In the US, anybody can apply for any FAA approval. I have done several myself (with assistance); not STCs but I could have done those also. EASA should similarly allow individuals to submit an FAA STC for validation into an EASA STC. The current requirement for the FAA STC holder (who in most cases is not interested, or no longer exists) to make the application ensures that most FAA STCs will never be validated, which is exactly what large parts of the European certification machine want (because they make a living out of generating STCs and some of it is pretty lucrative – look at some past posts here).
IMHO EASA will never accept FAA STCs directly. Too much industry pressure against it. The smaller installers (which are relatively more numerous) would like it but the few big ones make money generating STCs.
mh I am the first to admit that I don’t understand the system.
And yet, you are the first to judge it and to dismiss the opinions of professionals in aviation.
It is not a question of not being bothered about selling in the EU
It is solely that question. If you don’t want to or aren’t able to file for the changes yourself, just work with a professional, like dejwu or me, for instance. The same way, we’d need a DAR/DER in the US to get anywhere.
but the present system means that small innovative manufacturers from the US are “locked out” of the EASA system.
They are not. The FAA accepts EASA-STCs on similar terms as EASA accepts FAA STCs, and I do not agree, that a one-sided adoption of all that the FAA does would be beneficial of European General Aviation and European GA-Industry.
EASA always ends up at the bottom, no matter what. EASA is chosen for one of two reasons:
I actually work in this system and I cannot verify your conclusion, on the contrary.
I have done several myself (with assistance)
So you can in EASA-land. Either with an ADOA-Process, or with assistance.
IMHO EASA will never accept FAA STCs directly.
At least not without FAA accepting EASA TC directly. And I do support that mutuality.
The same way, we’d need a DAR/DER in the US to get anywhere.
That’s not correct. These serve different and specific functions.
And I do support that mutuality.
It is also a permanent deadlock, and a great excuse for fleecing domestic users, unless somebody makes a positive move, and European GA is much much smaller (and younger in regulatory terms) than American GA, so Europe should make the first move. European owners have much more to benefit from US cert than US owners have to benefit from Euro cert. I think EASA should make the first move.
If the inspector is a freelance or is working in a company is nothing but semantics.
A huge difference in cost and general availability. The company route costs much more.
EASA isn’t responsible for local airfield politics.
I do not know of a single airfield with such restrictions here in Germany, so it would be a predominantly cultural thing.
Unless that is yet another swipe at the UK over brexit, there is more to Europe than Germany. Most owners are stuck with companies, even if they are ELA1, and that is where the LAA has a significant cost benefit.
my maintenance costs have been reduced in a similar way.
It would however be interesting to see a list of your qualifications, mh. I believe it would be relevant to what you are authorised to do, above the average owner. If, say, I was an A&P/IA, I would not post in a forum that I fly a TB20 (or even a TBM) and can maintain it completely on my own, even though it would be 100% true
If, say, I was an A&P/IA, I would not post in a forum that I fly a TB20 (or even a TBM) and can maintain it completely on my own, even though it would be 100% true
Every aircraft owning A&P IA I know fits into that category, generally by their own design.
The A&P IA with the hangar next to mine has a nice Bellanca Cruisemaster that’s his alone plus a share in a C182 that he maintains for the group. Plus a full time job in biotech if I recall correctly.. It seems to keep him busy
This whole argument reminds me of the UK tax system. The handbook of Tax Legislation is now 11,520 pages and in 2016, UK Tax Payers spent 4 million hours on the phone trying to get through to HMRC.
As a UK tax payer I have to use third party software to submit my returns as the HMRC software won’t cope with certain aspects of my return. Also some of the adjustments for deductions are incredibly complex as each year the Chancellor has tried to make a headline and then adds a few pages to the tax system (which has doubled in size since 1997). None of this makes any economic sense.
However the “insiders” who really understand the system don’t make the obvious changes that could drastically simplify the system. They see no need as they (a) already understand the system and (b) benefit from the complexity. Everybody agrees that there should be simplification it never happens due to vested interests.
As a “customer” of the HMRC I understand the sections of tax law that impact on my return but I certainly don’t understand the whole system. However as somebody who is “uniformed,” it does not mean I can’t have a valid opinion. In fact, sometimes not being part of the system allows a more strategic overview. A radical simplification would be the right thing to do.
To revive this thread… I am interested in installing PreciseFlight speed brakes on EASA registered PA46. There is an FAA STC SA00520SE to do this.
When I searched EASA FAQs about STCs I found this:
An STC can be considered to be EASA approved if it satisfies one of the following conditions:
- It has been validated by EASA after 27 September 2003 (ref. Regulation 1702/2003).
In this case, the corresponding validated STC should be published on the EASA website.
- It has been validated by an EASA Member State before 28 September 2003.
The STC is not in the database published as approved after 2003 but based on a web search it appears that the STC was validated before 2003 at least by Germany and Sweeden. Does that mean that I am OK to install the speed brakes directly based on the STC or do I need to seek any permission or documentation from either German or Swedish CAA?
Has anyone here installed the speed brakes and could help with the proper legal way to do it?
If the European STC is owned by some installer or customer, then you need to contact them and get their permission. That’s the theory; often people “just do it”. AFAIK this is the case regardless of whether they got themselves a validation, or did a whole new STC… if this party paid for it then they own it. @wigglyamp might know the route; he has done a load of EASA STCs.
If it is a validation of an FAA STC which was done by a European CAA then you need to find the supporting document. I don’t know where Sweden has any STC databases for pre-EASA approvals. I know the UK CAA has one for its pre-2003 approvals – the AAN database. A German one is mentioned in the 2nd post here but I see all three links there are dead (people should always upload PDFs to the forum – drag/drop – and as an admin I spend a fair bit of my time here doing just that). But those URLs may give you hints, and a German pilot may recognise them and perhaps post an update in that thread.
The Q remains whether to use a pre-EASA STC (or whatever approval; it isn’t called an “STC” if generated by the national CAA, I think) you have to pay somebody for its use. I think if it was a NAA approval you don’t have to.
I have in the past paid to use a UK AAN – predecessor to an STC. Having access to a certificate of approval from the NAA is not sufficient – you need the actual data to perform the modification and this might not just be a data pack from someone like JPI, but could be a full set of engineering drawings from an independent designer.
There also can be limitations imposed when an NAA had approved/validated an FAA STC, so you need the full package to understand that. Even today, validations can have variations as Garmin have just faced with the GI275. The recent EASA approval does not match everything the FAA approved.