Maybe Garmin also told EASA to never certify the Avidyne IFD440?
According to Avidyne .. Garmin went to EASA and simply stated that they would either go for the AML or no GTN would go to the EASA-reg.
Good for Garmin! I expect that argument was followed up with ...and nobody in Europe will be able to fly LPV approaches, because the paperwork will continue to be impossible...
Garmin win and EASA win (and so do we, but I get the feeling that didn't really matter for these negotiations).
According to Avidyne .. Garmin went to EASA and simply stated that they would either go for the AML or no GTN would go to the EASA-reg.
It looks like that argument won.
Avidyne (IFD boxes) and Honeywell (KSN770) both said they are going for EASA AML STCs too.
Whether the two above will ever deliver is another matter but they all seem to have discovered some process for doing it.
Garmin told me over the weekend at Sywell that they are skipping v3 in Europe and going straight to v4, which they now expect to have approved around the end of June.
They also claim they should have an EASA AML STC for the GNC/GTR radios at the same time. The list of airframes should be the same.
I'll believe it all when I see it... But if they do pull off 2 AML STCs then EASA will have no excuse for refusing anyone else - this could make a huge difference to the availability of equipment in Europe.
Something funny is going on, because Garmin got the EASA AML STCs for the GTN boxes.
EASA would previously have granted AML STCs only over their dead body.
So how did Garmin get the AML STCs?
I think that
Garmin "had very good contacts who are no longer there", or
EASA granted the AML STCs on some bizzare conditions which Garmin are no longer able or willing to meet (e.g. my post #6)
Apparently 4 people from Garmin US held that meeting with EASA a while back to thrash this out. Since then EASA have done nothing to issue the necessary paperwork (what ever paperwork is needed where already FAA approved).
Pathetic incompetence even by EU standards.
So now in EASA land we will could be running two versions behind.
Talking to our avionics people last week there have heard there is a meeting now arranged between EASA and Garmin to discuss V3. Don't hold your breath.
There is presumably a department responsible who have to justify their existence. Hence tick boxes, consider the update, then just sign it off effectively automatically. This sort of pointless, demarcation driven bureaucracy takes time.
There is no earthly reason why FAA and EASA shouldn't have mutual recognition of each other's licensing and approvals, but this is bureaucracy we are talking about so process is what matters outcome is irrelevant.
My understanding of the recent FAA-EASA treaty is that data used to obtain STCs etc is supposed to be mutually recognised.
One old hand in avionics explained this to me with an example: if he gets me to pay him £2k for an FAA DER 8110-3 package, he can then use that to obtain an EASA STC which he can sell to other customers.
But direct FAA STC acceptance by EASA doesn't exist and IMHO never will. Only AFAIK Australia accepts FAA STC as they come.
I suppose EASA might argue that the FAA doesn't accept EASA STCs either, and they would be right, but that line would be a hostage to fortune since the FAA accepts the EASA-1 form as equivalent to an 8130-3 in every respect, and the FAA may well one day just start accepting EASA STCs. Also very few companies will do an EASA STC before an FAA STC, because it's generally a stupid business strategy.
I am back to wondering what the hell is EASA actually approving in this. If they don't inspect the source code, all they can do is agree with (or disagree with) the documented functionality, so why is that taking them so long?
