It works in America, which “runs”, directly or indirectly, perhaps 90% of the aviation in the known universe.
Well, from an engineering point of view, it just barely works, as described in my link. If you want to let owners release STCs in their logbook, you have to define the impact of an STC. For instance you would not be allowed to install two STCs on one airframe that both alter flight characteristics, i.e. Droop Noses and engine alterations. The combination can influence your stall behaviour and the aircraft’s flight characteristics for a go around, for instance. So you would have to assess the impact of an STC on a second to be installed.
And it is seldom the Part-21 company, who is in the way of some owners dream world. Much more often it’s common sense and physics in my experience. (We’re not talking about a transponder or com-swap here. We’re talking about alterations to the airframe, that have a major impact on flight characteristics!)
In the German microlight regime, which is seen by some German pilots as a role model of certification ans rights, we do see a vastly bigger accident rate per plane than on certified aircraft. I agree, that there has to be some easing up on some of the stc politics, but just enabling anyone to install everything on an aircraft is not the answer.
I agree, that there has to be some easing up on some of the stc politics, but just enabling anyone to install everything on an aircraft is not the answer.
So you’re saying the FAA are wrong and EASA are right and should protect us from FAA STCs?
PS: the job of the mechanic releasing the aircraft to service after application of an STC is to ensure that the STC does not conflict with other STCs.
The EASA protection I have is to stop me turning on the ADS-B out on without an STC it is a Garmin GTX33 with GTN650 to supply the GPS data.
I can do without that sort of protection !
but you have a license to ULM, GA another license. other licensed glider, other license motorglider, another license for gyroplane, another license for trike …..
ULM, Trikes and Gyros are non of EASAs business. To incorporate these into a PPL, the EASA would have to regulate them, too. And at least the french ULM pilots fear the EASA like the plague. And it is already the case in EASA licensing, that for a TMG you just make a class rating (no matter if SPL or PPL or LAPL). This requires just 6h training from the SPL/LAPL and 3h training from PPL or LAPL. The LAPL is already valid for life and I could reactivate it just with an instructor. The PPL is valid for life, too. Just the class rating has to be renewed – by a flight with an instructor and minimum hours. You can reactivate it with just one flight with an examiner. So what are you talking about?
Where I see regulatory issues is in flight instructor licensing. But that’s an other topic.
another license for trike …..
There is every reason to have trikes on a quite distinct separate license or certificate or qualification or whatever. Likely the same applies for paragliding and for gyrocopters. They are really different animals. There might be something to say for an identical requirement for a non-complex SEP and a 3-axis ultralight, though.
So you’re saying the FAA are wrong and EASA are right and should protect us from FAA STCs?
No, I am saying that the optimum lies in between. You have to check dependencies, but this must not mean that you categorically exclude bulk STCs. For instance, I think it is a bad idea that you can put on several flight characteristic alteration STCs on one airframe (Vortex Generators, Wing Tip alterations, Fences, Elevator airfoil changes, bigger engine, bigger tires, flap extension, spades, span increase, weight increase, etc.) and not have an educated professional look into the alterations. The same b.s. is the need to have a seperate STC or minor change for a same new VFR-COM for every aircraft or airframe.
PS: the job of the mechanic releasing the aircraft to service after application of an STC is to ensure that the STC does not conflict with other STCs.
A mechanic can in some cases not assess the impact of an STC on flight characteristics. He is not educated for that and to demand that from a mechanic – to be responsible for an assessment of anything he would not be able to assess – does not seem fair to me. Plus, you make every pilot a test pilot then, repoening the flight envelope.
Get rid of the ridiculous en route IFR rating that you can’t use for instrument aproaches, it just teaches people enough to get themselfs into trouble but with out the training to get themselfs safely on the ground
@A_and_C, what do you mean? This is one of the best things since nose wheel steering! And I think your reasoning is exactly the kind of thinking that has led to the current state of things for GA, and particularly for light GA.
Following your reasoning nodoby should get off the ground unless they have an ATPL. Imagine if a lowly VFR pilot should get into clouds? He would have very little clue about how to get back to safety. And the little simulated IMC training they get during the PPL is not enough to get safely out of the cloud.
Just like for VFR, the EIR rating should teach the pilot how not to get into trouble in the first place, and the minimum to get down safely in case he would get into trouble. And if people are stupid enough to ignore the weather forecast, not carry enough fuel for contingencies (divert to a field where one can get down safely) or overestimate their skills, it does not matter whether they are VFR, EIR, IR or ATPL. It’s all about attitude.
If you want to let owners release STCs in their logbook
Nobody would suggest letting the owner do that. The FAA requires the IA to release any Major Alteration to service. It’s a very good system. Certainly there are examples of where it failed (and I could mention some duff STCs I know about) but perfection will never be achieved. Even a 145+21 TC holder (e.g. the Socata factory) is capable of screwing up big-time (some examples here). Or here
In the German microlight regime, which is seen by some German pilots as a role model of certification ans rights, we do see a vastly bigger accident rate per plane than on certified aircraft
Sure, but there are reasons for that. Firstly there is a big correlation in the attitudes to risk (and attitudes to regulatory and airspace compliance – ask ATC) and certain aircraft categories 
Also the build quality of microlights is nothing like certified aircraft; a 1hr minute walk around Aero Friedrichshafen makes that blindingly obvious (notwithstanding the claims that both are supposed to withstand the same +G). At 450kg, something has to give…
Plus, you make every pilot a test pilot then, repoening the flight envelope.
This is not an issue in reality because almost nobody is going to install several mods which each alter the flight characteristics. The vast majority of STCs are mundane stuff like starters, alternators, exhausts, avionics, etc.
This is not an issue in reality because almost nobody is going to install several mods which each alter the flight characteristics.
Knowing what some people talk around me, I wouldn’t bet on that. And judging the off-airport scene in the US, it isn’t true in the US, either.
LFPT you 100% misunderstand what I am saying, the UK has the IMC Rating that allows the holder to carry out instrument aproaches.
EASA has done its level best to kill the IMC rating while introducing a rating that is not intended to let the holder carry out instrument aproaches.
Far from restricting the PPL holder I want to see EASA move closer to the position held by the UK CAA and the rating held by a large number of UK PPL holder.
