UK the best register in Europe for Annex 2

Neil wrote:

The major step forward is the fact that ALL FAA STC’s are automatically allowed

It’s been like that since before WWII, literally (1930s or something), and I think everywhere in Europe.

FAA STCs have never been automatically acceptable on EASA-reg certified aircraft and aren’t even today.

This has been very much a cornerstone of European regulatory policy. Allowing FAA STCs would seriously damage the EASA 21 business, and EASA has recruited heavily from EASA 21 companies

Since a treaty signed 2-3 years ago, the data used to obtain an FAA STC (or the data generated by an FAA DER in pursuit of an 8110-backed Major Alteration) has been admissible by EASA towards an EASA STC. But not the FAA STC itself.

If FAA STCs are automatically allowed on Annex 2 that is really good news for that community.

The only country I know of which has automatically accepted FAA STCs for certified aircraft, for years, is Australia.

I think the situation is gradually changing, via an indirect route: Garmin have gradually taken over the known universe, and they (astonishingly – nobody I know knows how they managed when so many failed before them) are getting AML (multiple model) EASA STCs for their stuff. So the need for FAA STC acceptance is reduced, taking the GA market as a whole. (Of course there are other things e.g. backup alternators but the # of people throwing in €20k + €2k EASA approval cost avionics eye candy far exceeds the # of people throwing in backup alternators). So the scope for damaging the EASA 21 industry (by accepting FAA STCs) is reducing all the time. So eventually EASA might just decide to agree to it, because by the time they get around it, not many “stakeholders” will care. It’s a bit like (hypothetically) banning smoking when 95% of smokers have given up or died – you won’t lose a lot of votes over it.

LeSving wrote:

It’s been like that since before WWII, literally (1930s or something), and I think everywhere in Europe.

I think not .

Then what is this: This is the “new” one that took over for the older from the 50s and so on:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/baa_basa_listing/media/norwaybaa.pdf

It’s still in effect, even on EASA as far as I know.

Those bilateral agreements are a fun topic.

When JAA came in (c. 1999) they pretended to kill them. In 2005 I was at a presentation by a then JAA Director (Fergus Wood) in Guernsey who told the audience they were all “dead”.

EASA continued that “denial” approach.

The FAA refused to accept that some “self appointed European federal government” should be able to cancel treaties the USA has signed with sovereign countries, so the FAA continued to honour them from their side.

But the JAA countries had problems with honouring them. At least, they could not do it openly. Under JAA there was a bit of leeway (for example the Irish CAA would give a JAA ATPL to anybody with an FAA ATPL, roughly 1999-2002 or so, till JAA found out ) but it was not possible to do overt and controversial stuff. For example, pre-2003 (when EASA took over) the UK CAA would tend to approve a mod which was covered by an FAA STC, but they could never admit they are accepting the FAA STC directly.

But if you read those treaties you find they never specifically bind either party to automatic mutual STC acceptance. They are 90% bullsh1it and waffle – basically a statement of intentions to be good brothers.

I recently spoke to a US-based DER who says the FAA still works under them for STC generation based on mutual data acceptance.

I bet the LAA are pleased about it. That’s a lot of stuff which can go in without individual LAA inspectors saying they don’t like it.