Can you explain to me 'not quite' and still align it with your previous quote above?
Are you saying that if I have an STC for a modified passenger door, then the aircraft is no longer 'bog standard'
Correct.
.. any other STC for any other after market modification, no matter to what systems it applies to, no longer applies?
No. Each STC embodiment requires an evaluation of its appropriateness with respect to the particular pre-mod aircraft - that can only be assessed on a one off basis unless you are looking at a small identical fleet. In particular, the next STC mod proposed to be incorporated needs to be considered in terms of the whole aircraft as it exists, including extant embodied STCs. It may well be that an existing, incorporated STC mod creates an incompatibility - the present STC OEM made no allowance for whatever mods your bird may have had incorporated previously (unless such is specified in the present STC paperwork).
How could a trivial door mod be a problem you might ask ?
First thing comes to mind is PEC if the static source is aft of the door, for instance.
I am reminded of a B52 program (if my recollection is correct) wherein a relatively minor skin profile change way out in front of the static resulted in an abort on the first test profile takeoff when the "wind in the wires" didn't match the TP's expectations compared to the ASI .. back to the drawing board.
If the door has an emergency release facility, does the door mod affect the inflight separation characteristics ? Not much good if the original mod had the door clearing the tail but the new mod results in the tail departing with the door in close formation .. ?
The list goes on .. all that means is that I've made, or seen, or heard of, or read of, a great bunch of stuff ups made by supposed experts who just happened to overlook something.
The Challenger disaster is a leading example of this philosophical concern.
So, my door mod renders my aircraft non-standard, and therefore I must get an EO for my transponder, rather than use the STC?
Not necessarily, but perhaps. Someone MUST make a determination that the door mod is compatible with the intended radio mod. That determination may be easy or it may be complex .. either way it must be made and by competent person(s). If the end result is a stuff up in concert with a mishap, then stand by and watch the lawyers circling the carcass.
I am yet to have an EO done on my aircraft that the person issuing and signing the EO is even to clap eyes on my aircraft.
That may well happen and, in some situations, may be quite reasonable. However, I would have thought that the fee charged should reflect the real cost - but keep in mind that the time at the aircraft, especially for a small job, may reflect only a small proportion of the actual and accountable costs. ie small jobs cost more in overheads to the consultant than large jobs
In my own practice, for instance, the only job I can recall approving without either having attended personally or by collegiate proxy was for an airline F28 and that was appropriate, considering the circumstances and the particular job. Most, if not all, of the remainder involved much clambering over, in, and under various aeroplanes, helicopters, and other strange forms of aeronautical conveyances.
Complying with a lot of these regulations has very little to do with actual airborne safety.
I empathise with your concern. However, keep in mind that a lot of certification involves stuff which may not at all be obvious. The direct link to safety may seem to be tenuous at times but that is the nature of the beast.
Did that just disappear today?
Had to smile. Just about immediately after making the previous post, in comes the email handout from CASA with the cancellation advice .. The obselete document should remain on the site for a little while until the system catches up with it. Just rechecked now (1330EST) and it is still there.
Does anyone still have an archive copy?
Sure do if anyone wants a copy after the CASA site deletes it.
I wonder what it means...?
That's easy .. the document is obsolescent/obsolete - take your pick.
If you look
here you will note that the discussion paper infers that the process reflects a move from the old stuff to the new.
I note that the next email in this morning notified changes to CAR 30 so it appears that things may be moving ...