TC FAA STC approval issue

[hais]

It used to be that major modifications could be approved in Canada by submitting an FAA STC as approved data. This is no longer the case since May 2021. What this means is that for certain models that have Canadian type certificates:

1. No upgrades nor mods will be approved on the basis of FAA STCs. In our case, we received everything we needed for panel upgrade only to learn that we can't proceed until Garmin obtains a TC STC for G3X and GFC500.

2. Affected airplane models that were upgraded in USA via STCs cannot be imported and flown in Canada. There are cases here about grounded airplanes.

Mods that were done in Canada before May, or airplanes that were imported before May, are grandfathered. 

Before you buy and airplane or purchase upgrade goodies, check with your local shop. 

In the meantime, I'll start a panel downgrade business specializing in removing glass and putting back the six packs :). 

[carusoam]

Great work getting this thread going hais!

Inviting @M20Doc to stop by…. Transport Canada and STCs seem to be in his round house… or hangar?

Best regards,

-a-

[Guest]

Despite the TC FAA bilateral agreement TC has taken the position that newer FAA STC’s require a TC STC.  Older STC’s are grandfathered.  US airframes with a 337 block 3 sign off are approved by TC on a one by one basis.

Clarence

[FlyingDude]

Guys, just curious.  Is there a particular reason?  

[Ragsf15e]

I wonder if the FAA starting to approve formerly experimental avionics (eg G5s) spooked TC?

[ohdub]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

I wonder if the FAA starting to approve formerly experimental avionics (eg G5s) spooked TC?

I wonder if the B737 Max was a factor?

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, FlyingDude said:

Guys, just curious.  Is there a particular reason?  

I think TC is just flexing their muscles for lack of a better term, growing, gaining influence etc.

Used to be the US FAA system was the world standard, that changed years ago when EASA came into being, since then it seems that what used to be the gold standard isn’t anymore.

[Aerodon]

It's also dependant on the age of the plane, I think it has something to do with the fact that up until 1996 or thereabouts, the TC of the plane was recognized by TC through the bilateral agreements.  Then it became more of an individual recognition.  So yes, I think this is a spin off of the MAX and CRJ political issues.  Or just straight bureaucracy at its best.

Aerodon

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Despite the TC FAA bilateral agreement TC has taken the position that newer FAA STC’s require a TC STC.  Older STC’s are grandfathered.  US airframes with a 337 block 3 sign off are approved by TC on a one by one basis.

Clarence

 

35 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I think TC is just flexing their muscles for lack of a better term, growing, gaining influence etc.

Used to be the US FAA system was the world standard, that changed years ago when EASA came into being, since then it seems that what used to be the gold standard isn’t anymore.

 

1 hour ago, ohdub said:

I wonder if the B737 Max was a factor?

It is absolutely the reason.  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-737-max-report-calls-for-overhaul-of-canadas-process-for-approving/  Technically and politically it gave credibility to all the the Canadian interests that have long said Canada should be more independent and rely less on the US in general and FAA in particular.  It was an easy political win for those with nationalist sentiment.  Yes it probably probably increases the workload at TC (and it increases regulation, cost, manpower, needed budget and delays)

[hais]

15 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Despite the TC FAA bilateral agreement TC has taken the position that newer FAA STC’s require a TC STC.  Older STC’s are grandfathered.  US airframes with a 337 block 3 sign off are approved by TC on a one by one basis.

Clarence

Does that mean there's a cut off date for newer STCs? I would think then that G3X and GFC500 should be on grandfathered list. 

[Guest]

On 2/9/2022 at 10:04 PM, hais said:

Does that mean there's a cut off date for newer STCs? I would think then that G3X and GFC500 should be on grandfathered list. 

I’m not sure the exact cut off date. I’ll check.

Clarence

[tony]

So are you saying that if Delta, American, Southwest, Etc mods an aircraft in the States with an FAA STC or if they do a major alteration on a 337, they are no longer airworthy in Canada?  

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by tony
added clarity

[ohdub]

1 hour ago, tony said:

So are you saying that if Delta, American, Southwest, Etc mods an aircraft in the States with an FAA STC or if they do a major alteration on a 337, they are no longer airworthy in Canada?  

 

No, I'm pretty sure it means that if they then wanted to sell that airplane to a Canadian operator that they would have trouble importing the airplane and putting it into service in Canada.

[LANCECASPER]

On 2/9/2022 at 10:33 AM, A64Pilot said:

Used to be the US FAA system was the world standard, that changed years ago when EASA came into being, since then it seems that what used to be the gold standard isn’t anymore.

Even though the FAA has always been bureaucratic, they used to have people there they knew what they were doing and got things done.  I think a lot of those people are gone. From the few people I know that deal with them, they say the people they have to deal with now don't have a clue and look for every reason to say no. I'm sure that varies from FSDO to FSDO.

[ilovecornfields]

If Ice Pilots NWT is any indication, you don’t want to mess with transport Canada.

Anyone else feel that the risk/benefit of having a TAA with an FAA STC vs. a 1970’s panel with a single vacuum pump and no standby doesn’t make a lot of sense?

Netflix does have an interesting documentary on the 737 Max, though. Probably explains why my Boeing stock hasn’t been doing so well.

[N201MKTurbo]

I think they stated the approval process. Get your friendly FAA inspector to sign off your 337 in block 3, then go to TC and ask for approval. They are looking for bad Boeing’s, not Mooneys with awesome panels.

[Guest]

On 2/9/2022 at 10:04 PM, hais said:

Does that mean there's a cut off date for newer STCs? I would think then that G3X and GFC500 should be on grandfathered list. 

I checked with Jasper at Mid Canada Mod Centre(519-648-2921). He did indicate that the avionics you’re looking at are not an issue for installation here in Ontario.  Did you get your rejection info from your avionics shop?

Clarence

[hais]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

I checked with Jasper at Mid Canada Mod Centre(519-648-2921). He did indicate that the avionics you’re looking at are not an issue for installation here in Ontario.  Did you get your rejection info from your avionics shop?

Clarence

Thanks for checking. The rejection came from the Abbotsford TC office when the shop applied for approval. Let me reach out to Mid Canada.

[squeaky.stow]

On 2/8/2022 at 10:58 PM, hais said:

It used to be that major modifications could be approved in Canada by submitting an FAA STC as approved data. This is no longer the case since May 2021. What this means is that for certain models that have Canadian type certificates:

Do you know if your avionics shop has specific written guidance from TC on this? I was just speaking to the sales manager of the Canadian shop that installed my GI275 and I asked him if this had impacted his business. He had not heard anything about a ban on FAA STCs and said they have been continuing to install Garmin G3X and other avionics since May 2021 with no issues. Something doesn’t add up. 

[A64Pilot]

Boeing does their own approvals, with a slight bit of FAA oversight. There is no way the FAA could possibly cover Boeing, the FAA is largely administrators now, not so much Engineers. Boeing and Gulfstream and other big manufacturers are ODAR, they self certify.

FAA continues to delegate more and more, that’s how they “telecommute” every Fri now and of course are still shut down for Covid

The overriding issue with the FAA and big projects is that they are a Government agency and therefore subject to Political pressure, look to the approval of the Eclipse jet for an example.

https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/WEB_FILE3_IG_Statement_on_Eclipse_Certification_CC_2008_120.pdf

There are others, we built and sold 24 experimental aircraft which isn’t legal of course and manufactured them right alongside of a Certified production line which also isn’t legal but the head of the US State dept called the MIDO in Atl and told them that those aircraft would be built

 

Canada is just doing the same as EASA did, that is building their own institution and yes the taxpayer will pay.

Edited February 25, 2022 by A64Pilot

[hais]

7 hours ago, squeaky.stow said:

Do you know if your avionics shop has specific written guidance from TC on this? I was just speaking to the sales manager of the Canadian shop that installed my GI275 and I asked him if this had impacted his business. He had not heard anything about a ban on FAA STCs and said they have been continuing to install Garmin G3X and other avionics since May 2021 with no issues. Something doesn’t add up. 

This is the communication from TC:

 

Sorry you have issues finding information. The Mooney M20R is not on the list of grant fathered aircraft thus is not eligible to have the STC without

 validation.

The IPB is valid because it’s enabled by the IPA, rev 3, international agreement between FAA and TC.

I was put on the wrong trail as well. IPA rev 3 states that the STC holder has to apply for the validation of the STC.

3.5.1.3 An application for a design approval from an applicant must be submitted to the VA by the CA if:

 

1.      (a) The product or design change is within the scope of these Implementation Procedures as provided in 2.2;

 

2.      (b) For TCs: The product has been issued a U.S. or Canadian TC, or an application for type certification has been made to the CA; and

 

3.      (c) For STCs: When the FAA or TCCA as the CA for the design change has issued the STC, or an application for an STC has been received from the applicant.

(VA = Validating Authority, CA = Certificating Authority)

 

This means that you’re not able to apply for the validation of an STC, as I mentioned to you.

 

The best way for you is to contact your Garmin rep and ask where Garmin is with the validation of the STC for the Aircraft.

[squeaky.stow]

Not the first time that different TC regions have come up with different interpretations of the same guidance/regulations. Eastern region apparently has a more liberal interpretation. I have also seen the reverse, at least in the airline world. 
It might be worth contacting a couple of the Ontario shops with your details to find out how they are handling installations of the same equipment. It’s a long way to come for avionics work, so that would probably not make economic sense, but they may be able to provide some useful advice.

[Fly Boomer]

14 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Boeing does their own approvals, with a slight bit of FAA oversight. There is no way the FAA could possibly cover Boeing

Exactly!  Who thinks the FAA could possibly know enough about an airplane that complex to judge their engineering or construction practices?  While I would stipulate that there was a design flaw, I would also point out that Ethiopian pilots were crashing -- not US pilots.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, squeaky.stow said:

Not the first time that different TC regions have come up with different interpretations of the same guidance/regulations.

FAA FSDO does the same stuff--OK to use in one part of the country, illegal in another part of the country even if previously approved by another FSDO.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Exactly!  Who thinks the FAA could possibly know enough about an airplane that complex to judge their engineering or construction practices?  While I would stipulate that there was a design flaw, I would also point out that Ethiopian pilots were crashing -- not US pilots.

Indeed they did crash in a fine American made product with a system few knew about.

Clarence