Sure that’s as basic as basic can be.
However, I would not bother, just install it, such stuff can be done under the radar. It’s always been there, was there already when the aircraft was imported, etc.
I agree 100% about doing such a trivial thing off the books if necessary, but first agree it with the engineer or company which does the servicing on the plane. I have a load of emails where somebody did such a mod and then his CAMO forced him to take it back out. It could get messy…
Then go for it, pay the money and report back 
A German pilot posted that he used the EASA validation for the G2 engine monitor and it worked flawlessly. After sending the application form to EASA, he received permission a few days later via email and then also in hardcopy. The EASA person in charge corrected 2 mistakes on his application. He paid 225 € as documented.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/application-forms/focert00134
A very useful data point.
Google translate: “I have sent this to the e-mail address of the EASA, which is mentioned in the form, together with the requested documents (including a statement of the manufacturer (by email) that no general EASA validation is attempted).”
I wonder what format that statement needs to be in. Also why they want that. Is it to avoid creating a precedent for an EASA STC?
I suppose most “monitoring” products will be straightforward.
Was this a “primary” installation i.e. involving the removal of some existing instruments? The G2 STC can be primary for CHT and other stuff.
EUTIP revision 6 has just come out.
I don’t know what has changed since the previous one.
This came with it:
There is an implicit acceptance of FAA-PMA parts identified as “non critical”.
Moved to existing thread
This dropped into my mailbox last week, and comes into effect in five months time.
The definition of “Basic” is not exactly pellucid but does this mean that “Streamlined Validation” will apply, for example, to Fernandez skis on an N-Reg Maule, and/or Alaskan Bushwheels on an EASA-Reg?
Thanks Peter, I must have been asleep when you posted that.
It looks like a push in the right direction, but I wonder to what extent FAA and EASA staff will really embrace this “partnership” concept?
Hello – coming back to this hideous subject. I just paid 507 EUR to EASA to spend 6 weeks of my time running in circles with this process, only to near the end have EASA tell me that the PA-18 is an Annex I airplane and that I cannot use this process for it. Has anyone run into this? I think they are wrong. The people I have been dealing with have been incredibly, incredibly dumb at EASA.
