on the shelf. Your call.

Isn't that how most STCs work? The owner of the STC issues the STC
doc for a specific airplane by serial number. If I buy an STCed
product, it's only good for the serial number of the plane I purchased
it for. I've never heard of STC holders issuing new STC doc for
free, if you moved the product to another airplane. I'd think the
autogas STC folks would probably go broke if you could transfer the
STC without their permission.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Doug Vetter wrote in message v.net...

Then I get the bill. What's this? 1.0 hour labor ($75) to R&R the
gyro? I talk to my avionics tech and he says that while SigmaTek covers
the DG itself under warranty, they don't cover R&R labor. WTF? I think
to myself it's one thing if it failed in service at some point, but this
was broken from day 1. Even though SigmaTek tagged this equipment, it's
pretty clear it didn't go through sufficient "burn in" and general QC to
be put in an airplane.

I wouldn't be miffed with SigmaTek. I'd be miffed at the avionics
shop. My avionics and regular maintenance shops have a policy that
they'll do the warranty R&R for free if you bought the unit from them.
They get a cut of the parts cost, so they act accordingly. If you
bring in some outside part, they'll be happy to install it, but if it
needs to come back out, R&R is on your tab.

This is a fairly common policy at aviation shops. I'd expect my
shop to provide some added value for their cut of the parts price.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Ron Natalie wrote:

If it was approved on the type certificate, you don't even need a 337.

Which can be a trip. When I bought my Maule, I added a few things as money
permitted. One item was a clock. Chief Aircraft had a model that was on the
optional equipment list. No STC required.

When it arrived, I discovered that they had sent a new model. This one had
internal lighting, which was the only difference. That meant that a 337 had to
be filed, a local FBO had to handle the paperwork (which costs), and the local
FSDO required a field inspection.

All for a stinking clock.

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

Unfortunately I'll agree with you that the feds are pretty screwed up.
I'd like to see where it says that her highness can put the interests
of certain individuals in front of others.

The law I'm looking for is the one that seems to be referred to when
everyone says that permission is needed by the STC holder to install
one of his products. I need to drill down and see exactly what it
states so that I may make my case. Doesn't seem to be anyone that can
steer me in the direction of this legendary federal law. If the feds
are going to refer to it, I need to see it, or assume it doesn't
exist.

And as I figured, your 43.5 doesn't do it for me, and I'm not
satisfied with your interpretation. Neither does the referring
paragraphs of 43.9 or 43.11. If your reading of this were actual, it
would then be prudent to see the rules governing the actions of the
administrator. I will not blindly be led by the short hairs into
believing that an appointed individual can alter the laws of this
land. If the administrator is not allowing certain alterations, there
needs to be legitimate reason why, not just a "Duh, okay!".

And when you feel you're up to some real research and interpretation,
then respond with a good argument, not with the silly FAR's.


On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:58:07 -0400, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:


"Justin Case" wrote in message ...
Show me! Show me! Show me! Don't quote numbers that appear to make
up your argument. Although your "43.5" may or may not say that, how
do you know your interpretation is correct.

Do you have a copy of the FAR's? Read 43.5 and come back and we
can have an intelligent discussion. They are available he
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...e?OpenFrameSet
How does anybody know anything is correct. I read what it says. It
says that for a major modification you have to file the paperwork to
the satisfaction of the administrator.

So you first have to agree or disagree with me on that.

Now note that the things left to the discretion of the administrator are a big
can of worms in the FAA. It pretty much means that they don't even have
to write down what they mean by that. They can approve or disapprove
things at whim.

Now it has been my experience and the experience of others here that an
STC is by default acceptable provided you have the appropriate STC paperwork.

Now where does it say
that the "administrator" has the right to disregard other laws when
not in time of emergency.

What laws are you talking about? I can't make any intelligent comment
if you're going to be so vague?

Show me the numbers so that I can see it
for myself. Help me out here, otherwise I'll think you're saying the
"administrator" may decide that there's too much air in everyone's
tires.

No, I am saying the administrator can determine whether a modification has
been done in accordance with her self-adopted standards. And anybody
who doesn't believe that hasn't worked with the FAA field system.

It does now, as some of the crybabies found that they can manipulate
the system. There are arguments for both camps on this issue, but I
feel that it's just a rouse to try to make more money. Are you
allowed to buy used books without paying the publisher additional
royalties? But what I question are the STC's issued BEFORE this was
in effect (which may or may not violate consumer laws).

On 21 Aug 2003 16:14:39 -0700, (John Galban)
wrote:

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
snip
That brings us to the STC - the most popular way to install an
autopilot. The autopilot manufacturer is going to own the STC. These
guys have been pushing FSDO's to verify that you have permission to
use the STC. You want permission - you pay a royalty. Or you can
keep the autopilot on the shelf. Your call.

Isn't that how most STCs work? The owner of the STC issues the STC
doc for a specific airplane by serial number. If I buy an STCed
product, it's only good for the serial number of the plane I purchased
it for. I've never heard of STC holders issuing new STC doc for
free, if you moved the product to another airplane. I'd think the
autogas STC folks would probably go broke if you could transfer the
STC without their permission.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 23:24:19 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb"
wrote:


"John Galban" wrote in message
. com...
Isn't that how most STCs work? The owner of the STC issues the STC
doc for a specific airplane by serial number. If I buy an STCed
product, it's only good for the serial number of the plane I purchased
it for. I've never heard of STC holders issuing new STC doc for
free, if you moved the product to another airplane. I'd think the
autogas STC folks would probably go broke if you could transfer the
STC without their permission.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Such an odd system. I would think that is safety were the primary concern
it would work by precedent, i.e., once someone demonstrated that a certain
installation of product X in aircraft type Y was safe and effective that
from that point on it would be up to the A&P and/or avionics tech to make
sure the procedure was properly adhered to.

True, but safety is only the spin. MONEY is the concern.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
news

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
Isn't that how most STCs work? The owner of the STC issues the STC
doc for a specific airplane by serial number. If I buy an STCed
product, it's only good for the serial number of the plane I purchased
it for. I've never heard of STC holders issuing new STC doc for
free, if you moved the product to another airplane. I'd think the
autogas STC folks would probably go broke if you could transfer the
STC without their permission.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Such an odd system. I would think that is safety were the primary concern
it would work by precedent, i.e., once someone demonstrated that a certain
installation of product X in aircraft type Y was safe and effective that
from that point on it would be up to the A&P and/or avionics tech to make
sure the procedure was properly adhered to.


That would be fine if it wasn't so expensive to demonstrate to the FAA that
it is a safe mod.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
news

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
Isn't that how most STCs work? The owner of the STC issues the STC
doc for a specific airplane by serial number. If I buy an STCed
product, it's only good for the serial number of the plane I purchased
it for. I've never heard of STC holders issuing new STC doc for
free, if you moved the product to another airplane. I'd think the
autogas STC folks would probably go broke if you could transfer the
STC without their permission.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Such an odd system. I would think that is safety were the primary
concern
it would work by precedent, i.e., once someone demonstrated that a
certain
installation of product X in aircraft type Y was safe and effective that
from that point on it would be up to the A&P and/or avionics tech to
make
sure the procedure was properly adhered to.


That would be fine if it wasn't so expensive to demonstrate to the FAA
that
it is a safe mod.


Yes, that's definitely a problem that occurred to me. I would hope that
there would be a way to reduce this cost by application of some common sense
for most mods but maybe I'm expecting too much. I still think the present
way of doing things is a strange way of financing STCs.

The warranty that comes with anything is governed by... well.. the
warranty that comes with it. We have come to "expect" that parts and
labor are covered on a "DOA" or defective out-of-the-box unit, but there
is no existing law stating this has to happen. This is probably due too
the fact that the warranty that comes with automobiles includes labor
most of the time, especiall when new.

Also, the turnaround time to get a replacement out to you is also
usually left to the manufacturer because they don't put that in the
warranty explicitly. Whether the replacement unit is new, used, or your
unit repaired is also up to them if it is no stated. Warranty language
is usually very vague, and, the warranty is your only contract. If it is
not specifically stated, you usually won't get it. Most dealers and/or
installation shops eat the labor charge to avoid bad blood with the
customer.

Good Luck,
Mike
Justin Case wrote:
Well, I'd be a bit ****ed at the shop if you ordered it through them.
They made the markup money along with the installation costs. Part of
doing business is building in a bit of warranty work. THEIR bitch
should be with Sigma Tek and they should be reimbursed by the
manufacturer, not you. You can't be in business and expect win-win.
It doesn't happen that way.

Customer service of this type should never be tolerated. Instead of
telling us about it, (and we're always on the lookout for the infamous
"Aviation Scumbag") your energies should be directed toward a consumer
group in your area. If you lie down and take it, they'll do it again
and again. And although it's nice to know, there's no other game in
town.

Personally I'm going back and forth on an autopilot decision. I have
an older Century that is in perfect shape, but some people are under
the impression that the new owner of the manufacturing company must be
paid a royalty if I were to use it. I refuse to be the victim of
extortion and am determined to have it put into the aircraft, even if
I do it myself and claim it's always been there. The unit was bought
and paid for back in 1975. OTOH, for about double the cash outlay I
can buy a new STec whose customer service is about the same as the
described in the original post.




On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:30:06 GMT, Doug Vetter
wrote:


Hi all,

I recently had a $1700 SigmaTek bootstrap gyro installed in our airplane
and figured I'd relate this story.

This gyro exhibited excessive precession since the day it was
installed....in other words, it was defective. I called my avionics
tech and asked him to order a new gyro. No problem. 5 weeks later it
shows up and is installed (they build these things to order because, as
we all know, gyros that sit on the shelf risk bearing problems and
premature failure).

Then I get the bill. What's this? 1.0 hour labor ($75) to R&R the
gyro? I talk to my avionics tech and he says that while SigmaTek covers
the DG itself under warranty, they don't cover R&R labor. WTF? I think
to myself it's one thing if it failed in service at some point, but this
was broken from day 1. Even though SigmaTek tagged this equipment, it's
pretty clear it didn't go through sufficient "burn in" and general QC to
be put in an airplane.

So, I called SigmaTek today and they basically told me "tough...that's
our policy and we're not changing it". They even tried to pat
themselves on the back and say that they went over and beyond the call
by doing a swap with a new unit when refurbishing the original is
"strict policy". When I point out that I paid for a NEW gyro, so I
would naturally expect nothing less than a NEW gyro, they are still not
convinced that this is merely adequate post-sale support.

Since my issue was never with the Avionics shop, I paid their invoice,
but SigmaTek is now on my $hit list. While I positively LOVE their
gyros, I HATE their post-sale support.

Apparently (my avionics tech tells me) this is a common gripe with many
avionics/systems vendors. He said that he had many customer complaints
regarding the JPI engine analyzers, for example, and R&R labor was
getting out of hand, so now in his quotes for those systems he
explicitly states that R&R labor is not covered. I recommended he make
that boilerplate in all quotes so people are not surprised to learn that
they might have to pay for a manufacturer's mistake.

So, I suppose the moral of the story is Caveat Emptor. If you're
getting something installed, be sure to ask about who is responsible for
what if the unit/equipment needs to be taken out of the airplane for
so-called "warranty" service. A gyro is pretty simple to remove, but a
some other system intertwined with the aircraft's innards? Could amount
to BIG bucks.

Safe flying,

-Doug




__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source