This has just come out local copy
I glanced through it. There are some interesting stuff here. In some cases equipment without an EASA form 1 can be installed even without the owner assuming responsibility according to 21.A.307. Some safety-enhancing but non-critical equipment such as digital engine instruments, fuel flow meters, annunciators and conspicuity devices can be installed according to CS-STAN. (E.g. without either an STC or change approval.)
I have a closer look at it later.
Has anyone had a look at whether this contains anything interesting?
Does this mean I can put an odyssey battery in my PA28?
Not only would there be cost savings and better performance but the C of G is currently a bit far forward and when two up and this would help.
Regardless problems will be
A) The UK is now out of EASA so this wont apply
B) My maintenance out fit will say there is no EASA 1 form. Sorry, and no we don’t believe that Part-ML concession is valid. This will then be backed up by their ops inspector and there isn’t anywhere else one can go
Peter wrote:
Has anyone had a look at whether this contains anything interesting?
There’s a lot of additional administrative and technical rules and information. Almost all existing Standard Changes are affected in some way. In many cases an EASA form 1 is not needed, even without having to invoke 21.A.307.
The following Standard Changes are new:
Installation of a fuel flow/pressure instrument
So a fuel totaliser is now a simple install by an EASA66 mechanic, with just a logbook entry? There are some fuel hoses involved and normally you have to follow something like a Shadin STC.
Peter wrote:
So a fuel totaliser is now a simple install by an EASA66 mechanic, with just a logbook entry? There are some fuel hoses involved and normally you have to follow something like a Shadin STC.
Yes and no. You don’t need an STC, OTOH the SC has the condition that
The installation of the fuel flow/pressure instrument, together with the related parts (including transducers), has been certified by EASA or by a civil aviation authority of a third country that has entered into a bilateral agreement with the EU . The equipment manufacturer has declared that the fuel flow/pressure instrument is suitable for installation on a specific aircraft and compatible with a specific engine type. Moreover, the equipment manufacturer provides the necessary design data to the installer.
That makes that bit basically worthless to most people 
The Shadin and JPI STCs are not aircraft type specific. See e.g. here. They tend to be generic engine specific (but probably not totally e.g. for IO540-C4 but not specifically IO540-C4D5D, so somebody will for sure hang their coat on that discrepancy) and as the instructions are from the US they assume some basic competence on the part of the A&P.
Like so much from EASA, the devil is in the details… As usual the European installer is presumed to be incompetent, hence the requirement for precise instructions.
What is a “Installation of a multifunction display for powerplant instruments”? Is it one of the EDM type products? The newest ones have a US AML STC, but not the older ones.
The EI CGR have an EASA STC iirc, which will not be necessary anymore when this new CSSTAN goes into effect.
As I mentioned in some other thread once, my EI fuel totalizer is FAA STC’d for my type (i.e. on the STCs Approved Model List) without ever having been installed in the type by anybody prior to me. This is common practice, the manufacturer does not provide installation design data specific to the type, it is generic for use on a broad category of types having similar engines, systems etc. Whether that satisfies the EASA requirement for the installer to have “necessary design data” is open to question, but I’m guessing most would think it does.
