The box would need it’s own “approved data”, typically in the form of a FAA TSO, PMA or STC.
Yes, or a TC… I believe there are instances where an aircraft manufacturer approved an avionics item for installation without it being TSOd etc.
But, subject to the above, if I have it right, installing a transponder in an unpressurised N-reg is always Minor, surely? The antenna installation is done IAW AC43-13-2B which is a generic repair manual.
Same with a GPS…
Autopilots and EFIS products need an STC which has to be applicable to the actual airframe.
I cannot believe that treaty forces the FAA to accept EASA TSOs while not forcing EASA to accept FAA TSOs. The FAA would have never signed such a thing; they are quite aware of European politics and have long resisted doing treaties with EASA because they know that most European countries hate EASA, so as far as the FAA is concerned the EU is on thin ice when it claims to represent Europe. The FAA has had treaties with individual countries for many years and they have honoured those, while the JAA had (in the words of a JAA Director, at a meeting in 2005) “killed” all such treaties in 1999 
For a transponder without FAA paperwork, somebody needs to read those 150 pages…
BTW there is a process for generating an EASA-1 form, which may be of interest – here
Yep, forgot the most obvious source for “approved data”, the TCDS.
there is a process for generating an EASA-1 form, which may be of interest – here
Not in this case, as itself is not certified.
For example an VHF FM transceiver (for non aviation use) can be installed. This is a commerical part. One could do testing on it to see if it would be possible to safely install in an aircraft (EMC / fire / current consumption / controls etc). This would be certified as a minor change which certifies this (uncertified) part in an aircraft. The same is true for our custom made avionics systems or Garrecht TRX-1500.
This parts can never be issued an EASA Form 1 or an 8130. Even in the case of a repair in accordance with the repair manual it should not be repaired with EASA Form 1 or an 8130 as the part itself has never had a standalone certification.
In that case, in this case, there may be no way to do it strictly legally.
Jesse – what do you think that FAA-EASA document gives us?
In that case, in this case, there may be no way to do it strictly legally.
Im afraid you are correct on this.
Not very often you find this issue. A European “produced” part, illegal to install in a N-reg’ed aircraft.
Not very often you find this issue. A European “produced” part, illegal to install in a N-reg’ed aircraft.
Then don’t “install” it. Just put the brackets, connectors etc. there that happen to just fit the device. Those connectors can be done without any approvals. Once done, make sure to never insert the device…
Once done, make sure to never insert the device…
Thats what I thought
Jesse – what do you think that FAA-EASA document gives us?
Access to European market for certain FAA PMA parts for example. EASA should really come with their counterpart, as it would be good for European manufacturers, stimulate innovation and would lower pricing for customers.
It gives European manufacturers the possibility to use EASA for FAA TC or STC. This reduces cost as they have allready reviewed most data. Diamond might be using this approach for their products sold in the USA.
The other way around, American can use the FAA to get their EASA TC or STC.
Access to European market for certain FAA PMA parts for example
That has always been the case. PMA parts are widely used in Euro-reg GA aircraft. For example when I was G-reg I had an MD26 400Hz inverter installed for the KI229 RMI. The MD26 was a PMA part. Most scheduled service parts like filters are PMAd.
I recall hearing that PMA parts are banned for AOC aircraft (which have to be maintained by a 145 company) but I don’t know anything about that.
So what has actually changed? Is it the AOC position?
The other way around, American can use the FAA to get their EASA TC or STC
There was an older (I think from c. 4 years ago) treaty which allowed for mutual acceptance of data used to obtain an STC (not the STC itself – that would be dynamite).
What has changed here?
It seems to me FAA has long been open to accepting European STC data, but in the past it was on a one-time basis. My European manufactured propeller was installed on an N-register plane with a one-off FAA field approval, about 15 years ago, using a German STC as engineering data. I don’t know how hard it was to achieve because I didn’t own the plane, I just have the 337 package. No DER was involved, only the then-owner armed with the German STC and written support from the propeller manufacturer.
