I fly a couple of Cessna 150’s they are purely VFR machines. The radios however are well past there sell by date (Narco 810 and a 12D) and of course will need upgrading to 8.33mhz at some point as well. One of them only has a portable intercom fitted as well.
We would like to upgrade them both to have the same model of radio fitted and I have to say the PS Engineering PAR200 looks ideal. Unfortunately it doesn’t have EASA approval.
Would the proposed changes that CS-STAN brings address this?
The proposed CS-STAN has a specific list of radio models approved for the easy installation with minimal paperwork. As I understand it, you must choose one of those or do it the good old expensive way.
The actual radio bundled with the PAR200 is a Trig TY91 which has EASA approval.
It’s difficult to see how you’d have a problem with this installation. I like the PAR200 – it looks neat.
How’s about installing a TY91 without the PAR200 added? It has its own intercom functionality built-in. You would only be giving up the bluetooth capacity, as far as I can see, and perhaps a couple of aux audio inputs.
Thanks for all the advice.
The portable intercom failed last week and in typical cheap skate fashion it was replaced with a ps engineerimg aerocom III and I have to say its excellent.
We look at changing the radios sometime in the future and ideally with slide in replacements.
Have any of you seen the document EASA CS-STAN ?
Could this be an outbreak of common sense in Cologne ?
Any how what do the contributors to this forum think ?
Yes, that’s a major piece of legislation. The EASA head of GA presented it at the last PPL/IR meeting.
Amazing they finally realize that aircraft mechanics possess something that could be remotely considered to be a brain and thus can perform — in the very simplest form — independent decision making…
When they’re done with their GA roadmap and the initiatives they are currently working on, the differences between Part 91 and EASA GA will become very subtle. About time.
I concur. For me it is an important signal that the GA roadmap really is getting done. At the PPL/IR Europe AGM, Dominique Roland explained the rulemaking timescale and the consequent need for patience. One of the next major steps will be Part-ML referred to elsewhere in this forum. It is not crazy to imagine a situation where the EASA rules are actually slightly advantageous over Part 91.
There are two things to be aware of, and maybe even concerned about. The first is that the “bright line” of 2t MTOW is becoming ever more firmly entrenched. Personally, I think this brings more gains than losses. The second, and Dominique was quite open about this, is that the part of the GA roadmap that is most stalled is that relating to automatic recognition of FAA STCs.
The first is that the “bright line” of 2t MTOW is becoming ever more firmly entrenched. Personally, I think this brings more gains than losses. The second, and Dominique was quite open about this, is that the part of the GA roadmap that is most stalled is that relating to automatic recognition of FAA STCs.
It’s no surprise that both of these points are the most firmly rooted in mankind’s second oldest profession (business protection) 
EASA doesn’t have much power in these areas, because they recruited a load of people from EASA 21 companies! I have had some comms with some of them… one I recall was an expat Brit whose “technical explanation” of the particular certification issue was “the world has changed”… (in other words, “I am bigger than you, so bugger off”). Eric Sivel’s background, judging from a load of his signatures on certificates hanging on the wall of a 145 guy I know, is fully from the certification arena.
It’s a bit like setting up a Govt department whose job is to roll back the spread of communism, and half the people recruited went to the University of Cambridge where they were members of the Bolshevik Appreciation Society. I guess EASA had no choice – they had to recruit large numbers and fast, and any department whose function is to create regulation (which to a normal person would be often pointless – one former official is on a video saying something like “there are areas where there is no regulation, that is an unacceptable situation”) is going to get most job applicants from areas where, ahem, regulation is being created! And that area does itself attract a particular character profile – even more than the average “power” job like e.g. the police.
The EU is pretty good at setting itself up to resist overt industry lobbying (they claim to be the consumer’s champion) but they have failed miserably in some areas.
Can someone explain this CS-STAN? I still see stuff like “approved organizations” etc and I don’t get it, what is the real improvement?
