Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
By Oldfart
#1676837
I have recently flown a Cessna 182Q identical to my UK based model, the only difference being it has an N on the side.
It was equipped with a dual G5 fit, GFC 500 three axis autopilot, software for recovery from unusual attitudes, GNSS nav, Alt select etc.etc. A fantastic improvement to my defunct Navomatic 300.
This was all fitted with no problems from an FAA STC which has allowed multiple types, and individual conversions in the hundreds now, in USA and other countries.
I've not noticed any FAA recalls for incidents or accidents from the use of such equipment. Perversely the installation makes the aircraft safer to fly in adverse conditions.
Could someone explain to a non technical person like me, why it is taking EASA so long to approve such safety enhancing equipment, which has proved so successful in non EASA land.
Two years so far, including apparently a requirement to rewrite the FAA paperwork, and when approved £££££ fees. An avionics friend opined, perhaps doubling the USA purchase/installation cost, and probably making it uneconomical or unaffordable to retrofit for many UK owners
By Kemble Pitts
#1677207
There is a bilateral agreement in place between FAA and EASA (actually EU) [called 'Technical Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification' - commonly known as the TIP] that covers mutual recognition of this sort of thing.

Depending upon what FAA approval your mod holds and how technically significant it is, it might be automatically accepted in EASA-land without any further action, or it might need an EASA validation without any technical investigation, or it might need a full technical investigation. You'll need to study the TIP to see where it falls.

Presumably, if it's being subject to a full technical investigation by EASA then it falls into that last category. If it is taking years to approve it could be for at least a couple of reasons:
- the EASA 'bloke' is being overly pedantic, or,
- the technical submission by the applicant is carp and doesn't properly show compliance with the airworthiness requirements

Without knowing all of the details I'm not in a postion to speculate beyond that.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this