Unpopular opinion: databus testers are overrated for most small GA work

I ran across a stat from an AEA survey that said 73% of avionics faults in piston singles are still just loose connections or bad grounds. After 8 years at a shop in Wichita, I've saved more time using a simple multimeter and a D-sub breakout than my buddy did with his $4k databus analyzer. Am I missing something or do you guys rely on those fancy boxes way too much?

2 comments

2 Comments

victor_perry9027d agoTop Commenter

Had a buddy at a shop in Kansas City spend damn near three days chasing a weird Garmin 430 glitch with his fancy tester, turned out to be a corroded pin he could've found with a flashlight and a multimeter in ten minutes. @river_jones is right, those boxes just make the simple stuff look complicated.

river_jones28d ago

You hit the nail on the head with that "loose connections or bad grounds" stat. I've been in this game for a long time too, and I swear half my troubleshooting is just wiggling wires and checking for 12 volts with a cheap meter. My boss bought one of those fancy databus testers a few years back, and it mostly sits in its case collecting dust. I think people rely on those boxes because they look impressive on the hangar wall, but they don't fix the simple stuff that actually breaks. For the kind of work we do on Cessnas and Pipers, a multimeter and a good set of eyes gets you where you need to go faster than any $4k gadget. Glad to see someone else saying what I've been thinking for years.