EASA again
Thread Starter
EASA again
Adding to the complete licensing shambles often seen here, the same is happening with GA avionics approval.
I note AOPA US are promoting tutorials on the GFC 500/600 retrofit autopilots fitted now to scores of Cessna singles and 208 turboprop, Piper,Mooney and Beech singles and twins.
I’m waiting to fit this possible life saving equipment to my G reg Cessna. The FAA STC for my G reg model Cessna is over two years old with over a hundred fitted and being safely flown in USA. More safely in fact with the ESP function a standard mode.
Latest I am led to believe from local avionics shop,for EASA approval, now mid 2019 at earliest. Lack of staff, incompetence, a requirement to rewrite the FAA STC before application, with of course huge fees, all leading to at least a doubling of USA installation costs in Europe.
What is there for EASA to check with a proven safety case in USA? The STC comes with drawings for my model Cessna with minor differences for individual aircraft only required.
I then then visit my local airfield and find in the avionics shop a UK based N Reg Cessna identical to mine, with GFC500 already fitted ready for testing, what a farce we endure under EASA.
I note AOPA US are promoting tutorials on the GFC 500/600 retrofit autopilots fitted now to scores of Cessna singles and 208 turboprop, Piper,Mooney and Beech singles and twins.
I’m waiting to fit this possible life saving equipment to my G reg Cessna. The FAA STC for my G reg model Cessna is over two years old with over a hundred fitted and being safely flown in USA. More safely in fact with the ESP function a standard mode.
Latest I am led to believe from local avionics shop,for EASA approval, now mid 2019 at earliest. Lack of staff, incompetence, a requirement to rewrite the FAA STC before application, with of course huge fees, all leading to at least a doubling of USA installation costs in Europe.
What is there for EASA to check with a proven safety case in USA? The STC comes with drawings for my model Cessna with minor differences for individual aircraft only required.
I then then visit my local airfield and find in the avionics shop a UK based N Reg Cessna identical to mine, with GFC500 already fitted ready for testing, what a farce we endure under EASA.
Last edited by cessnapete; 8th Jan 2019 at 20:42.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's hope it will all be over soon.
This is a great example of where the CAA could make a positive impact by doing things better, in the course of not doing them at all.
This is a great example of where the CAA could make a positive impact by doing things better, in the course of not doing them at all.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong blame. The trouble is not EASA, but Garmin aiming for an EASA STC standalone, which requires a different testing and documentation to the US EAA initiatives. The grandfathering rights to get through the FAA process are not easily transferable for a good reason!
Does it have to be GFC500? The competion is no problem to get legally installed at EASA registered aircraft for quite a longer time. I know of several flying the new autopilots for two years now and they started the same time or very short after as the US installations.
Does it have to be GFC500? The competion is no problem to get legally installed at EASA registered aircraft for quite a longer time. I know of several flying the new autopilots for two years now and they started the same time or very short after as the US installations.
Thread Starter
Wrong blame. The trouble is not EASA, but Garmin aiming for an EASA STC standalone, which requires a different testing and documentation to the US EAA initiatives. The grandfathering rights to get through the FAA process are not easily transferable for a good reason!
Does it have to be GFC500? The competion is no problem to get legally installed at EASA registered aircraft for quite a longer time. I know of several flying the new autopilots for two years now and they started the same time or very short after as the US installations.
Does it have to be GFC500? The competion is no problem to get legally installed at EASA registered aircraft for quite a longer time. I know of several flying the new autopilots for two years now and they started the same time or very short after as the US installations.
I am unaware of any ADs due GFC 500/ equipment failures affecting safety.
And yes, the Garmin product much superior in all ways to the other “pre home built stuff (Tru Trac etc.) and is compatible to my present Garmin G5 and other Garmin avionics.
If a USA avionics shop is able to fit from the manufacturers STC why does EASA require a complete rewrite of a proven system and it seems nearly 3 years to do it? ( Over 100 of my Cessna type fitted now in USA!)
Jobs for the boys and €€€€€€€, I suppose as usual.
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I'd step into the discussion, as I came by surprise to that business.
@cessnapete: Did you ever actually talk to EASA on your wish, and if, to which person (feel free to PN if you don't like to expose the person to public)? I mean EASA, not Garmin!
-----------------------------
You can’t use the Private Messaging system, add url links or images until you have an established posting history.
-----------------------------------------
Just from my experience, since 2017 in STC business, EASA operations does a tremendously good job! Don't talk of the political games one level up and above. Working on a daily basis with EASA Certificate Delivery (yes, that is their name and they do) is a relative treat. A short while after my first installation I even started selling consulting services for EASA use of US STC and encounter very good relationship management since. Actually, I am a happy customer of one of cessnapete's 'inferior' autopilots. The EASA legal status was approved very few month after the FAA STC got issued. The delay was not caused by administration, but company production start challenges.
The new initiatives from FAA are by far not proven and established system. It is a a new and sometimes challenging approval ride with daily surprises plus frequent telephone talks to the FAA. EASA is fairly open and eager to adopt as quick as they can. In this case I am with chickenhouse and definitely look at Garmin, not EASA. Yes, their products usually offer a little bit more functionality along the old navigational aids. If you really need i.e. NDB coupling to the autopilot, Yes, of course, wait for Garmin as it is the broader product. But, if you prioritize on GPS(S/V), envelope protection and maybe even fitting a first autopilot to enable longer distance GA travel, take a close look at the already available products.
Yes, it is all about $$$$$. But the new kids on the block already changed part of the game for the better of us and EASA is a helping hand, definitely not one to blame!
@cessnapete: Did you ever actually talk to EASA on your wish, and if, to which person (feel free to PN if you don't like to expose the person to public)? I mean EASA, not Garmin!
-----------------------------
You can’t use the Private Messaging system, add url links or images until you have an established posting history.
-----------------------------------------
Just from my experience, since 2017 in STC business, EASA operations does a tremendously good job! Don't talk of the political games one level up and above. Working on a daily basis with EASA Certificate Delivery (yes, that is their name and they do) is a relative treat. A short while after my first installation I even started selling consulting services for EASA use of US STC and encounter very good relationship management since. Actually, I am a happy customer of one of cessnapete's 'inferior' autopilots. The EASA legal status was approved very few month after the FAA STC got issued. The delay was not caused by administration, but company production start challenges.
The new initiatives from FAA are by far not proven and established system. It is a a new and sometimes challenging approval ride with daily surprises plus frequent telephone talks to the FAA. EASA is fairly open and eager to adopt as quick as they can. In this case I am with chickenhouse and definitely look at Garmin, not EASA. Yes, their products usually offer a little bit more functionality along the old navigational aids. If you really need i.e. NDB coupling to the autopilot, Yes, of course, wait for Garmin as it is the broader product. But, if you prioritize on GPS(S/V), envelope protection and maybe even fitting a first autopilot to enable longer distance GA travel, take a close look at the already available products.
Yes, it is all about $$$$$. But the new kids on the block already changed part of the game for the better of us and EASA is a helping hand, definitely not one to blame!
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Belgium
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a great example of where the CAA could make a positive impact by doing things better, in the course of not doing them at all.
Thread Starter
Yes, looking at that option now. As I don’t see the CAA any better after Brexit going by their present performances re licensing etc.
And yes I have tried contacting EASA on the subject. Never had even an acknowledgement!
And yes I have tried contacting EASA on the subject. Never had even an acknowledgement!
Thread Starter
Bjoste
Thanks for your reply. Yes I have tried without success to contact EASA ref equipment approval date. They don’t reply it seems.
Perhaps you can answer the question I asked them.
If a set of new avionics has been flying with proven safety for more than two years, in scores of different types of aircraft in the USA, why do EASA deem it unsafe to fit and fly in Europe? And why does it take two years to check the manufacturers proven paperwork?
Thanks for your reply. Yes I have tried without success to contact EASA ref equipment approval date. They don’t reply it seems.
Perhaps you can answer the question I asked them.
If a set of new avionics has been flying with proven safety for more than two years, in scores of different types of aircraft in the USA, why do EASA deem it unsafe to fit and fly in Europe? And why does it take two years to check the manufacturers proven paperwork?
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can neither answer on behalf of EASA nor Garmin. I have no relation to Garmin and none other to EASA than being a happy customer also helping others. I can only try to comment on your questions from my experience.
I doubt your assumption is right. EASA does not deem these things unsafe, or did you hear of anything they pulled from the flying fleet? This kind of questioning will not give an answer, as it is not open for discussion. It is totally understandable you get no answer on such. If you want answers to the GFC500, you have to make the questions explicit, so they are answerable. I guesstimate the answer must and will be: ask Garmin, balls in their play-field.
It does not. My experience is a receipt on next business day or day after and process finished within two business weeks.
It does not. My experience is a receipt on next business day or day after and process finished within two business weeks.
Last edited by Bjoste; 10th Jan 2019 at 13:54.
