You meant to ask “Are you selling the same product for a lower price to those who do not need the paperwork”?
I have installed them and I am very happy that I have stable, reasonable accurate (not so happy with the shop that installed and calibrated them) fuel level for the first time since I own my bird.
Cobalt wrote:
You meant to ask “Are you selling the same product for a lower price to those who do not need the paperwork”?
Not exactly, more like:
“Are you selling the same product for the right price to those who have no reason to pay for unnecessary “paperwork” tax" 
Some companies just aren’t any good with social media
This is despite social media being the way to promote a product these days – hence the good number of EuroGA posters who post mainly to get their product name up 
I for one are very happy to hear this news and this would probably be on the top of the modifications for any EASA-reg Cirrus that I’d make.
@fuellevel If you could share some of your experiences with the process of getting the EASA STC based on the FAA one, I think that would be very valuable insight to share here. After all, as pilots we want many more aviation companies to go this route.
I have been away from Europe for 10 yrs – I didn’t realize that curmudgeon had become a derisive term over there
maybe iconoclast would have been better choice.
The concept that GA aircraft can utilize accurate fuel level – is strangely revolutionary
We are working on a series for commercial and experimental applications – that should carry a lower price.
The EASA process is in some manner easy – you simply apply to the FAA office that handled your
STC Approval and they submit your data to EASA and then EASA sends you a bill for processing.
AML STC’s can be quite a chore as there are lots of models to look for
This particular approval was an effort by Aerospace Logic and the cost for the EASA approval was over $30K USD.
My recommendation is that you band together and let a manufacturer know you are interested and the number of aircraft you control
decisions can them be made whether there is a business case to support. We both Aerospace Logic and us had enough inquiries where we felt it would be appropriate.
and we were pressed by Cirrus to get it done. The Aerospace Logic STC calls out our TSO (ETSO) fuel senders
We may submit our STC for approval to EASA which includes other instrumentation but I want to add a few high value aircraft first on the US STC before EASA submittal. Those aircraft I am thinking of would be the PA 46 Malibu and Cessna twins
We do have the pattern for the Socata TB series and yes it was a French Car fuel sender, but I believe it to have been Peugeot and not Renault
though I have not really ever looked at fuel senders for either vehicle.
Similar to the US where the manufacturers choose Buick and Cadillac senders over Chevy or Ford.
I suspect the Peugeot senders got the nod for similar reasons.
CIES fuel senders now certified for Socata TB series….
If this is true, I’m on the list to buy these. I am fed up with the lousy fuel gauges on my plane. (A fuel computer helps of course, but can’t detect a leak.)
