This is relatively new.
This refers to it also.
Has anyone used this concession?
The limitations appear to render this potentially worthless e.g.
In accordance with the Technical Implementation Procedure (TIP) for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification between FAA and EASA rev 5, Section 1.6 Definitions:
(f) “Basic Supplemental Type Certificate (Basic STC)” means a Supplemental Type Certificate whose validation does not require Validating Authority (VA) technical involvement.
So, no EASA “technical involvement”. What could meet this requirement? Any examples of applicable items?
It’s a step in the right direction. Previously only Australia unconditionally accepted FAA STCs. In EASA-land this was firmly a “over my dead body” topic.
Many years ago the UK CAA validated a lot of FAA STCs into AANs (type e.g. EDM into the Subject box and discover a blanket approval for an EDM 7xx) but that activity was killed by EASA in 2003, although the old AANs can still be used and were AFAIK grandfathered into EASA.
Not a whole lot of input on this 
I wonder why…
I think you’re missing the context.
Since TIP v5, the BASA has allowed for EASA to simply rubberstamp FAA Basic STCs (and vice-versa). There is no technical review of the basis for issuing an STC, it is just assumed that if it passed FAA technical scrutiny it’s good enough for EASA.
Appendix C of the TIP sets out the criteria:
6.2 Non-Basic STCs will generally be more complex and may require some [Validating Authority] involvement. Criteria for a Non-Basic STC are:
6.2.1. Changes classified as significant, in accordance with 14 CFR 21.101(b) and EASA’s Part 21A.101(b).
6.2.2. Changes requiring, or, for concurrent programs, anticipated to require, a special condition, exemption/deviation, equivalent level of safety finding, or acceptable means of compliance identified in a CA issue paper/CRI.
6.2.3. Changes introducing design features or operational capabilities identified on the VA generic VI list if the authority has published the list (see paragraph 4.5 of this Appendix).
6.2.4. Changes where the STC compliance checklist includes standards included in the VA SSD list if the authority has published the list (see paragraph 3.2 of this Appendix).
6.2.5. Any other design changes categorized as a Non-Basic STC by the [Certifying Authority].
6.3 All other STCs are considered Basic STCs.
Anything that involves complex avionics (like the G5) or noise (e.g. exhaust changes) tends to be non-basic and requires more time and money to get validated.
The problem with the process as envisaged by the BASA is that it still requires the application to come from the STC holder. Persuading a one-man band in Kansas that it’s worth going through the hassle of EASA validation (even simple administrative validation) to sell a $200 kit can be quite tough, so we asked EASA to introduce a process whereby the owner could apply for the validation when the STC holder doesn’t want to.
Sure; I was looking for example of applicable FAA STCs which could benefit from this process.
The problem with the process as envisaged by the BASA is that it still requires the application to come from the STC holder. Persuading a one-man band in Kansas that it’s worth going through the hassle of EASA validation (even simple administrative validation) to sell a $200 kit can be quite tough, so we asked EASA to introduce a process whereby the owner could apply for the validation when the STC holder doesn’t want to.
Yes, that’s how I understood it as well. Actually, I had thought that the owner-initiative thing (without needing the STC holder) had already become a reality with this latest revision…
What might spoil this to some degree is the fees for each and every accpetance. Looks like they will be a minimum of 500€ up to a few thousand €.
So, the “big” STCs are not eligible for this process, and for a small mod, it might become uneconomic. Still, good move in the right direction.
I find this all completely blown out of proportion. If I want to install something as my own or a standard GNS530 after an upgrade fo WAAS, I need an STC for 750,- Euro even if it is the same plane.
This makes for 20% of the total cost just for a piece of paper printed as a standard by the avionics firm.
Outrageous. Or am I missing a point here ?
The only involvement required from the STC holder is a letter stating no objection to the EASA validation: the applicant can be the airplane owner or operator.
I have not had to use this yet, but at EUR233, in most cases the cost is fairly reasonable.
However, the determination of Basic vs non-Basic is not always trivial. Ask me how I know…
Antonio
Ciao Antonio,
I have not had to use this yet
and
Ask me how I know…
don’t seem to go together too well… why don’t you share details if your “case” a bit? Would be useful.
Yes, Bosco has a funny way of communicating the weirdest messages at times…this was kind of vengeance! My message was confusing indeed.
Peter, your knowledge of everything that happens or ever happened at EuroGA is amazing…you always seemt to recall this or that thread where someone talked about it and then find it…
I have managed some STC validation projects , a couple of them earlier this year. And yes, showing evidence that it should be classed as basic per the BASA , and getting EASA’s concurrence to that effect was the difficult part.
Having said that, all recent ones were mod projects for large aircraft to which this new simplified procedure does not apply. Hence my lack of experience with it.
I am tempted to put it to the test with some simple avionics on our aircraft see what happens…do let us know if someone gives it a try in the meantime!
Thanks
Antonio
