The forums and news threads went berserk when Garmin sounded the warning horn last year that the parts bins stocked with major components to maintain the world-conquering GNS-series navigators are thinning, and that owners should start planning an upgrade. Garmin Service Advisory (23018 Rev. B) makes it official, saying in part that display repairs for the WAAS and non-WAAS GPS 400, GNC 420 and GNS 430 are no longer available and have been discontinued after 25 years of support.
It’s easy to understand the hysteria because for the masses, it’s tough to imagine flying without one. With over 110,000 GNS units sold, both for retrofit and as an OEM standard, the GNS line could be the most market-saturated avionics ever built. Other than King’s Silver Crown KX155 radios, I can’t think of anything that comes close. Moreover, the GNS 430 and larger GNS 530 are reliable rigs that work well for such a wide variety of applications and flying missions—IFR, VFR and everything in between.
If the product was a turd like some other brand’s offerings of similar vintage, there wouldn’t be nearly the uproar over support issues. Plus, GNS navigators were never cheap. If you spent the money and downtime for installation (around $30K was the magic number for a 430W/530W combo), you can’t be thrilled that a tanked display could send it to the scrap bench. Fair-weather flyers who don’t use more than the Direct To key probably have little motivation to upgrade.
The good news for owners who want to proactively bail out of a good-working GNS is that WAAS units still fetch big dollars—even if there aren’t replacement displays for them. Garmin is doing something it rarely does, offering trade-in value presumably to backfill the parts bins because it says it’s committed to servicing the GNS line for years, or at least those with healthy displays.
I’ve seen only a couple failed displays over the 25 years, and that seems in line with Garmin’s estimation that only around 1 percent of units will be affected, though the units aren’t getting younger, so I predict the percentage will grow. Units that have recently been back to Garmin for a flat-rate repair—and even better, have replacement displays—are priced at the top of the used market.
The GNS 430W flat-rate repair is around $2000, and the typical retail price for a cherry one is around $5500. For years, Avidyne has offered trade allowances for used GNS 430Ws against its mostly slide-in IFD 440, and that feeds the used market with a variety of GNS units. Ask to see service paperwork before striking a deal, and demand that it looks good cosmetically. A common refurbishment on units that go back for repair include replacement bezel keys and a new display lens.
I’ve heard kookie conspiracy theories that Garmin purposely built the display so it times out after so many hours. Garmin doesn’t even make the display, and given the leaps in display technology that happened since the 1990s it’s no surprise there aren’t current third-party suppliers who do. Garmin thinks that dropping in a modern touch display like the ones on the current Garmin navigators, upgrading the memory and going through re-certification would cost more than owners would be willing to spend.
I think King Silver Crown owners voted with their wallets when BendixKing couldn’t source gas displays for existing KX155/165 navcomms; it came up with a simple mod for a replacement LED that was more than four times the cost of the old drop-in display. Shops tell me the majority of owners faced with repairs used the opportunity to upgrade to a new Garmin.
A hangar buddy with an early GNS 430 in his Cherokee told me his unit doesn’t owe him a dime because it’s seen multiple upgrades, and after spending the $2000 last year for a display replacement he hopes to keep it forever, maybe someday moving it to the number two position as a backup. If you’ve owned a GNS 430 from the beginning, you know that it’s gotten several boosts over the years—including a WAAS upgrade and more software upgrades than I can count. But even before the GNS, Garmin had a track record of stretching the life of navigators, at least until it runs out of major components, including displays.
As a blushing-green avionics guy in the early 1990s when ground-based Loran-C was the standard, I remember installing Garmin’s first navigator—the GPS100. The unit got several improvements (including an aviation database and a panel-mount install kit) before morphing into the GPS150 and comm-equipped GNC250, and then the GPS155/GNC300, which were among the first approach-approvable IFR GPS navigators. Later models of these units (the “XL” series, which added stark yellow moving map displays) were still offered in the Garmin lineup and long supported even after the GNS 430 came along in 1998.
Ultimately, Garmin stopped supporting the GPS100/200 series after many years because it couldn’t get replacement displays made by an outside vendor. Of course, the market didn’t complain a whole lot because the GNS line, with an eight-color LCD display, was an immediate success and for many it was a logical and modern step up from the utilitarian 100 and 200-series navigators.
The original $10,000 GNS 430 didn’t have a WAAS receiver and when Garmin added a factory WAAS upgrade in 2003 as it promised, it offered the update for 17 years before dropping it when the ADS-B mandate hit in 2020. At the time, when asked why it was dropping the upgrade, Garmin told me it planned to source enough parts to support WAAS upgrades until the FAA’s mandate hit, which required an approved WAAS GPS position source for connection to the ADS-B Out system. Eventually, WAAS demand fell off, likely because so many GNS units were already upgraded. The replacement GTN series has been in existence since 2011 and updated a couple times, currently to the Xi version.
This isn’t a new story. When I talked with Garmin’s Jim Alpiser at Sun ‘n Fun last spring, he warned that some service parts for the GNS line would become scarce within a year. So one year later, I linked up with Alpiser for a follow-up in this video, where the news isn’t all bad for GNS owners, at least for the foreseeable future.
No matter how you feel about Garmin support, in my estimation there’s really no reason to ditch a GNS if you don’t want to upgrade, but every reason to treat that functioning display right by maintaining the avionics cooling system (heat is a display’s enemy) and having a plan in place for total replacement.
Garmin’s excuse to halt support for the GNS 430W units, pinning the blame on “component scarcity”, is an excuse that seems all too convenient. This tactic reeks of planned obsolescence, deliberately forcing customers to shell out for Garmin’s latest other models even though the GNS 430W units still are compatible with present technology. To make matters worse, these new models are not simple plug-and-play replacements; they demand additional installations and modification costs, racking up a bills of $25-30k per unit. Some, like me, would like to stay with Garmin but this approach feels inappropriate, dumping unnecessary financial burdens on users while disproportionately profiting the manufacturers and avionics installers. Essentially, it’s a misuse of consumer loyalty and investment.
I agree. One would think that a Company like Garmin — with a stellar reputation for excellence — would use its horsepower to bend over backwards to come up with a solution to these problems. Then again, with 110,000 units fielded, I think they could be looking at that potential upgrade market and salivating, as well. Back when Bendix/King was top dog, who’da thunk that they’d sink as far as they did into oblivion. The same thing could happen to Garmin if they’re not careful … or at least a serious ‘nick’ in their business. Personally, I also have major heartburn with them not wanting to sell most of their equipment to customers directly, as well.
“To make matters worse, these new models are not simple plug-and-play replacements; ”
Avidyne IFD 440s are plug-and-play. They slide into the Gamin tray with the same connectors and pinouts with little or no configuration required.
Why buy Gamin when you don’t have to.
Not everything is a conspiracy
It’s not planned obsolescence, it’s technological obsolescence. These boxes have had a run of more than 25 years. That’s remarkable for almost any industry, especially electronics. The newer displays are better and continue to improve. Someone could manufacture the old displays as replacements, but that would constitute antique restoration for a niche market. My 430W is working ok right now. It’s the Narco mk12E that I’m using as a #2 I’m worried about. Now that’s obsolescence.
Try getting repair parts for a 25 year old television. Electronics manufacturers are not going to manufacture chips to support a 25 year old product for a niche market. All my Garmin units were portable starting with the 55 AVD. I have to think there is a plug-in replacement out there. Someone has got to want to make some money.
I’ve been out of the chip biz for a long time, and I don’t know what exactly is in those boxes. There likely are chips that are no longer made in there that would cost stupid money to replace. I’d actually bet Garmin stocked up more than many manufacturers did based on the amount of time that box has been in service.
I once got involved in a deal to sell NASA some 10 plus year old workstations for the space shuttle because nothing newer would be compatible. They were REALLY lucky because we had some that met their needs. They were not interested in used.
Several years ago, an airline client of mine had a full-motion simulator in their training facility that was for an early model 737. One day, something happened and a couple control boards shorted out and got cooked. Their attempts to find replacements was proving fruitless because the circuit boards were a multi-level design that was no longer made and no equipment left to even produce them. The boards were less than 20 years old. They finally located a couple replacements somewhere in Russia. Fortunately that was before the latest blowup in US/Russian relations. They subsequently sold the sim to some company in Russia.
There’s a reason Garmin is top dog by a long shot. In their eyes they’re doing everything right. It’s kind of hard to argue their point of view. Bendix is not top dog for a reason also. As was suggested, you can always buy someone else’s avionics. No one is holding a GTN 750 to your head.
Avidyne IFD 550 and 440s are plug-and-play.
They slide into the Garmin trays with the same connectors and pinouts.
Why stick with Garmin when you don’t have to and can save money at the same time?
One of my friends did this with his Skymaster and loves the Avydine units.
The plane was only in the shop for about a week to do the swap.
Very little or no configuration is required.
I did the same thing with my Cardinal. Instead of the GTN 750 I opted for the Avidyne 540. I personally like the operating system on the Avidyne over the Garmin units, but YMMV. One thing I will give credit to Garmin on is their really good training classes and videos on how to use their units. Avidyne has some material, but is way behind in that department. Basically, I consider Garmin to be the Apple of the air – great products, but they don’t play well with others and you have to dance to their tune.
Sorry, I can’t help but feel betrayed by Garmin. I know time marches on, but I’ve got about a dozen of these things in my 135 fleet and my personal airplanes – the move to finally “put a 430 in there” has been a long road $$$. The mention of aftermarket replacement digits for the (now) old Bendix/King line just leads me to wonder where are the aftermarket/PMA guys in this? Is the data so proprietary that no one can produce an aftermarket part? That would mean the planned obsolescence model does come into play – I know Garmin wants to sell us new units, that’s just business, but 110,000 units later, they owe us more. Frankly, the fast talk from Garmin in the interviews just isn’t satisfying for me. And BTW, the Avidyne replacement has an eye-watering (as Paul B would say) price tag so I can just forget that as an obvious option. So excuse me while I jump to dodge the GTN 750’s that ARE being held to my head !! Gulp.
As one commentor mentioned, not everything is a conspiracy. For those outside of the tech industry, it may seem like “planned obsolescence” when it’s just a matter of the tooling required to make the old components simply not existing any more. Modern electronics work on much smaller scales and often at lower voltages, and the new tooling simply isn’t capable of building older technology. And in some cases, there aren’t even any people still in the industry who know how to work on the older tech. It’s also not uncommon that a manufacturer doesn’t build all the components of something themselves. In fact, in most cases the components are outsourced. Apple is a perfect example where they don’t build any components themselves; that’s why they all say something to the effect of “Designed by Apple, Built in China”.
Those saying planned obsolescence clearly aren’t in the electronics industry. And it isn’t only the chips. Resistors, capacitors, connectors, etc have all changed and the older ones from 30 years ago, are just no longer made. It isn’t all Garmin, heir suppliers just don’t have that capability any longer.
Very true. Most companies subcontract components like video screens to companies in the far East. Those guys work on high volume and low margin stuff that has a lifespan of maybe 10 years max. When they move to new small size boards and components, they often just scrap the old workstations to make room for the new stuff. Unless someone buys the old equipment in the hope of supplying spares or replacements to a dwindling market, the stuff ends up in a junkyard. The other problem is that building replacement screens as a PMA supplier would require Garmin to release design and wiring diagram data, which they are notoriously unwilling to do. Maybe that’s where the planned obsolescence comes in.
The issue I have with Garmin is the cost. Basically the same unit for marine use is 1/3 the cost. Because it is aviation they nail you to the wall. I think people would be happy to upgrade their units more frequently if the cost was reasonable.
To be fair, that’s not just a Garmin thing. Look at almost any product or component, and as soon as the word “aviation” is involved, the cost doubles or triples (or sometimes even more).
It maybe the same basic unit but what certification and compliance testing must the aviation unit go through versus the marine unit? What are the ongoing manufacturing traceability and testing differences required to maintain certification? The required “paperwork” adds a lot of cost to aviation certified units.
Is the volume of sales in the marine market significantly larger than the aviation market? Economies of scale matter.
Liability and parts tracking and other red tape. If it’s a conspiracy, everyone from the bolt manufacturers to the breaker makers seem to be involved.
Garmin has been supporting the GNS 430 with upgrades and maintenance for 25 YEARS! For most electronics, 25 years is multiple lifetimes. To claim that planned obsolescence is behind Garmin’s announcement is simply absurd.
There comes a time for any electronic device when one or more components are no longer available. Manufacturing the older technology components is no longer cost effective or possible as the current machines and processes do not support the older technology and there is not enough volume for the older components to keep the old machines going.
It is not as simple as just upgrading an old design with a newer, available component. A new component, such as a processor or video driver, depend on supporting components such as memory and voltage regulators that must be compatible. Heat dissipation is different as are communication protocols. This means an entire redesign of the circuit. This is not cost effective, especially when a newer design already exists for sale.
I’ve found Garmin’s customer support to be second to none across a broad range of products. If you are buying electronics, you, the customer, should be planning for obsolescence.
FWIW.. NO manufacturer still produces ANY 8 colour low resolution displays anymore. The manufacturing equipment used to make them does not exist anymore! Garmin has stretched this product to it’s practical limit. It is unfortunate they chose to alter the form factor in their new units that make for a huge installation cost. Remember, the 430 was not designed by Garmin, they BOUGHT it from Apollo. Hang on to it as long as it works, then when it is done, slip in an Avidyne unit and fly on. Most Avidyne “swap ins” take less than an hour or so, and most important, a shop can “slip an hour or two” into their schedule when a new Garmin install may be weeks/months away. And, you get a more flexible unit with shallower menus, option of using touch or tactile buttons/knobs, (ever try to use a touch screen at arms length in rough?) and support equal or better than Garmin. Gotta hand it to Avidyne’s Brilliant Marketing/Engineering Dept. Take the trade in, sell it to the used market (if working) or to Garmin for parts if not, and the customer flies home same day with thousands of dollars left over (the cost of potential replacement Garmin install) to spend on fuel ! 🙂
When i bought m current plane it had 1972 avionics. Some of the upgraes were new models, but I also got a GNS 530. (What was in my previous plane.) At my age I figured it would last to the end of my flying career since they have proved very reliable. If not, there is always Avidyne.
Larry-
In the text above you said “offering trade-in value presumably to backfill the parts bins because it says it’s committed to servicing the GNS line for years”.
Did Jim say that trade in units would be used for the parts bin? Or are they just putting them in the trash and retiring old units to remove them from the used market, increase demand for new units, and give an incentive to owners to upgrade to Garmin rather than another company’s navigator?
Can they legally service 400 and 500 series units with used parts? It makes sense to do so for longevity of the line, and if they plan to do that, I commend them as well as non-factory repair shops. If I had a display failure and wanted it repaired rather than finding a used unit, a used display is better than none. But how will I know if I got a display with 5000 hours on it vs. 100?
The video seemed to imply Garmin was keeping the trade-in 430s for spare parts (rather than a conspiracy to remove spare parts from the used market).
Comments about planned obsolescence and expensive avionics just kinda bug me. We generally know why these things are expensive – compare Certified vs. experimental use. Planned obsolescence? You’re not serious, right? These avionics have been out and serviced by Garmin for how many decades? How many of you complainers are using 30 year old cars as daily drivers? Have 30 year old washing machines, dishwashers or refrigerators?
When I got my first house in ’96, I took my parents old Kenmore refrigerator they bought when they got married in ’64 and used it until 2002 when I turned my house into a rental. I only replaced it as it clearly would not have any appeal to prospective tenants. Since my first tenants were college kids, that fridge became a keggerator and lived on.
Some people here sound like they still have their first gen iPhone in their pockets. Everything has an end – except for sausages, those have two ends.
I can still get replacement parts from Garmin for first gen G1000s no problem, approaching 20 years of age – I find that amazing, but I also know it can’t stay like that forever.
Besides, the new NXi/GTN etc. offerings are fantastic replacements that add more SA at faster speeds – all of that is always welcome on a flight deck.
It will be interesting to see what happens to all the planes that have the G1000 system installed if parts become unavailable. Loss of those displays would be more likely to ground those planes since it is not just the navigation function that is lost.
The technology in the GNS 430/530 is several generations old. If the failure rate is 1% per year, there’s only a demand for <1000 units per year. It's extremely unlikely that you could find someone to manufacture them at all. If you did, that tiny (in electronics terms) volume would not be the least bit interesting. If you convinced them, the unit cost would be so high due to tooling and low volume, that it wouldn't make any sense. If Garmin, or someone else, came up with a modern technology display to use in the 430/530, there would be very large engineering and certification costs that would also make it not workable.
I owned a plane for 12+ years with a 430 and currently fly a club plane that has one in the #2 radio spot. Great unit. However, it will be coming out within the next year because we've had a few issues with it and we know that long-term support will not be there.
Garmin dumped the CNX89/GNS480 which was a more capable unit than the 430. It wasn’t so much a parts issue that Garmin wanted owners to “upgrade” to a 650 or 750. They won’t take in a 480 at all —– units must be sent in by a Garmin dealer and they are instructed to reject them. Now we see that they have dumped the 430 and 530….. display issues? What about non-display issues? They have dropped support entirely.
The other issue is closed architecture where Avidyne has open architecture. I back Avidyne — it’s equivalent in function to Garmin’s 650 and 750, but is more flexible with other brands that an owner might wish to install. Then there is Garmin’s really stupid elimination of knobs, where Avidyne offers both touchscreen (like Garmin) and knobs. The knob item seems trivial but in flight it really shows the difference. (dropping knobs is clearly a profit thing — eliminating knobs eliminated a function, so the Garmin box is just that .. a box with an outsourced display and circuit boards with software, so why is it so expensive? )
“Now we see that they have dumped the 430 and 530….. display issues? What about non-display issues? They have dropped support entirely.”
Where have you seen that information? Garmin themselves have stated that they will still support the GNS430 for non-display issues.
“Then there is Garmin’s really stupid elimination of knobs, where Avidyne offers both touchscreen (like Garmin) and knobs.”
Both units have knobs, and many features on the 650 can still be done with the buttons and knob similar to the 430. It’s just that a lot of pilots either don’t realize this, or find using the touch controls easier (even in turbulence). I would agree that if they did away with buttons entirely, that that would not be a good thing. But I don’t really see that happening anytime soon.
Win-Win; I propose a maintenance and repair insurance program, to maintain Garmin GNS units’ value and functionality, focusing on preventing unnecessary obsolescence and to protect aircraft resale value, a significant matter.
This plan includes display module support, database updates, a parts availability strategy, transparent pricing, reduced downtime with a loaner unit policy, and importantly, resale value protection. By ensuring these units remain current and operational, this initiative directly addresses the financial impacts of aging avionics on market value, responding to community needs for a reliable navigation system without compromising investment.
The premium? $50 per database upgrade.
I want a comish!
How would you ensure parts availability?
Thank you for asking, Gary.
If GNS430W owners are committed to both keeping their units and ensuring their navigators remain in optimal condition, this commitment could significantly contribute to project funding. Considering that around 100,000 units would require an additional $50 database upgrade fee every six months, such an initiative could generate approximately $10 million in annual revenue during the first year. If owner participation continues at this rate, it’s anticipated that an additional $10 million in revenue could be generated with each passing year.
This consistent revenue stream offers a strategic opportunity to fund the costs associated with producing and managing inventory for replacement displays and other critical parts. By maintaining a full inventory of GNS430W components, Garmin could not only enhance its market position but also deepen its relationship with aircraft owners by effectively meeting their needs.
Should the $50 upgrade fee appear insufficient, increasing it to $75—while holding repair costs steady and offering parts at discounted rates—could further boost revenue and deliver greater value to customers.
Something like 110,000 were sold. How many are still in service? Half? Of those, how many are used VFR-only or as a second radio and are not getting regular updates? I think your revenue projections are very optimistic.
More importantly, how do you support obsolete parts? As others have pointed out, it is probably impossible to get the display manufactured at any price, and a drip-in replacement would require expensive recertification. I have to believe that there are a lot of other components in a 25-year-old design that are extremely difficult or impossible to purchase. I was in a non-related high tech field and it was often impossible to support stuff that was 10 years old.
I say this as a GNS430 fan. I just think this is the reality.
Yeah, I agree with you. Garmin seems to be manipulating product serviceability. Read Marc Gagliardi’s comment below.
Someone else’s obsolescence is someone else’s useful equipment.
My Apollo GX screen blanked with no replacement screens available. Could the screen assemblies perhaps been given to another company. Or extras made in the first place? While the GPS is dated, the radios are great, and should be allowed to live on.
Regarding G1000. A few months ago we had to replace the 1040 PFD screen / bevel in our 206 and was informed it was factory refurb only due to end of life support by Garmin. The refurbished model cost $3500 + installation. Also learned there the G1000-compatible GIA63W receivers have been EOL’d and are unavailable, with no upgrade path to NXI. In summary we were advised that to update our avionics in the T206HD we would need to rip it all out and start over. I hope I’m misinformed.
“Not everything is a conspiracy.” Thank you.
I looked up the specs for a cutting-edge PC in 1999, when the 430 arrived.
Intel Klamath Pentium II 266MHz
32MB RAM (SIMMs)
4GB HDD storage
ATI Rage Pro 3D card w/ 2MB vRAM.
CD-ROM drive
56k dial-up modem on an AOL subscription with a set number of minutes online
Windows 95
Now, why can’t I get tech support and replacement parts for these expensive investments?
Garmin has gone above and beyond in supporting these units for a long, long time.
I’ve owned a bag full of panel-mounted and handheld GPS navigators from various sources since day one, including one with a limit of 200 entries for coordinates and waypoint names. It had all I wanted: time, distance, and course. The last time I tripped over one, it still worked. None were cheap, but all helped introduce me to more accurate and extensive navigational processes emerging during the early 1990s. The accuracy was amazing, as was/is the growing complexity. As a CFI and CFII, I made sure I understood the newer systems coming into play. I’m not doing that anymore, but I found it only sensible to be proficient in the many instrument panels of the various aircraft I flew. The GNS430W is, after so many years, my favorite for its relative simplicity and the ability to hang onto the knobs and simple soft keyboard, while at the controls whether during VFR or IFR flight. It proved to be a very durable, trustworthy, and, in comparison to newer models on the market, a well-rounded NAV and COMMO box. Perhaps that’s why I side with it so much.
The modern equivalent of the GNS 530 is the GTN 650Xi which sets you back $13,795. Ouch.
The article’s title, “GNS 430 Hysteria: 25 Years Later” by Larry Anglisano, rather than mitigating concerns about Garmin’s product management, introduces controversy and creates division regarding Garmin’s offerings. This choice of headline, instead of neutralizing potential disputes or clarifying Garmin’s position, inadvertently stirs debate and could potentially alienate both existing and potential Garmin customers by framing the discussion around the GNS 430 in a contentious manner.
The use of the term “hysteria” suggests an overblown reaction to the product’s issues or reception, which might not accurately reflect the concerns of all stakeholders, including users, experts, and the company itself. As titles play a crucial role in setting the tone for reader engagement, a more balanced approach could foster a constructive dialogue about the product’s history, impact, and the company’s response to feedback over the years.