Here is a bit of good news for the likes of Akro etc.
Sadly it comes on the back of much bad and very disappointing news.
It seems that the avionics industry in Australia has been either price gouging / deliberately misleading, or been seriously misguided by their own lack of interest in researching the facts.
An STC (Supplimental Type Certificate) and an associated AML (Approved Model List) is the universally accepted method of upgrading all manner of things from various manufacturers of either engines, props avionics or anything in-between.
What does this mean to you the Transponder (read or anything else) upgrade customer?
Simply that the installer does not need an EO (Engineering Order) at your great expense just to simply remove an old radio/gps/transponder and install a new unit so long as the new unit has an STC and your aircraft model is on the AML.
There is scope for a minor exception for some kinds of STC's where maybe a combination of STC's may not be a "good combination" and they may need further analysis, but in the simple GA Avionics arena I am struggling to think of this being an issue.
So to all of you who have been charged for an EO already …..I am sorry this is going to be sad to read. For those of you who are about to embark on a Transponder upgrade soon, make sure you are very specific in evaluating who is doing what and for how much.
How did I come across this? Fortunately I am not as limited with my own operation, but I assumed that those in the industry knew how STC / AML's worked so it was never apparent to me that people were being stung this way until someone I know went to do an upgrade which involved the EO cost. To his credit he insisted the avionics installation company do some proper research with CASA and to CASA's credit they asked the right questions, sought the documentation and then responded with confirmation that this was an acceptable STC/AML installation and no need for an EO.
The take away from this story is it has come to our collective attention that the vast majority if not all avionics installers are of this same misbelief, either through deliberate action or by not understanding and blindly following what all their industry colleagues are doing. Possibly through some fear caused by scare tactics of someone in the distant past.
When next you are faced with a situation like this it would be prudent to follow this bit of advice sent to me last night by someone who really does understand the topic better than most.
I STRONGLY recommend that your correspondent go back to XXXXX Aviation and ask them to explain exactly what the legislative basis of their need for an EO actually is.
"We usually..." "It's much easier if..." "To avoid problems later.." (Exactly what problems?) should not be acceptable.
I hope this thread is of some benefit to all who read it. GA in Australia is hampered enough by excessive regulatory and knock on effect cost, so this kind of impost needs to be stopped and many others like it if the entire industry is to survive.
If anyone knows how to get this filtered out through the bulk of industry…please do it.