If you have comments or experience with Standard Changes ro repairs, and have improvement ideas, we would be glad to revieve input for our comments. You can reach me directly at [email protected]
Peter wrote:
A missed opportunity, IMHO.It’s an NPA, the one time you get to give feedback to the regulator. The best would be that you do submit your feedback.
The equipment manufacturer has declared that the a multifunction display for powerplant instruments is suitable for installation on a specific aircraft and compatible with a specific engine type
That is the same condition as above and the value of this apparent concession is again more or less eliminated by the requirement for engine specific installation instructions.
All the time EASA insists that installers are stupid (well, we know some are incompetent, but installing an engine monitor – while messy due to all the wiring – is one of the intellectually easiest jobs, due to a general lack of interconnections to other systems) the present situation will continue where revenue generation opportunities are supported by the system, and new business will go only to holders of aircraft specific STCs, which is a restrictive practice under another name.
It also prevents installations of the older smaller and simpler instruments. The engine monitor market, with STCs, has gone towards ever bigger stuff which cannot be installed without a lot of hacking and rearranging. So the vast majority of planes flying have no meaningful engine instruments.
A missed opportunity, IMHO.
Fly310 wrote:
The FAA has a bilateral agreement with EASA and should therefore be included?
That depends on what exactly is in the agreement. It is certainly not a blanket mutual acceptance. E.g. FAA Form 8130-3 is accepted by EASA only for new components, not for used ones.
Airborne_Again wrote:
What I think this means in practice is that you can install an engine indication system which has an FAA STC but not an EASA STC as long as the same system has been approved by EASA for a “similar aircraft”.
I would like to correct that and end this sentence with: approved by EASA or FAA for a “similar aircraft”
The FAA has a bilateral agreement with EASA and should therefore be included? It says:
…on a similar aircraft by EASA or by a civil aviation authority of a third country that has entered into a bilateral agreement with the EU.
Peter wrote:
What is a “Installation of a multifunction display for powerplant instruments”? Is it one of the EDM type products?
I would think so. The SC gives the following description: “A typical engine monitoring system consists of a display, an electronic data converter and a set of
probes, senders, transducers and interfaces that extract the engine parameters for subsequent display.
This description is functional and does not define hardware units.”
OTOH, it has this restriction:
The installation of the a multifunction display for powerplant instruments,fuel flow/pressure instrument together with the related parts, has been certified on a similar aircraft by EASA or by a civil aviation authority of a third country that has entered into a bilateral agreement with the EU . The equipment manufacturer has declared that the a multifunction display for powerplant instruments is suitable for installation on a specific aircraft and compatible with a specific engine type. Moreover, the equipment manufacturer provides the necessary design data to the installer.
What I think this means in practice is that you can install an engine indication system which has an FAA STC but not an EASA STC as long as the same system has been approved by EASA for a “similar aircraft”.
What is a “Installation of a multifunction display for powerplant instruments”? Is it one of the EDM type products?
As I mentioned in some other thread once, my EI fuel totalizer is FAA STC’d for my type (i.e. on the STCs Approved Model List) without ever having been installed in the type by anybody prior to me. This is common practice, the manufacturer does not provide installation design data specific to the type, it is generic for use on a broad category of types having similar engines, systems etc. Whether that satisfies the EASA requirement for the installer to have “necessary design data” is open to question, but I’m guessing most would think it does.
The EI CGR have an EASA STC iirc, which will not be necessary anymore when this new CSSTAN goes into effect.
