Aspen EFIS
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
From: Too close to EASA
Aspen EFIS
Lees Avionics at High Wycombe have just been issued with an EASA STC for the Apen EFD1000 EFIS primary flight display in Commander 112/114 aircraft. This adds to their current list for PA28, PA32, PA34 and C182.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
From: Too close to EASA
Easa Stc
Lees' EASA STCs don't cover the PA30 or PA31. EASA aren't like the FAA so don't allow multiple aircraft types on a single STC - you can stretch it a bit to maybe all of the Cessna single-engined range, but not more than that. The PA31 can't be approved yet as the Class 3 version of the Aspen doesn't have EASA ETSO.
Lees currently have the following approved for Aspen:
PA28, 32, 34
C182
R112/114
and for Garmin G500/600:
PA23, 28, 32, 34, 44
R112/114
Beech 33, 35, 36, 55, 58
In progress: Robin DR300/400/500.
Lees currently have the following approved for Aspen:
PA28, 32, 34
C182
R112/114
and for Garmin G500/600:
PA23, 28, 32, 34, 44
R112/114
Beech 33, 35, 36, 55, 58
In progress: Robin DR300/400/500.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I wonder who has the TB20 EASA STC?
I know a pilot in Germany who had a mega battle with EASA on this. He did it eventually... and then had to replace the thing several times before he got one that worked
Presumably, whoever has the TB20 STC, will be willing to sell the right to use it (as approved data), otherwise why produce an STC in the first place?
I know a pilot in Germany who had a mega battle with EASA on this. He did it eventually... and then had to replace the thing several times before he got one that worked
Presumably, whoever has the TB20 STC, will be willing to sell the right to use it (as approved data), otherwise why produce an STC in the first place?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Do EASA accept, for approved data, anything whatsoever from the FAA list of what qualifies as approved data (e.g. the US manufacturer installation manuals, the contents of other US STCs, etc)?
I will at some stage be writing a mag article on this. I think I have the FAA system sorted OK, but the EASA one is a bit of a mystery. For starters, it appears that the only body which can make the Minor/Major mod decision is EASA itself. Under the FAA system, an IA (or a 145-RS) can make it, but they are a bit out of a limb doing so. Under the EASA system, the ruling seems to be from EASA every time.
I will at some stage be writing a mag article on this. I think I have the FAA system sorted OK, but the EASA one is a bit of a mystery. For starters, it appears that the only body which can make the Minor/Major mod decision is EASA itself. Under the FAA system, an IA (or a 145-RS) can make it, but they are a bit out of a limb doing so. Under the EASA system, the ruling seems to be from EASA every time.
Last edited by IO540; 17th February 2011 at 07:40.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
From: Too close to EASA
An EASA Part 21J DOA can make it's own decision on whether a change is Major or Minor, based on criteria set out in AMC/GM21A91. If we feel something should be Minor but the regulations point to Major, we can ask EASA to re-classify the change back to Minor (so far I've never managed that!).
EASA do accept some data from manufacturers to support an STC - for example the equipment DDP, System Safety assessment, functional hazard assessment, but in most cases will expect the EASA DOA to at least re-structure the data to an EASA version and expand much of the interpretive data to show specific compliance with regulation AND guidance material. In the US, guidance is just that, and applicants for an FAA STC do not have to show compliance to guidance data. If you don't do this in Europe, your chances of getting an STC approved are seriously diminished.
EASA also like to add loads of extras to an STC - CRIs (certification review items), which are additional requirements where the regulation is deemed to be inadequate - this has been a major issue in glass-cockpit STCs. The FAA also have their version of CRIs, known as issue papers.
EASA do accept some data from manufacturers to support an STC - for example the equipment DDP, System Safety assessment, functional hazard assessment, but in most cases will expect the EASA DOA to at least re-structure the data to an EASA version and expand much of the interpretive data to show specific compliance with regulation AND guidance material. In the US, guidance is just that, and applicants for an FAA STC do not have to show compliance to guidance data. If you don't do this in Europe, your chances of getting an STC approved are seriously diminished.
EASA also like to add loads of extras to an STC - CRIs (certification review items), which are additional requirements where the regulation is deemed to be inadequate - this has been a major issue in glass-cockpit STCs. The FAA also have their version of CRIs, known as issue papers.
