California Right to Repair and Aviation No Exemption!

[NW_Pilot]

I have not posted here in Years, But this is a Worthy Post.

Some of You may already be informed about the recent legislative developments in the United States, particularly in states like California, Minnesota, and New York. This message is focused on California's groundbreaking law pertaining to the repair of electric devices..

California SB244 Right to Repair Law Was Signed into Law By the California By Governor Tuesday October 10th 2023 and is Now Law but not Effective Until July 01 2024.

The intent of the right to repair laws is to provide a fair marketplace for the repair of electronic and appliance products and to prohibit intentional barriers and limitations to third-party repair.

Text of the law can be found on the California Legislature Site. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB244&showamends=false

The Exemptions do not Exempt Aviation or Avionics. I am sure Aircraft Owners and Avionics Repair Stations will love this and it may bring more third party repair to avionics reducing the costs and extending the life of this valuable equipment.

(3) (A) “Electronic or appliance product” or “product” means a product, manufactured for the first time, and first sold or used in California, on or after July 1, 2021, described in subdivision (h), (i), (j), or (k) of Section 9801 of the Business and Professions Code for which the manufacturer makes available tools, parts, and documentation to authorized repair providers, and includes products described in those subdivisions that are sold to schools, businesses, local governments, or in other methods outside of direct retail sale.

(B) “Electronic or appliance product” or “product” does not include any of the following:
(i) Equipment or repair parts as defined in Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 22900) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code.
(ii) A product or component of an “alarm system” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 7590.1 of the Business and Professions Code, including a fire protection system, as defined in the California Fire Code.
(iii) A video game console.

California's #righttorepair law extends its influence globally, with all manufacturers obligated to adhere to its regulations if they sell or produce items for sale within the state of California. Unless manufacturers opt to withdraw from one of the world's largest economies, compliance is compulsory. Additionally, the daily monetary penalty for intentional violations carries significant consequences.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

What prevents manufacturers from selling their products in NV, OR, AZ and those products finding their way into CA?

TLDR, I assume there’s a price limit, are you really going to repair a $29 electronic device?

Wouldn’t federal laws take precedence (FAA repair station license required, etc)?

 

[aggiepack]

I am pretty sure that this law will have zero impact in the field of certified GA avionics.

First, it does not lift any 14 CFR Part 145 restrictions and required ratings or give now an A&P - contrary to the clear language in 14 CFR 65.81 - the legal possibility to tinker with instruments.
Second, this new regulation is part of California Public Resources Codes, chapter 30 titeled "Waste Management", so it is not focusing on the regulation of aviation products.
Third, the obligation ends not later than seven years after production end, so forget to obtain parts from Garmin for a Garmin 430 to repair a crazed screen or defect board.

And finally, no responsible A&P/IA would sign off an annual or approve the return to service after the repair of an instrument from a questionable repair service.

 

[flyingron]

I assume this refers to artificial barriers. The classic is that Apple puts software traps in to check if people have been working on the machines without the licensed service software.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm curious what relevance you think it has to equipment that needs to follow federal rules or requires an AP or IA endorsement?

 

[flyingron]

I'm curious what relevance you think it has to equipment that needs to follow federal rules or requires an AP or IA endorsement?

Why would it not apply. The issue is not that it removes federal or local qualifications to repair things, it's to keep the manufacturer from locking up the tools and information needed to repair to select group.

 

[Tom J]

Your first hurdle will be the line in 3(A) where it states:

which the manufacturer makes available tools, parts, and documentation to authorized repair providers,

Avidyne and Garmin both don't share repair data, hell Garmin doesn't readily share installation data. This won't open a revolving door of work in-flow to CRS's, simply because they won't be able to acquire current data.

 

[Bell206]

The issue is not that it removes federal or local qualifications to repair things, it's to keep the manufacturer from locking up the tools and information needed to repair to select group.

Not quite. It doesnt address the approvals required to use those tools and information. So even if the avionics OEMs are required release those items by this CA law doesnt mean someone will be able to obtain the approval to use them. However, there are shops now that work on various avionics without those secret squirrel items simply because they have the approval to perform that type of work. To me it has a very limited if any effect on anything aviation related.

 

[midlifeflyer]

for which the manufacturer makes available tools, parts, and documentation to authorized repair providers

Your first hurdle will be the line in 3(A) where it states:

Avidyne and Garmin both don't share repair data, hell Garmin doesn't readily share installation data. This won't open a revolving door of work in-flow to CRS's, simply because they won't be able to acquire current data.

Well, they do share with repair providers they authorize.

But I can see a number of other issues, not just aviation-related. The one that jumps at me is that, aside from the repair monopolization argument, a lot of "authorized facility" language is contractual and tied to brand and trade secret protection.

 

[schmookeeg]

Will be interesting if this affects, say, Williams engines or one of those other locked up entities with no field repair.

 

[aggiepack]

This law is about consumer electronics and appliances. A jet engine is not within these categories.

 

[Pinecone]

Third, the obligation ends not later than seven years after production end, so forget to obtain parts from Garmin for a Garmin 430 to repair a crazed screen or defect board.

It also does not apply to products first sold before 2021. So even if Garmin was making 430s, it would not apply to them

 

[mondtster]

In my opinion, the right to repair laws getting put into place will simply make people feel good rather than change anything.

I work for a vehicle manufacturer that has been the subject of right to repair complaints for years. Rules were made and compliance was mandatory. The solution? The OEM now offers owners subscriptions to diagnostic tools similar to what dealers have. What wasn't anticipated was the cost of the subscriptions to those tools - it is unattractive enough that there is no way average person is going to pay for it so the structure effectively remains the same. Having read a lot of owner/operator complaints, they always read the same and what they are thinking they are going to get via the right to repair laws isn't what they will receive anyway, even if the tools were free.

Add on the aviation related regulatory requirements and there is zero chance this will go anywhere.

 

[Dana]

There was a big stink recently about John Deere tractors... the electronics forced farmers to go to the dealer for routine maintenance, but the dealers were too busy, leaving farmers with unusable tractors at harvest time. That may be some of the impetus for this.

 

[John Collins]

Extant Aerospace purchased the manufacturing rights to the WX-500 Stormscope in 2019 from L-3. The flat rate was around $1,500 from L-3. Extant raised the flat rate repair for these systems to $3500. That was exorbitant. I have a WX-500 that needed repair, and requested a quote. They just increased the repair flat rate to $6,150, which makes it totally uneconomical and is outlandish. To add insult to injury, they also charge an additional $250 to print out an 8130-3 form that is simply a piece of paper and required to install a repaired unit back in service. There fee is required to be paid in advance and they don't guarantee the unit will be repairable. Older Stormscopes can be repaired on the order of $500 per unit or you can purchase a used system for $1000. I sent my comments to AOPA and there was absolutely no response.

 

[Pinecone]

As much as I hate for Garmin to own a larger piece of the pie, they should come out with a WX-500 like box of their own. Spherics is a superb addition to seeing the weather picture.

 

[sarangan]

There was a big stink recently about John Deere tractors... the electronics forced farmers to go to the dealer for routine maintenance, but the dealers were too busy, leaving farmers with unusable tractors at harvest time. That may be some of the impetus for this.

Yes, I believe this was the complaint that brought it to the forefront. For certified airplanes, this will have no effect on consumers. But for household goods, I think it is generally a good idea. I am repairing my hot tub right now, but without a schematic or plumbing diagram, it makes the job harder. The manufacturer will not send me any information. I think the proposed policy will also be beneficlal to society as a whole by supporting the diy'ers and experimenters. Some of the best students I've had in class are those who grew up on a farm fixing things by themselves.