What do you think of the UK EDM700 approval for example? Does anybody have to be paid for using it? It seems to me that literally anybody in EASA-land can just reference this approval and install the item, a Minor mod.
Agree, this approval does not list a specific approval holder and it is published. New EASA approvals are not published by EASA, it will be a way of making money as well, for sure they did approve the same installation many times for different avionics companies. Think of mode S transponder and ELT’s for example.
EASA approvals are now issued to the applicant. The EASA approval also list the applicant, and is only valid for use by the applicant. The applicant can issue a written approval for third party installation.
Example of a an approval header below:
And how would one make use of the Swiss 2×GNS approval?
One can use most pre-EASA approvals, if you stay within the scope of the approval and received written approval of the approval holder. One should think of exact configuration etc.
Buying an existing approval is always the prefered solution if possible, it speeds up the process which can take quite long. Sometimes suchs as with these GNS’s there are pre-EASA or even older EASA approvals which allow these dual installation, which would be considerd as major for new applications.
The TC holder is also a good place to check for approvals, on some aircraft these installations can be done based as options of the TC holder.
I think the GTN can be installed 2x under its AML STC
True
Has EASA produced a database of approved mods, pre-2003 (when EASA grandfathered the older mods to all EASA-reg aircraft)?
No, I think that would be very hard to achieve, as there are might be a lot of variants. Some approvals might allow a certain radio, only with a certain type of indicator, while another approval would use another indicator for example.
EASA’s statement:
Any STC approved or validated by any member state before the establishment of EASA is deemed to be ‘Grandfathered’ under Regulation 1702/2003 Article 2 (3)(a). Unfortunately, there are tens of thousands of these approvals and it has not been possible to put together a database. We normally recommend an enquirer to contact the STC holder (the FAA website has these details) and check with them directly whether they have any EU customers. The STC holder should know who his customers have been because he has obligations to maintain continued airworthiness for his modifications.
But regardless of whether a mod has appeared in some database, who collects the money or who makes sure the original applicant gets paid?
There is no automatic collection. If your honest you will appriciate the work someone has done, and saved you a lot of work and time, and therefore buy an excisting approval from the company or person mentioned in the approval sheet. You will also need additional paperwork, suchs as the documentation refered to in the minor change approval and a written approval that you can are granted permission to use the approval. Failure to do so can cause issues with ARC inspection or a CAA audit.
Interesting!
So EASA never did any kind of approvals database? They do a database of approved equipment but that’s something else.
We normally recommend an enquirer to contact the STC holder (the FAA website has these details) and check with them directly whether they have any EU customers. The STC holder should know who his customers have been because he has obligations to maintain continued airworthiness for his modifications.
That EASA statement is however mostly unusable because most US STC holders are not interested in dealing with EASA. They can’t see a market in Europe (rightly or not). The Europe-based pilot has a direct interest in sorting it out but the US-based STC holder mostly couldn’t care less.
EASA approvals are now issued to the applicant. The EASA approval also list the applicant, and is only valid for use by the applicant. The applicant can issue a written approval for third party installation.
With no database, isn’t that a useless process? Nobody will be able to discover who did the approval before – unless the avionics shop advertises it on their website, or you see another pilot flying with it and ask him. At least the UK CAA had an AAN database (albeit with a poor search facility) and I believe Germany has/had something similar.
So most EASA approvals will end up getting duplicated. Good money for somebody, for sure! Mind you, the same problem exists in the USA. It’s very hard to find out who did a Field Approval for something. The equipment manufacturer might sometimes know, but they will know only the avionics shop, who may or may not want to help.
Interestingly, I suspect, based on the fact that the UK CAA EDM700 approval does not list an approval holder, the CAA AAN database is an especially good place to look because if you find a mod in there you can just use it and not get anybody else’s approval.
There is no automatic collection. If your honest you will appriciate the work someone has done, and saved you a lot of work and time, and therefore buy an excisting approval from the company or person mentioned in the approval sheet. You will also need additional paperwork, suchs as the documentation refered to in the minor change approval and a written approval that you can are granted permission to use the approval. Failure to do so can cause issues with ARC inspection or a CAA audit.
Am I right in saying that since the mod is not published for the aircraft (unlike the FAA publishing all 337s for a particular aircraft and you can order them on a CD for a small charge) the fact that you need to contact the applicant for the modification documents, he will at that point ask you for the payment? Otherwise, I can’t see any other way to get the documents for the modification. The owner of the aircraft might have them but that’s unusual; most owners leave everything with their maintenance company.
So EASA never did any kind of approvals database?
Not that I am aware of.
They do a database of approved equipment but that’s something else.
Correct, do note however this is not all approved equipment. It lists equipment manufactured under ETSO, equipment using different certification bases are not included, this can be TSO (non E-TSO) approved equipment, as well as equipment which doesn’t have a TSO at all (Flarm, Golze, our products)
That EASA statement is however mostly unusable because most US STC holders are not interested in dealing with EASA
This is not about dealing with EASA. You could get most US STC-ed product installed on EASA-reg aircraft, if you gain approval yourself. Does it make sense from an economical point of view? More often not. If you do the US STC / manufacturer should help you with continuess airworthiness. They should do that will all their customers.
With no database, isn’t that a useless process? Nobody will be able to discover who did the approval before – unless the avionics shop advertises it on their website, or you see another pilot flying with it and ask him.
Not really, Some shops advertise their approvals, others issue some of them freely (Trig did that for some of their products), on can see it in the technical file of the aircraft allready equipment. Often the manufacturer will know who did such an installation before, many shops also have contact every now and then, and know which approvals are available. Often the customer is not aware of the approval process, and the approval is done by the avionics shop.
In some occassions the customer is member of a type specific club, and might have knowledge of who has the same installation they want, and can then inform who did the approval process.
So most EASA approvals will end up getting duplicated. Good money for somebody, for sure!
Some of them will, others won’t. For example I recently did a Beech 18 with a GMA-340, GNC-255A and GTR-225A installation (national approval). In this case you put a lot of effort to gain this approval, while the change to pickup another Dutch Beech 18 which wants the same installation is zero.
All GTN minor change approvals are S/N limited, so can not be reused. While a GMA-340 on a Cessna 172 can be reused ceveral times.
If the approval list more equipement, the less likely it is that you will find an aircraft with the SAME configuration. As indicated before, charging only the amount of the fee’s, a would lose money on the Beech 18 (time not paid for), while I would earn on the Cessna 172 GMA-340 by re-using this. I believe this is one of the few methods to keep fair pricing to all customers.
Am I right in saying that since the mod is not published for the aircraft (unlike the FAA publishing all 337s for a particular aircraft and you can order them on a CD for a small charge) the fact that you need to contact the applicant for the modification documents, he will at that point ask you for the payment? Otherwise, I can’t see any other way to get the documents for the modification. The owner of the aircraft might have them but that’s unusual; most owners leave everything with their maintenance company.
The owner of the aircraft which modified must have this documents, For sure one can copy this paperwork from a previouse modification. This unfortunatly get’s done. For some reason some people don’t like to pay for software, films, music or aircraft approvals and just copy it. I think in general it is underestimate how much work goes into this.
as i am looking into a edm 700 for my g reg 182 what is required to do??
as i am looking into a edm 700 for my g reg 182 what is required to do??
This is grantfathered by UK CAA, see UK CAA AAN 27548 and UK CAA AAN 27548 Rev 1
Great help again thank you Jesse and all the others (this Forum is really a massive big help to me!!!!)
Next question where is best to buy an edm 700 ? is a 2nd hand worth an option or do the displays with the gas display play up over time?
I would recommend a new JPI engine analyser. Installation will take quite some time. You would like need a new wiring harnass, and might want new probes as well. The newer units have much more features than the older units, and these basically pay back themself as they save time troubleshooting the engine, and for fuel savings, without burning your engine.
These types of instruments come in two standard sizes: 2.25" and 3.125".
The wiring takes a while because you have to thread a dozen or so thermocouple wires through a hole in the firewall, and crimp all the connections. They can’t (realistically) be soldered due to the special metals used.
Can anyone find current versions of the URLs in this post above which are now all dead?
You can find the UK CAA AAN here: https://siteapps.caa.co.uk/aans/
