Comment-Response Document 2014-24

Certification Specifications for Standard Changes and Standard Repairs (CS-STAN), and amendments to the related AMC and GM. The Decision also contains the entry-into-force information of the applicable rule. 1 Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ L 79, 19.3.2008, p. 1). 2 The Agency is bound to follow a structured rulemaking process as required by Article 52(1) of the Basic Regulation. Such process has been adopted by the Agency’s Management Board and is referred to as the ‘Rulemaking Procedure’. See Management Board Decision concerning the procedure to be applied by the Agency for the issuing of Opinions, Certification Specifications and Guidance Material (Rulemaking Procedure), EASA MB Decision No 01-2012 of 13 March 2012. 3 See: http://easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment/npa-2014-24 European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 2. Summary of comments and responses TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 4 of 165 An agency of the European Union 2. Summary of comments and responses The consultation of the NPA 2014-24 has gathered around 380 comments from individuals, industry and NAAs. The majority of stakeholders commenting on the NPA have welcomed the publication of the NPA and have requested the Agency for an urgent adoption of the related Decision, making possible the use of the concept of Standard Changes/Repairs. Few commentators had the opposite view and some pointed out about the impact the Decision could have on the US Bilateral Agreement. The next paragraphs of this Chapter contain a summary of the comments received and the responses thereto provided by the Agency. All individual comments received on the NPA and the responses thereto are copied in Chapter 3. — As each individual Standard Changes/Repairs contain applicability requirements, many stakeholders have requested its full expansion to the applicability set defined in Part-21, paragraphs 21.A.90B and 21.A.431B. The Agency has reviewed applicability for each Standard Change/Repair and often the proposed applicability has been extended based on the comments received. Compared to the NPA, several Standard Changes are now also applicable to some rotorcraft. However, in those cases where the Agency had reservations, the assessment for the extension of applicability has been postponed to a later phase (Phase 2) of this rulemaking activity. — Where applicability was proposed for ELA2 aircraft, many stakeholders requested to include also ELA1 aircraft. The Agency confirms that sailplanes, aeroplanes and rotorcraft classified as ELA1 aircraft also fulfil the ELA2 definition and, therefore, by quoting ELA2 aircraft, related ELA1 aircraft are by definition included. This is in line with the approach followed for the coming amendments to Part-M. Under a new paragraph ‘Definitions’ in the ‘Subpart A – General’ of CS-STAN, this is clarified. Also, upon stakeholders’ requests, some other definitions are added in the ‘Subpart A – General’. — In order to comply with current rules (Part-21, Part-M), some stakeholders commented on the need for an independent Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) approval, Aircraft Maintenance Program (AMP) approval or an approved Permit to Fly (PtF) when embodying Standard Changes/Repairs. The Agency considers that AFM changes are changes to the type design which can be considered part of the Standard Change, and, therefore, they do not need an independent approval. The AMP, if needed to be amended in accordance with new Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness issued with the Standard Change/Repair, may require an approval. In some cases it is possible to obtain the AMP approval without the involvement of the NAA, by means of an indirect approval and soon it will be possible for the aircraft owner to self-declare the Maintenance Program for certain aircraft. A PtF is required when the aircraft does not meet applicable airworthiness requirements. This is not the case when equipement is being installed through a Standard Change on a ‘no hazard no credit basis’. — Many commentators have requested a clearer definition of the persons entitled to carry out the release to service after the embodiment of each Standard Change/Repair. The Agency has considered that being too prescriptive about the license categories required for the release to service of each Standard Change/Repair would unavoidably introduce unintended constrains for European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 2. Summary of comments and responses TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 5 of 165 An agency of the European Union certain license holders. The Agency believes that each person (natural or legal) would first need to assess if they are competent and if they hold the required license/approval privileges for the embodiment of the Standard Change/Repair. A posteriori, NAAs may still assess the competence of the responsible person to use CS-STAN and embodiment of the Standard Change/Repair by checking their details on the Form 123. With regard to aircraft for which there is no Part-66 license (e.g. gliders, balloons), it has been clarified in the new AMC to M.A801 that there is no automatic mutual recognition of national licenses. — There were also comments requesting further clarification with regard to the use of articles not being ETSO authorised. The new AMC to M.A.801 contains more clarification with respect to the use of parts in a Standard Change/Repair and a definition to the equivalent ETSO article is provided in the new paragraph CS.STAN 80 in the ‘Subpart A – General’ of CS-STAN. — Some commentators have also requested that some of the Standard Changes proposed as ‘replacement’ be changed to ‘installation’. The Agency used a distinction between these two terms in the NPA in order to differentiate among the cases where, prior to carrying out the Standard Change, there was (or there was not) an equipment/system in the aircraft already providing the function subject to the Standard Change. After reviewing these comments, the Agency has changed the Standard Changes SC003 and SC053 from ‘replacements’ to ‘intallations’, and has reviewed the consistency on the use of these terms in the final rule and providing a clarification in in CS.STAN 80 of the ’Subpart A – General’. Finally, in the final rule, the term ‘replacement’ has been substituted with the term ‘exchange’, since in Regulation EU No 1321/2015 the term ‘replacement’ is used when a part is substituted with an identical part (i.e. same part number). — Finally, various commentators, including the FAA, have identified a potential impact on the use of CS-STAN in parallel with the US Bilateral Agreement, namely with regard to the export of individual aircraft with Standard Changes/Repairs embodied to the US . The Agency acknowledges this potential impact but considers that, with the number of aircraft affected, this is a minor side effect that should be treated in the Bilateral Agreement dedicated fora. European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 6 of 165 An agency of the European Union 3. Individual comments (and responses) In responding to comments, a standard terminology has been applied to attest the Agency’s position. This terminology is as follows: (a) Accepted — The Agency agrees with the comment and any proposed amendment is wholly transferred to the revised text. (b) Partially accepted — The Agency either agrees partially with the comment, or agrees with it but the proposed amendment is only partially transferred to the revised text. (c) Noted — The Agency acknowledges the comment but no change to the existing text is considered necessary. (d) Not accepted — The comment or proposed amendment is not shared by the Agency. European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 7 of 165 An agency of the European Union (General Comments) - comment 4 comment by: Samionics / General Aviation Avionics We are very positive to this long requested NPA concerning avionics and electrical systems in non complex aircraft and hope that the CS-STAN will become valid as soon as posible without any further delays. response Noted. comment 5 comment by: FFAé Although it is the phase 1 comment, I'd like to add some standard changes for hot air balloons (standard shapes) in the list : a) exchange of traditional certified wickerwork baskets under enveloppes. Any data about limitations are available on each manufacturer's flight manual and any pilot-owner may compare the limitations of the enveloppe and of the basket and define the most restrictive of them. The CS-31 requirements may be analyzed by the workshop or the polit-owner and they can choose componants compliant to the design of their enveloppe. An inflation then may show the physical mount of the bsaket with loadframe and enveloppe. b) exchange of fuel cylinders filled with propane. The fuel cylinders are certified under the approval of a hot air balloon and their are strapped inside the basket with manufacturer straps. The main point is the hose connector : some are Rego type, other are Tema type or 'Quick-off' type. If the fuel cylinder connector suits the hose connector, it should be possible for the pilot-owner to change the definition though CS-STAN change instead of requiring an EASA major change from the manufacturer of the enveloppe. c) Exchange of burner(s) and load frame. This point is more technical because the size of the load frame designs the flying cables from the mouth of the enveloppe to the load frame. But if data is provided by the manufacturer of the enveloppe and the manufacturer of the load frame and burners, a pilot owner may analyse and show compliance with an inflation. response Noted. See the response to comment 228 comment 22 comment by: The Norwegian Air Sports Federation The Norwegian Air Sports Federation (NLF – Norges Luftsportforbund) would like to thank the Agency for the CS-STAN proposal. In our view, the principles applied will greatly benefit the safety of general aviation and air sports in Euorpe, since technological improvements with a proven safety benefit will be more accessible, less expensive and less burdensome to implement in the general aviation fleet. For those assuming that removing the requirement of an equipment and installation specific Agency approval prior to a change or repair would mean a decrease in the level of safety, we would like emphasise that similar principles have been applied in the US for years, and that there is no indication that the level of GA safety in the US is lower than in Europe (rather the contrary). European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 8 of 165 An agency of the European Union We sincerely hope that the outcome of the commenting process won't be a change of the core of the proposal in such a manner that the regulatory burden ends up being higher than proposed in CS-STAN. response Noted. comment 64 comment by: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt The LBA appreciates the basic approach of this NPA introducing alleviations in certification procedures for general aviation, especially in the field of sport aviation. The standard should either be limited to a one by one box change or FAA AC 43-13-2B Chapter 1 (Structures) should also be mentioned. Concerning general working principles there should also be a reference to FAA AC 43.13- 1B CHG1, Chapters 11 and 12. Effects on POA: Can parts for Standard Changes and Repairs be produced in a POA? If Yes, - Who is signing a DO/PO arrangement? - By which statement is the design to be considered "approved" or to be eligible for an EASA Form 1? - Can parts according to Standards Changes be installed during production? Situation in the General Aviation’s world: CS-STAN and the FAA AC will be published in English language only. This might cause some misunderstanding in practical application of the CS and especially of the FAA AC because English is usually not the “mother language” used in GA. This might also be a problem in other EU Member states? 3.2.2 Decision No 2003/19RM; Page 8ff: Any requirements concerning Part-M and Part-145 are published as GM only. Even the EASA Form 123 is only recommended in point 9 of GM M.A.801, but however plays an important role in the GM and is also referenced in CS-STAN.20 and CS-STAN.30. At least some essential requirements concerning the CRS and the documentation of CS / CR should be incorporated into AMC material. In addition M.A.801 is not applicable to Part-145. The AMC/ GM of Part-145 should contain at least a cross-link to the Part-M-AMC/GM. 3.2.2 Decision No 2003/19RM; Page 8ff: Nowhere in the GM, but also nowhere in the CS is it pointed out that CS-STAN can only be applied if not being in conflict with TCH data. Only by indirect cross-reference to 21.A.90B and by applying the FAA AC itself this requirement becomes effective. We recommend including such requirement more clearly in the GM/AMC and/or the CS. response Noted. Specific chapters of AC 43-13 1 & 2 have been added to the NPA text as considered necessary. The concept of Standard changes/repairs was developed assuming that the target products would be ‘used aircraft’ and the changes/repairs would be embodied as a European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 9 of 165 An agency of the European Union maintenance activity. It is however not forbidden its implementation by a POA in case in agreement with the TC holder, but the Agency does not see its advantage (typically a modification could be approved as a minor change directly by the TC holder, also holding a DOA approval). Therefore Acceptable means of compliance developed with this Decision only contains AMC for Part-M/145. Most of the standard changes or repairs assume that parts are either ETSO, or produced by a POA for another approved design, or can be fabricated by the installer (e.g. brackets). So there are normally not specifically designed parts that should be produced by a POA. However in the case that the standard change or repair would contain such a specifically designed part it can be produced by a POA. Obviously there is no need to have a DO-PO arrangement. Clarification is added in the ‘Subpart A – General’ of CS-STAN. Some CS-SCxxx changes require the parts/appliances to be ETSO approved. In this case, its production needs to follow Part 21 principles. The person signing the form 123 is responsible, among other things, for the eligibility of the parts being installed. Parts without an EASA form 1 can be installed when permitted in Part M or Part 21, as already explained in the text GM M.A.801 of the NPA. EASA cannot provide translation services into other languages. English is the common languages used for the communications of the Agency. NAAs may provide translating support of these and other Standards to their industry/community. Text defined as GM M.A.801 in the NPA has been classified as AMC in the Opinion. AMC to 145.A.50 has been added to refer to AMC M.A.801 AMC. In addition to the CS-STAN and AMC/GM relevant paragraphs, the users of the Standard Change/Repairs process should know the relevant rule paragraphs, e.g. 21.A.90B. Their content should not be repeated into AMC/GM. comment 97 comment by: Austro Control Austro Control GmbH avionics members appreciate the efforts to reduce the burden for the General Aviation and we would like to thank all involved persons making this CS-STAN possible. We would have the following comments: General: The wording "additionally the following considerations apply" might be misleading and might raise the question whether the "consideration" need to be incorporated or not. Thus, we would propose to change the wording in "additionally the following items apply and shall be met" Reference: CS-SC001a, 3-Acceptable methods, techniques and practices, 4 "For different installations (cable length, connectors) the required output power needs to be assessed by additional analysis: - The equipment is qualified for environmental conditions expected during normal operation - Instructions and tests defined by teh equipment manufacturer have to be followed Comment: The wording might leave the impression that ETSO Equipment need not to be installed within its dedicated limits (Environmental conditions) and that equipment wihtout ETSO approval might be installed as well. Such an approach would require equipment qualification on aircraft level, which might be out of the scope of a "Standard". It is my understanding that the equipment must be approved in accordance with the applicable ETSO to ensure proper function in the airspace. Proposal: Move "The equipment is qualified for the environmental conditions to be expected during normal operation." as new item between items 3. and 4. Move "instructions and tests defined by the equipment manufacturer have to be followed" European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 10 of 165 An agency of the European Union between items 3. and 4. Add: "The installation instructions and specifications of the equipment manufacturer have to be followed" after new item 5. Add: "The antenna cable fits to the equipment (is of a type and kind defined by the equipment manufacturer) Replace "For different installations (cable length, connectors) the required output power needs to be assessed by additional analysis" with "When the cable length exceeds 4m or when the antenna cable is interrupted by a connector, additional analysis is required which have to ensure that the output levels equal to those above are achieved." Reference: CS-SC002a 3-Acceptable methods, techniques and practices: The reported pressure altitude is obtained from an approved source connected to the static pressure system providing pressure to the instrument used to control the aircraft. Comment: Although the wording is very descriptive and is more clear than that from CS-ACNS, we made the experience that "approved source" is interpreted in different ways. Proposal: If "As example, an altitude digitizer connected to the static pressure system would be adequate" could be added, the intent is obvious. Reference: CS-SC051a "FLARM" Comment: The word "FLARM" is a trademark. Mentioning only this device would result in the inability of other comparable equipment installation. It is felt that this is in contrary to the Spirit of Europa because it would create a monopole for one single item and one single manufacturer. Proposal: Replace "FLARM" either with already mentioned "Anti-Collision Awareness System" or with a different term describing the intended function. As example: "Sailplane detection assisting device" Reference: CS-SC051a, 3-acceptable methods, techniques and practices "Additionally, the following considerations apply": "- FLARM(R) and TR-DV(R) installation Policy..." Comment: Pursuant to previous comment, the technical specifications should also account for other than FLARM equipment. Proposal: Add the following: "FLARM(R) ad TR-DV(R) Installation Policy for Aircraft, TMG, Helicopters, (Gliders); Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation FOCA 42-00.02_FLARM Installation FOCA Policy is applicable in principle for all installations" Reference: CS-SC051a, 4-Limitations Comment: It should be stated that this system would not allow any beneficial operation. Proposal: Add the following or similar wording to Limitations: "Manoeuvres must not be based on (refer above for wording issues) device" Reference: CS-SC052a, 3 - Acceptable methods, techniques and practices, "-FAA Advisory Circular AC 43-13-2B Chapter 2" Comment: Chapter 2 of mentioned FAA AC describes "communication, navigation, and emergency locator transmitter system installations". As a moving map is non-required equipment, it would not be part of either of the categories. The intent of the reference is not known, but we assume that the installation criteria of these equipment shall apply for the display as well. This point should be made more clear in the CS-STAN Reference: CS-SC101a, 3-Acceptable methods, techniques and practices, reference to RTCA DO-182/ED-62A Comment: Both referenced documents are chargeable and would therefore require to purchase either of them. This might lead to decisions owners/operators to not install fixed ELTs but to use "PLBs" instead (where possible according .IDE) The disadvantage of the PLB is that this would not transmit automatically in the event of an accident/crash landing and when European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 11 of 165 An agency of the European Union the person(s) on board are unconscious, no one will switch the PLB on resulting in delays of Search and Rescue. To encourage owners/operators to install automatic ELTs, we would suggest to include the technical aspects of ED-62A/DO-182 (EMI testing etc.) directly into the CS. Reference: CS-SC101a, 4-Limitations or Applicability/Eligibility Comment: Although obvious already due to OPS rules, a limitation to install 406 MHz ELTs should be added to avoid installations of 121.5 MHz ELTs. Proposal: Only ELTs transmitting on 121.5 MHz, 243 MHz and 406 MHz might be installed. Reference: CS-SC251a, 3-Acceptable Methods, techniques and practices "The system is not used as an input source to any other system such as an autopilot or stick pusher, unless certified separately" Comment: Avionics manufacturers of Highly Integrated Avionics Systems offer "envelope protection" functions with their equipment. I am not aware of stick pushers in this category of aircraft, but these "envelope protection" could be compared with stick-pushers. Proposal: Replace "...such as an autopilot or stick pusher, unless..." with "...such as an autopilot, stick pusher, envelope protection system or comparable function, unless...." Reference: CS-SC-401a, 1-Purpose, "This Standard Change does not entitle the instalment of digital multifunction displays." Comment: The wording would allow that conventional equipment is replaced with EFIS equipment. Proposal: Add the following statement: "This Standard Change also does not entitle the replacement of conventional, mechanical and/or analogue instruments with integrated Electronic Flight Instruments Systems (EFIS). A replacement of such a single instrument with one having a display as means of indication might be acceptable when the intended function is not extended, reduced or otherwise altered (1:1 replacement) and conforms to 3." Reference: CS-SC401a, 3-Acceptable methods, techniques and practices, reference to FAA AC 43-13-2B Chapter 2 Comment: Could you please verify if the reference to Chapter 2 is correct or if a reference to Chapter 11 would possibly more suitable? Any wording change, which would make the CS-STAN easier to understand, is highly appreciated by us. response General: Partially accepted. The text has been amended, although using a different wording. CS-SC001a ‘Radio’: Not accepted. It is sufficiently defined that the equipment needs to be qualified against one of the listed standards and is qualified for the environmental conditions. CS-SC002a: ‘Transponder’: Accepted, a reference to altitude encoder standard has been added. CS-SC051a ‘FLARM’: Accepted. The text has been modified accordingly. CS-SC101a. Not accepted. EASA holds no proprietary rights to reproduce the documents quoted. Comment about the ELT frequencies is noted. A new paragraph 7. has been added CS-SC251a ’AoA’: Accepted. The text has been modified accordingly. CS-SC401a: Partially accepted. The proposed text in the NPA already stated that the installation of digital multifunction displays is not permitted. Paragraph 3 applies for exchange 1:1 with a new single electronic instrument. comment 103 comment by: Swedish Transport Agency Swedish Transport Agency comments to NPA 2014-24 CS-STAN European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 12 of 165 An agency of the European Union The general impression is that we agree to the possibility of implementing Certification Specifications for Standard Changes & Standard Repairs (CS-STAN) - Phase 1. response Noted. comment 108 comment by: UK CAA Page No: General Paragraph No: N/A Comment: The UK CAA recommends there should be a way of assessing or auditing how such modifications/repairs have actually been carried out, once they have been embodied. Justification: Clarification would be useful regarding how compliance with the appropriate standards has been achieved, and how standardisation across an organisation doing modifications/repairs is assured. response Accepted. Clarification follows. This comment does not lead to changes The assessment of the Standard changes & repairs can be done at the time of the airworthiness review (as per M.A.710 a) 6. and 8. Data required to identify the organisation’s/individual person’s responsible for embodying the Standard change/repair should be contained in the form 123, and a copy of it should be retained by the aircraft owner. In addition, approved maintenance organisations performing standards changes/repairs can be audited on this process during the oversight by the NAA of their activity. comment 146 comment by: Helicopter Club of Great Britain The Helicopter Club of Great Britian welcomes these proposals and urges their urgent adoption. The proposed implementation date of Q1 2016 is too long, and these proposals should be implimented as soon as possible - we suggest Q2 2015. response Noted. comment 168 comment by: Piaggio Aero Industries Before installing a standard change, or a standard repair, I suggest adding a recommendation to check if any special condition / Certification Review Item exists, applicable to that specific airplane, and related to the standard change/repair (EASA or TCH may provide such information on request, if not clearly available on the TCDS). E.g., a special condition requiring compliance to more stringent requirements could require a more extensive evaluation to install the modification response By definition of Standard Change/Repair, they cannot be in conflict with the TC Holders’ data. A new paragraph has been added to the ‘Supbart A – General’ of CS-STAN to provide clarification. European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 13 of 165 An agency of the European Union comment 169 comment by: Piaggio Aero Industries Some SC may allow replacement of basic airplane installations (torso restraint, basic flight instrument, powerplant instruments). Basically, it is requested to verify that the new equipment is suitable for environmental conditions to be expected during normal operation. I suggest adding a recommendation to check that new equipment used for critical functions is such to perform its intended function under any foreseeable operating condition (ref CS23.1309). See also specific comment on SC401 response Not agreed. It is not assumed that compliance with CS 23.1309 has to be demonstrated. As a mitigating measure, the standard changes contain required conditions and limitations. comment 173 comment by: Piaggio Aero Industries Several changes are not allowed for complex motor powered airplanes. Since standard changes/repair can be used on airplanes with MTOW < 5700 kg, actually this requirement states that standard repair/changes can not be used on twin-turboprop, single turbojet or two-pilots aircraft, even if apparently there is no relation between the number/type of engines and the content of the modification. I suggest adding an additional requirement (better: restriction) only when related to the content of the change. As an example, why SC153 (replacement of safety belts/torso restrain system) should require EASA (or DOA) approval if performed on a twin turboprop, and not if performed on a single turboprop? response Noted. See the response to comment 172. comment 178 comment by: Piaggio Aero Industries Will the SC/SR be addressed in a future revision of bilateral agreement? response EASA has started a discussion with the FAA about potential implications of this new concept on the Bilateral agreement with the US. The outcome of these discussions is not known at this time. comment 185 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers The European sailplane manufacturers definitely and sincerely appreciate and applaud EASA for introducing a procedure allowing a light and fast approval of standard changes and repairs. In fact for quite a long time the gliding community and other parts of the sport and recreational aviation scene have asked for such a system. Also it was repeatedly asked to get a document or CS which would be at least equivalent to the FAA AC43.13 documents. Therefore the sailplane manufacturers are full in favour of NPA 2014-24 and certainly support the proposed principles and repair / modification topics. Some other general comments from the European sailplane manufacturers may be found in the following comments – in all cases they are certainly not meant to slow down or European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 14 of 165 An agency of the European Union dissuade from introduction of CS-STAN but to improve this system which hopefully will become a very useful tool for operators and maintenance people all over Europe. response Noted. comment 186 comment by: René Meier, Europe Air Sports Europe Air Sports thanks the Agency for the preparation of NPA 2014-24. It starts to fill the time gap between the time before EASA was established and the possible application of the CS once it will be in force. The comments of Europe Air Sports reflect inputs from member organisations and consider the comments of the European Powered Flying Union, the European Gliding Union, the Aero-Club of Switzerland, the Fédération Française Aéronautique, the Finnish Aeronautical Association, and the Norwegian Air Sports Federation. Europe Air Sports and its member organisationshe organisations mentioned strongly support the principle of Standard Changes and Standard Repairs. These are adequate to the operations, consider complexity and risks. We excpect the Agency to adopt and further develop the concept of Standard Changes and Standard Repairs in future as well when it will come to integrate new material, new technologies and new measures/possibilites to demonstrate the safety of the work executed on aircraft by the members. Today already we ask the Agency for broadening the scope of these Standard Changes and Standard Repairs to a maximum. This will have positive inputs to the lower end of General Aviation, i.e. sports and recreational activities while maintaining an adequate level of safety of flight. In addition, we propose to the Agency to involve us as stakeholders as early as possible in "Phase 2" activities: This "Phase 2" is a "must", not a "could" topic for us. We offer our assistance to the Agency, we have hundreds of competent persons well knowing what is important and what adds to safety. In the case of this CS package it is essential that the Certification Specification decision will be available -like all EU regulations- in the official EU languages, otherwise much of the effort developing this system will be wasted. EAS urges the Agency to follow this recommendation as an exception to the rule. A very general remark after completion of all the "Standard Changes" and "Standard Repairs" pages: What we found under "2-Applicability/Eligibility" was sometimes confusion. We proposed several changes. May we kindly ask the Agency to eventually prepare clearer, simpler, more precise text considering the very high percentage of non- native readers and of volunteer aviators? response Noted. With regards to the extension of scope, see the response to comment 24. Refer also to the response to comment 227. comment 192 comment by: BGA European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 15 of 165 An agency of the European Union General comment by the British Gliding Association The British Gliding Association strongly supports the principle and measures set out in NPA2014-24 (CS-STAN). We are pleased to find that EASA is finally making some progress towards addressing the needs of our sport with proportionate regulation. This measure will restore some of the freedoms we had safely enjoyed during the pre-EASA era, and will be of economic benefit to clubs, participants and maintenance companies. While we have provided further detailed comments later in this response, the leaflets, and basic terms and paragraphs are fundamentally acceptable. The identification of the qualified person as the responsible signatory to the change/repair does rely on this engineer understanding his own limitation in respect of the possible complexity of the change. This may raise concerns with some, as in glider maintenance any change is usually made at the specific instruction of the owner, who logically should carry some responsibility. However, we feel that the wording carries sufficiently specific terms to be acceptable. For example, the changes (or repairs) identified are typically required to meet the requirements specified in the associated references rather than demanding them to be unequivocally and demonstrably safe. This is a key feature of this regulation and one which we welcome. The 'living' nature of a Certification Standard should enable sensible, proportionate and hopefully, timely, adoption of new technology equipment, without having outdated regulation obstructing progress, as has been found in the past. We particularly welcome the Annex material dealing with FLARM, Transponders, Shock Absorbent cushions and 'sporting' instrumentation. We hope that future emerging technologies will be addressed in the same practical manner. As a general practice, this CS should go further to cover a broader range of 'installations' rather than just 'replacements'. We support the views, of IAOPA for example, and seek a broadening of this CS to cover a wider range of installations and equipments. We fully support the expressed purpose of enabling best practice in pilot awareness through advanced instrumentation. There is no more direct contribution to safety than this, and regulation should not stand in its way. For the past 40 years, UK gliding had been allowed these freedoms by our national regulator. In recent years, our community was been able to offer statistics to demonstrate that our historical approach to these matters was acceptable and safe. Nevertheless these freedoms have been removed in the name of 'regulating to the highest common standard' across Europe. We feel our experience supports a wider interpretation of the measure in this NPA response Noted. comment 196 comment by: European Private Helicopter Alliance The headline of this NPA is that it is to be applied to aeroplanes and rotorcraft. However the text of the document refers only to aeroplanes, with no mention of rotorcraft. European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 16 of 165 An agency of the European Union Therefore throughout the whole document the word aeroplanes should change to aircraft, which would then include rotorcraft. The NPA wording excludes rotorcraft as it is currently written response Partially agreed. Where comments have been received, the applicability of each Standard Change/Repair has been reconsidered for an extension to rotorcraft. Depending on each case, the applicability has been modified (or not) to extent it to rotorcraft, in some cases with limitations. comment 218 comment by: European Private Helicopter Alliance The planned implimentation date of Q1 2016 is far too distant. These changes are needed urgently by the General Aviation community. The publication date of the decision and the implimentation of it should be brought forward urgently to Q2 2015. response Noted. comment 225 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers Persons to release to service a standard change / repair: It is understood by the European sailplane manufacturers that standard changes and repairs need only a release to service in order to implement such a change / repair and to allow further operation of the affected aircraft. It is also understood that this release to service will be done by different persons, depending upon the technical impact of this change / repair. Therefore it makes sense to have some changes / repairs where the pilot-owner is allowed to release it and others, where higher qualification is required. The European sailplane manufacturers also have been informed that with the future L- license as defined in Part-66 there will be a certain rating or privilege introduced, which will allow the holder of such a licence to release a standard change / repair of the type, where higher qualification is needed. Nevertheless this leaves open the case what has to be done as long as national licences apply, which is the case today for sailplanes. The fear of the European sailplane manufacturers is, that NAA will be rather unsure if they should allow holders of national licences equivalent to certifying staff as defined in Part-M / Part-66 to release such standard changes / repairs. This uneasiness on the side of the NAA might be reinforced by (perhaps only perceived) fear that allowing holders of national licences to do such releases will trigger regarding findings during EASA standardisation reviews. Therefore the European sailplane manufacturers propose that EASA should issue some European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 17 of 165 An agency of the European Union documents – perhaps in the form of AMC material to the CS-STAN or even better as AMC material to Parts M / 145 / 66 which contains minimum requirements regarding qualification for such certifying staff. (Possible locations for such AMC could be M.A.801 or the subpart-B for authorities within Part-M.) Ideally the result would be that persons having the required minimum qualification could issue regarding releases to service immediately after publication of the CS-STAN. Second best would be that NAA / member states have immediately the tools in hand to define which persons could issue such releases to service. The worst case scenario would be an existing CS-STAN without persons being allowed to issue the releases to service. response Noted. Clarification on the eligible persons for the release to service of aircraft with no Part-66 license is added in paragraph 1 of new AMC M.A.801. comment 226 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers Abbreviation “AFMS”: The European sailplane manufacturers suppose that the often used abbreviation AFMS stands for “aircraft flight manual supplement”. First question: are we correct? Second question: could the definition of this abbreviation be included into CS-STAN to eliminate the need for such guesses? response See comment 344 and the response thereto. comment 227 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers Language of the CS-STAN: Whereas it is fully understood that EASA is responsible to issue the CS-STAN (as also every other CS), it has to be noted here that CS-STAN is somewhat different than all the other CSs. All other CSs are typically directed to aviation professionals working at organisations where an “English only” document is acceptable or where it could be expected that this person / organisation will find a possibility to work with the CS even if English language is not been understood without assistance. The CS-STAN is more or less directed at all affected aircraft owners and regarding certifying staff. Here it is to be expected to have a huge number of persons which could not be expected to understand a document (the CS-STAN) which is available in English language only. Therefore the European sailplane manufacturers propose that EASA will issue the CS-STAN is some other languages beside English. It is known by the manufacturers, that European practise would then require a translation European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 18 of 165 An agency of the European Union into ALL languages of Europe and that this will not be feasible by EASA. Nevertheless it is also known that EASA itself has employees of most European member states and that it should be therefore possible to offer versions of he CS-STAN at least in the 5 to 10 most useful languages used in Europe. If EASA feels unable to do such a translation, then at least via EASA or the European Commission some (rather small) budget should be made available to produce translation in cooperation with affected associations and to cross-read them then at EASA in order to produce “EASA recognized translations” which will then additionally carry a wording like “this is an EASA recognized, but still unofficial translation. In case of doubt or in case of contradiction between this translation and the English original of CS-STA, the English original version shall remain valid and overrule this translation”. The European sailplane manufacturers would support such a translation effort and offer help in producing such translation into certain languages. Several sporting organisations like Europe Air Sports and AOPA have also often signalled that they would support translation of such documents. response EASA is lacking the necessary resources to produce official translations in other European languages. For non-official translations there is no need for EASA involvement, but instead, industry associations can perform the activity. Take also into consideration that producing such translations would have an impact in the time required for their delivery, will increase the effort for subsequent revisions of CS-STAN and will create a precedent for EASA published documents. Also consider that CS-STAN refers to documents which are only available in one language, typically English, e.g. AC 43.13. comment 228 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers Proposed further standard changes / repairs: The European sailplane manufacturers and other persons and organisations within the gliding community and especially maintenance related people have proposed further standard changes and repairs. This is certainly a non-complete list and the European sailplane manufacturers herewith offer assistance in the drafting of regarding amendments to the CS-STAN. repainting of composite aircraft acrylic canopy cracks – drilling a hole at the end of a crack replacement of tyres (inner tubes / outer tyre)replacement of control handles (installation of t-shaped handles) installation of camera mountings on the external surfaces installation / replacement of flexible (rubber) wing/tail skids installation / replacement of flexible seals at the control surfaces definition of the seat position of the “pilot in command” definition regarding the application of registration markings / national markings response Noted. The list of Standard Changes will be extended with more Standard Changes in a second phase of this rulemaking activity. Your proposal for new additions/amendments to CS-STAN list will be considered then. Thank you for your support. comment 232 comment by: CAA CZ European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 19 of 165 An agency of the European Union The present NPA 2014-24 has a very questionable content. Basically, it denies the fundamental principle of certification, which should especially follow the primary objective - safety. For the approval of “Standard Changes/Repairs” clear and unambiguous rules are needed, which this regulation does not represent. Presented requirements for each specified type of “Standard Changes/Repairs” are not comprehensive. For this reason, they should not be accepted in this form and should be reworked. The text does not clearly identify the boundaries between “Standard Changes/Repairs” and changes of the type design (major or minor) – this document should state evaluation classification enabling to clearly and unambiguously determine a case of a “Standard Change/Repair” or a change of the type design. Most of mentioned “Standard Changes/Repairs” are not by its nature a mere “formal design approval” as stated in Regulatory Impact Assessment, which does not correspondent to the current situation and therefore the proposal should be revised accordingly. The document does not mention the need to develop necessary documentation. The text can be concluded that for a “Standard change/repair” approval only EASA Form 123 is necessary, which is inadequate. In case of adoption of these CS-STAN specifications without significant modifications, we propose to lay down an obligation to work out a basic documentation containing basic information (brief description, installed equipment qualification, environmental and energy analysis, ground tests (based on the recommendations of the manufacturer’s manual or even a flight test)) about a Standard Change. A list of these documents would be part of every change, signed by an authorized person responsible for the installation and release of the aircraft to service. Additional questions and comments associated with the proposal in question: · How will the relevant change be checked? · Who will check it (if at all)? · How will the professional qualification of the entity which performs checks be assessed, and who will carry out it? · How many standard changes may represent a change much more serious? · Generally, the link to the AFM is not clarified. AFM has parts approved by EASA/Authority and it is absolutely unacceptable that these parts could be changed without approval, moreover by an organisation unapproved to change the data obtained during the certification process. · The text mentions a number of terms that are not further explained in any way (e.g. the term of “complexity” (paragraph 4 of GM M.A.801) is not explained). Requirements for approval of "Standard Changes/Repairs" should be specified in more detail. Otherwise there is a real possibility that the practical implementation of such rules will allow different interpretations or their simplifications by users, which will certainly mean that the product will be modified almost by anyone (there is no specification who exactly can make the changes) without anyone (including a TC holder) knowing. It may therefore be the case that despite previously approved specific type design of the product, there will exist a number of different "originals" which are in accordance with these rules. Such situation will certainly lead to a reduction of the level of safety, which is unacceptable. Furthermore, it will have significant impact on the holder of type documentation, DOA organisations and also to the NAA in terms of defining their responsibility for the product in question in the event that it will be subject to a change on which they have no information. This situation is not covered by the present document, as well as any relation to continuing airworthiness. response Not agreed: The concept of standard changes and repairs was introduced in EU Regulation (EU) 748/2012 and the proposed CS-STAN contains the acceptable methods, techniques European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 20 of 165 An agency of the European Union and practices. A standard change does not need to be classified as major or minor change to the type design. The required documentation including changes to AFM and ICA and the process of identification and documentation in the aircraft logs are defined in the standard change. The standard changes and repairs contain also the required qualification for staff that can release the aircraft after embodiment of the change/repair. comment 247 comment by: ECOGAS/SVFB/SAMA 2014-24 NPA ECOGAS 150106-2358 ECOGAS representing mainly but not exclusively SME's and is commending EASA for this NPA. It is a very good start and goes into the right direction. The increasing consideration of a risk based, proportionate and performance based regulation and oversight would allow that many limitations within the present NPA could be reconsidered in favour of -> division between Masstransport e.g. aircraft >18 Pax where the potential damage is getting extremely high and those not involved in mass transport ->This needs significant changes within the BR and as long as those are not established, each and every NPA (unless dedicated to the lower potential damage of non mass transport) will have negative and uneccessar side effects on the wellbeing of SME's, which are in danger of extinction. The question arises if not most or all ongoing proposals in PRE RIA and NPA's should get a moratorium unless the result aof NPA 2014-12 concerning Basic Regulation can be seen and the effects estimated, with exception of those who will definitely bring relief, those should be sped up and treated with priority. Under a continous recession within most EU members economical consideration must be weighted much stronger as up to now, the more as smaller a potential accident damage could be. (as enabled by principles of risk based, proportionate and performance based) However, any progress is welcome and therefore the NPA as a first step has the support of ECOGAS. response Noted. See also the response to comment 24. comment 249 comment by: General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) Attachment #1 The proposed CS-STAN appears to directly address the immediate safety and sustainability needs of the existing general aviation (GA) fleet in Europe. The proposed NPA 2014-24 will dramatically improve the maintenance and modification environment for the lighter end of the European GA fleet in a very significant manner. GAMA believes this proposal European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 21 of 165 An agency of the European Union addresses a number of critical recommendations of the GA Roadmap and will be widely embraced by the general aviation community. EASA has done a good job of assuring that the program includes future flexibility by placing the changes and repairs standards in appendices. Over time it will be critical for EASA to continue to update these appendices as new methods and technology become accepted and beneficial. GAMA believes this approach allows for the European maintenance providers to focus more time and resources on aeroplanes and less time on paperwork and non-safety added process. CS-STAN represents a process that is superior to the current system for the maintenance and modification of light GA aircraft in Europe today and in fact, the proposal is ground-breaking on a global level. EASA is leading the world’s aviation regulators in creating sensible and beneficial aviation policy in the area of maintenance and modification with this proposal. response Noted. After revision, some Standard Changes have been extended to incorporate some rotorcrafts in the applicability list. See also the response provided to comment 250. comment 255 comment by: Ralf Keil German Aero Club appreciate this NPA. We asked for a long time for an easy way to eleminate the need for minor changes in the approval of standard changes and repairs. We looked foreward, getting a document similar to FAA AC43.13, as the basis for impementation and relese of typical tasks. EASA has gone a different way. The idea of a list of permitted activities, particularly in the area of changes, means that this list will never be complete because other similar activities are not covered. In this sense the following comments are not intended to relay the process of CS-STAN, they should help to install a system that is as simple and useful as possible for the maintenance of easier aircraft. response Noted. comment 256 comment by: Ralf Keil Publication date of the Decision EASA expect the publication of the decision on 1st Quater 2016. That is more than one year after closing the consultation to this NPA. It is expected that EASA receives a lot of amendments and proposals to complement this NPA during the consultation. In the interest of the intended simplifications EASA should finish the decision as soon as practicable. The German Aero Club offers any assistance in this way. response Noted. Thank you for your support. comment 257 comment by: DGAC France European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 22 of 165 An agency of the European Union DGAC France is highly in favour of the introduction of these Certification Specifications, the provisions of which have been introduced in regulation (EU) n°748/2012 (21.A.90B for standard changes and 21.A.431B for standard repairs). It should be introduced as soon as possible in order to reduce the burden of approving individually simple changes and repairs for certain GA aircraft, both for EASA and GA stakeholders. This would also reduce costs and therefore increase the introduction of specific safety changes for these GA aircraft. response Noted. comment 258 comment by: DGAC France This CS has been developed mostly for aeroplanes up to ELA2 and sailplanes and powered sailplanes. Nevertheless, considering most of the developed standard changes, DGAC France consider that the applicability/eligibility could be extended in many cases to the whole scope of products to which standard changes and repairs apply: aeroplanes of 5700kg MTOM or less and rotorcraft of 3175KG MTOM or less. DGAC France will define in the detailed comments for each Standard Change this proposal. response Noted. comment 259 comment by: DGAC France It is essential that this first step be issued quickly. Nevertheless, it seems also very important to keep on developing in the future other certification specifications for other standard changes and repairs. response Noted. See the response to comment 347. comment 260 comment by: DGAC France In most of the standard changes and repairs, the following wording is used: “The following standards contain acceptable data: FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-xx [Note: only one item]”. This wording could be interpreted as providing non-binding guidance to the installer. However, in the scope of CS-STAN, whether one applies strictly AC 43.13-xx, and it is covered by the standard change / repair or one deviates from this AC and then this alternative method shall be approved under Part 21 through a specific change/repair approbation. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, DGAC France suggests another wording as follows: “the data contained in FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-xx must be applied”. response Not agreed. In the NPA, the ‘Subpart A – General’ of CS-STAN paragraph CS.STAN.30 explains that the referenced documents (and any limitation or restriction there imposed) are applicable. comment 292 comment by: FNAM (French Aviation Industry Federation) FNAM (Fédération Nationale de l’Aviation Marchande) is the French National Professional Union / Trade Association for Air Transport, grouping as full-members: • CSTA: French Airlines Professional Union (incl. Air France) European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 23 of 165 An agency of the European Union • GIPAG: French General Aviation Operators Professional Union • SNEH: French Helicopters Operators Professional Union • CSAE: French Handling Operators Professional Union • GPMA: French Ground Operations Operators Professional Union • EBAA France: French Business Airlines Professional Union And as associated member: • UAF: French Airports Professional Union Introduction The NPA 2014-24 introduces changes in comparison with: - The Commission Regulation (EC) No 748/2012; - The Decision No 2003/19/M; The comments hereafter SHALL BE considered as an identification of some of the major issues the FNAM & GIPAG France ask EASA to discuss with third-parties before any publication of the proposed regulation, consistently with the woks led by the General Aviation Task force. In consequence, the comments hereafter SHALL NOT BE considered: - As a recognition of the third-parties consultation process carried out by EASA - As an acceptance or an acknowledgement of the proposed regulation, as a whole or of any part of it; - As exhaustive: the fact that some articles (or any part of them) are not commented does not mean the FNAM & GIPAG France have (or may have) comments about them, neither the FNAM & GIPAG France accept or acknowledge them All the following comments are thus limited to our understanding of the effectively published proposed regulation, notwithstanding their consistency with any other pieces of regulation, including with the Basic Regulation 216/2008, giving mandate from the Commission and Parliament to EASA. FNAM General Comments The FNAM & GIPAG are highly in favour of the introduction of these Certification Specifications, the provisions of which have been introduced in regulation (EU) n°748/2012 (21.A.90B for standard changes and 21.A.431B for standard repairs). The FNAM & GIPAG are considering the following axes to enhance the project of regulation of the Commission: 1- All the points of the CS-STAN, whether modifications or repairs should be allowed only for approved maintenance organisations and CAMOs (eg: excluding Part-66 mechanics not working within an agreed framework); 2- This CS-STAN proposal should be open to all aeroplane up to5 700kg; 3- The part “CS SC001a Installation of VHF voice communication equipment” should be extend to IFR operation. Response 1. Not agreed. Each license holder or organisation approval holder will have to decide if, based on the privileges granted by the license/approval and the rule, he/she is entitled to carry out the release to service of each Standard Change/Repair. See the response to comment 2. 2. See the response to comment 24. European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 24 of 165 An agency of the European Union 3. Noted. Only a new installation of VHF communication equipment is limited to VFR, which seems to be adequate in the first step. The limitation might be re-considered after experience with CS-STAN. comment 321 comment by: The Finnish Aeronautical Association Comments by Finnish Aeronautical Association: General level comments 1. We are very happy to see this NPA which is a tangible step towards both more proportional regulation and the support of the future of GA in Europe. 2. The “Applicability/Eligibility” section of most Standard Changes (SCs) proposed in the NPA includes, in our view, confusing text. Our expectation is that these SCs would be applicable mainly in “the light end” of GA aircraft, i.e. including ELA1. However, in many SCs the text suggests that the SC is applicable for e.g. sailplanes and ELA2 aircraft while not applicable for powered ELA1 aircraft? Does “applicable for ELA2” also include “applicable to ELA1” ? We welcome more clarity on this point. 3. In order to further promote aviation safety and promote uptake of safety enhancing technology, in addition to the SCs included in the NPA, we propose that SCs be defined also for the following installations: - GPS receiver for aircraft operated in VFR - ADS-B In/Out for aircraft operated in VFR - Weather radar or other weather warning functionality (excluding the antenna part of weather radar) for aircraft operated in VFR - Change from wheel landing gear to skis and vice versa 4. In addition to these comments, we support the comments to NPA 2014-24 by the Europe Air Sports federation. response 1. Noted. 2. ELA2 aircraft includes by definition airplanes also encompassed by ELA1 definition. ELA2 is already defined in Part-21. 3. Thank you for your input. Refer to the response to comment 347 4. Noted. comment 337 comment by: LAMA EUROPE LAMA EUROPE members appreciate EASA for introduction of CS-STAN - Certification Specifications for Standard Changes & Standard Repairs. We were requiring this for many years. European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 25 of 165 An agency of the European Union We support the proposed principles and we just hope that for future develpment of this important topic the principle of keep it simple will be kept. But to the certain extent we are surprissed that EASA is not making use of the new possibilities, it is relying on their own resources to identify the methods, instead of utilizing the wealth of experience available, and coordinated through industry standards bodies. This will not result in fast filling with methods, this will result again in a kind of static system. The ASTM commitee F39 has been asked to generate standards for modifications of aircraft to install newer equipment, also for use in the USA. What F39 plans to do directly matches up with the intent of CS-STAN. It would be good if EASA can coordinate with the FAA so we have one global standard. We also noticed that the NPA draft is refering to AC43-13B when it comes to installation practice. When it comes to the electric installation, F39 did carry over some of the content into new standards. AC43 is static, standards can evolve. So EASA is refering to the static information, instead of using the alive information. This is kind of surprising, as EASA is also on the roster of F39. Regarding standard repairs – it is nice to see that the standard books from decades ago seem to be acceptable. Again, these are static. And they are in German language. Why does EASA not follow the line of thinking we started in the other areas, and is instead “tasking” the relevant ASTM committee to transfer this into international standard? Could go very well in the two steps we know from F44: First is transcript to standard with only minor bug fixes. Step two can be updating to todays technology, or implementation of newer strategies. This way the “dead” document would become alive again, international, and we are open for the future. LAMA EUROPE offers cooperation on further expasion of CS-STAN procedures. response Noted. The Agency has used references developed by the industry or other regulatory authorities which exist today. comment 369 comment by: European Sailplane Manufacturers Another general comment is the consequence of a standard change or repair upon the aircraft maintenance program (AMP). It is true that some of the proposed SC or SR might affect the AMP. But if the spirit of CS-STAN is to make such changes and repairs much less complicated, then incorporation into the AMP must not nullify such an effect. Today all AMP need approval of the NAA (the competent authorities of the member states). This has proven to be rather slow and costly – at least in some member states. EASA has proposed to add the option for ELA 1 aircraft not involved in commercial operations to issue a declaration for the AMP by the aircraft owner instead of approval by the competent authority. This is fine if it will become part of the Part-M regulation but only for these aircraft. Therefore the European sailplane manufacturers propose to add such an option for self- European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 26 of 165 An agency of the European Union declaration by the owner also for all other aircraft where standard changes or repairs are being used, when the regarding changes to the AMP need to be implemented. Otherwise the very positive effects of the proposed standard changes and repairs might be fruitless due to impossibility to include them into the AMP in an efficient and feasible way. response Not agreed. For many Standard Changes there will be no need to amend the AMP. This, together with the alleviation you mentioned for the ELA1, and the possibility of indirect approval of the AMP by CAMO (if used), reduces the cases where there is a need for NAA approval of the AMP. In addition, the current Part-M Light (L), currently under development, is expected to include the self-declaration for all ELA2 aircraft plus certain helicopters, for all type of operations. comment 376 comment by: FAA Item 1 (Commentator #1): Page and Paragraph No: Section 3.2.2, Paragraph 2 Comment: may conflict with our CFR 21.9 which deals with certification of replacement and modification articles Reason: 21.9 has led to conflict between installations and AFS inspectors stating that non- compliance with 21.9 Recommendation: 21.9 needs to reviewed and revised to allow other methods acceptable to the Administrator ------------------------------------------------------- Item 2 (Commentator #2): Page and Paragraph No: Section 3.2.2, Paragraph 3 Comment: is unclear on how the installer is supposed to mark parts installed using the CS- STAN process Reason: With no provisions on how to accomplish this there will be lack of consistency Recommendation: Provide a process or guidelines for marking of parts including what information should be included for parts other than PMA or TSO parts ------------------------------------------------------- Item 3 (Commentator #3): Page and Paragraph No: Section 3.2.2, Paragraph 4 Comment: Suggests the installer is responsible for a separate form to document data and compliance statement other than a simple logbook entry. This will require some education to the maintenance community who is only use to this requirement in a major change or repair scenario. Reason: Over documentation for a minor alteration Recommendation: It would seem that a simple logbook entry should suffice as these are minor alterations by definition. ------------------------------------------------------- Item 4 (Commentator #4): Page and Paragraph No: Section 3.2.2, Paragraph 7 Comment: States those changes to the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) can be made via the CS-STAN process. It would seem that most changes requiring an AFM revision would more than likely be considered a major alteration versus a minor. Reason: Minor alteration requiring changes to performance numbers, procedures, etc. of European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 27 of 165 An agency of the European Union a Airplane Flight Manual would not be minor Recommendation: This should be limited to only adding information data describing the description and operation of the installed alteration. ------------------------------------------------------- Item 5 (Commentator #5): Page and Paragraph No: Section 3.2.2, paragraph 9 Comment: Requires a form in addition to the logbook entry. Reason: Over documentation for a minor alteration Recommendation: The CS-STAN alteration should be simple enough that only a logbook entry would be required ------------------------------------------------------- Item 6 (Commentator #6): Page and Paragraph No: Appendix 1 Comment: Appendix 1 states in each Certification Standard (CS) in section 6 whether the pilot-owner may return to service. This seems redundant and confusing in that section 3.2.2, paragraph 1 states that only properly certificated personnel that are qualified to return to service may do so. Reason: Conflicts with other sections of the document Recommendation: Suggest removing this section all together. ------------------------------------------------------- Item 7 (Commentator #7): Page and Paragraph No: General comment Comment: Overall, the document suggests a very good attempt at defining those types of installations that should be considered minor. Fully support this effort and would like to see the appendix 1 standard changes become a living document and expanded as installations are reviewed. Reason: Recommendation: ------------------------------------------------------- Item 8 (Commentator #8): Page and Paragraph No: General comment Comment: The document does not seem to contain a process to add to Appendix 1 standard changes for additional tasks considered to be minor. Reason: It would seem to be important to have a consistent method to do so that would encourage the appendix to expand to more items. Recommendation: Add a process to the document to include how to add future installations considered minor to the appendix ------------------------------------------------------- Item 9 (Commentator #9): Page and Paragraph No: p. 16 Paragraph CS STAN.30 Referenced Documents Comment: The last sentence in this paragraph is confusing considering references to FAA documents are sprinkled throughout the CS’s. Reason: References to FAA documents in support of accomplishment means is used throughout the document and this paragraph appears to attempt to highlight what part of the FAA would be acceptable to use. Recommendation: Recommend additional clarification in the example that states the European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 28 of 165 An agency of the European Union practices can be used, but specific regulation requirements should be based on European regulations. ------------------------------------------------------- Item 10 (Commentator #10): Page and Paragraph No: Page 9 of 58, 3.2.2.2 and throughout document Comment: ELA1 and ELA2 are undefined. Reason: It is preferable that the FAA understand ELA1 and ELA2 in relation to our Light Sport aircraft rules and policy. Recommendation: Make reference to definition in Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 at the first occurrence of ELA1 and ELA2. ------------------------------------------------------- Item 11 (Commentator #11): Page and Paragraph No: General, Appendix I Comment: Have adequately detailed installation criteria to assure the appropriate certification basis continues to be met for all proposed and new Standard Change specifications. If this criteria are insufficient, the responsibility lies with the installer during maintenance. Reason: EASA policy of not requiring authority approval for certain changes may adverse effect on the importation of these aircraft into the U.S. Our approval systems should be compatible. Recommendation: Assure these and future specifications have adequate installation criteria. ------------------------------------------------------- Item 12 (Commentator #12): Page and Paragraph No: Comment: I have no legal comments with regard to the EASA NPA. Reason: Recommendation: My only comment is that prior to the changes becoming effective the FAA and EASA may wish to revise the Technical Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification of the US/EU Aviation Safety Agreement to reflect the changes set forth in GM 21.A.90B, GM21.A.431B, GM M.A.801 and C-STAN. ------------------------------------------------------- Item 13 (Commentator #13): Page and Paragraph No: General Comment Comment: Has EASA identified specific changes that will be needed to the FAA-EASA Technical Implementation Procedures (TIP) once the NPA becomes a final rule? Reason: For example, currently per TIP paragraph 3.3.2.1(a)(iii), the FAA can only accept an EASA repair design approval in the form of a letter from EASA or a DOA. The NPA explains a new EASA form will exist and EASA will no longer approve certain repairs. Recommendation: Any required changes to the TIP due to this NPA should be coordinated through the Certification Oversight Board to ensure the TIP can be revised in a timely manner and in coordination with the effective date of the final rule. ------------------------------------------------------- Item 14 (Commentator #14): Page and Paragraph No: General Comment Comment: Based on our telecom on 1-7-15 with EASA, it is prudent to concentrate our European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 29 of 165 An agency of the European Union efforts on mutual acceptance of Non-Required Safety Enhancing Equipment due to following reasons 1. FAA can implement a policy statement under 21.8(d) “Any other manner acceptable to the FAA” and allow non-required equipment be installed in GA (primary, Utility, Acrobatic) excluding Commuter category. 2. Most current GA installations are focused on aftermarket non-required equipment. 3. This path does not require rule making process which allows the GA community to begin installing Safety Enhancing equipment right away. Reason: Recommendation: response Response to item 1: Noted. EASA understands that this is a change in the European rules that may impact the conditions of the bilateral agreement with the US. Response to item 2: Requirements for the marking of parts is the same as in Part-21, Subpart Q. Response to item 3: The proposed list of documents to be developed for a Standard change/repair are ‘as necessary based on its complexity’. This means that simpler changes/repairs will not require over documentation. Response to item 4: Not accepted: Most of the current and future Standard Changes do not attract changes to approved sections of the AFM (they would be classified as ‘Minor Change’, if not treated as a Standard Change), since the AFM changes might only have limitations for the installed equipment itself, not affecting the functionality of the aircraft. However, it is anticipated to cover also changes equivalent to Major Changes within CS- STAN. Currently only the Standard Changes handling the fuel type do require a change to the approved sections of the AFM for adding the new fuel type, but some more might come (safety belt with airbags, etc.) in future amendments to CS-STAN. Limiting CS-STAN as proposed would heavily decrease the effect of CS-STAN Response to item 5: The proposed list of documents to be developed for a Standard change/repair are ‘as necessary based on its complexity’. This means simpler changes/repairs will not require over documentation. Response to item 6: According to European rules, under certain conditions established in Part-M M.A.801 (b)3, M.A.803 and Appendix VIII, the Pilot-owner may issue certificates to release to service after maintenance. Under CS-STAN, the changes that the Agency considers that the pilot-owner is suitable to release to service are very limited. In order to be clear, the Agency has indicated which of the Standard changes are suitable for Pilot- owner release. Response to item 7: This is planned for the near future in a second issue of CS-STAN. This second issue will permit to analyse proposals for inclusion made by the GA stakeholders. Response to item 8: This is planned for the near future in a second issue of CS-STAN. This second issue will permit to analyse proposals for inclusion made by the GA stakeholders. The structure of CS-STAN is suitable for adding new Standard Changes. Response to item 9: While making use of the engineering methods described in AC 43.13, the formal process of approving the change cannot follow the FAA process, but the European system, where Part-66 license holders or approved maintenance organisations have the privilege to approve the Standard change by completing the Form 123 and releasing the aircraft to service. Response to item 10: Accepted. ELA2 and ELA1 are defined in CS-STAN, ‘Subpart A — General’ (CS STAN.80 Definitions). Response to item 11: Under the Standard Changes process it is not necessarily intended to maintain the certification basis. Based on the limitations introduced and the methods European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 30 of 165 An agency of the European Union required to be followed with the Standard changes, it is assumed that the airworthiness level is not compromised while the installation of modern safety equipment is encouraged. EASA understands that this is a change in the European rules which may impact the conditions of the bilateral agreement with the US. Response to item 12: Noted. EASA understands that this is a change in the European rules which may impact the conditions of the bilateral agreement with the US. Response to item 13: Noted. EASA understands that this is a change in the European rules which may impact the conditions of the bilateral agreement with the US. Response to item 14: Noted. Although not only devoted to the installation of non- required safety enhancing equipment, the Standard Changes process will allow the installation of such equipment in European registered aircraft. Notice of Proposed Amendment 2014-24 p. 1 comment 307 comment by: Ralf Keil Publication language of CS-STAN CS-STAN is - different to other - CS more or less direkted to the owner of simple aicraft (mostly not commercial used) and the affected certifying staff. That means, the biggest part of this staff (not only in Germany, but all over in Europe) will not be able to unterstand the CS-STAN in English only. German Aero Club understood, tha EASA is not able to translate all documents in all European languages. German Aero Club asks - based on the importance of this document - EASA therefore, finding a way to translate the CS-STAN into national languages. We know that a official translation often fail by the budget. Nevertheless, we see the need and suggest two alternative ways: - using EASAs staff for a "inofficial EASA-translation". That can also be done by cooperation with other companies and organisations and at least crossreading by EASA- staff. - finding a way to instruct the NAAs in the decision, porviding the CS-STAN in the national language. German Aero Club, as many other organisations offers assistance as possible, if needed. response Refer to the response to comment 227. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY p. 1 comment 187 comment by: René Meier, Europe Air Sports Please adjust the eligibility criteria in the Executive Summary already. Rationale: European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 31 of 165 An agency of the European Union The formula chosen is not clear enough, it leaves room for interpretations and will not create the level playing field have been looking for for years now. To "certain aircraft", to "most sailplanes" is not sufficiently precise in our technical domain. We therefore would like to add the comment that in general the rationale for the eligibility criteria ar not set out. If there is significant complexity associated with the type where individually approved design data would mitigate the risk, there may be a justification for exlusion. By default, all other-than-complex-motor-porwered-aircraft should be eligible for CS-STAN's Standard Changes and Standard Repairs. This would reduce the regulatory burden. What the Agency proposes in NPA 2014-24 is, in our view, not sufficient. Why is there a discrepancy in the span of aircraft included between the Executive Summary and 2.2 "Objectives" on page 5/58? Furthermore, in 2.3 "Summary of the Regulatory Impact Assessment" (RIA) we find a third version of such a text, slightly different in the wording. This is confuses readers. response See the response to comment 24. comment 230 comment by: Niklas Larsson - Member of GA Task Force, representing AOPA Sweden and IAOPA Europe AOPA agrees with the Agency on the applicability of this NPA. It is a reasonable approach with a proportionate risk. We are glad to see that the Agency is open to expand this in the future as experience is gained. response Noted. comment 318 comment by: Royal Netherlands Aeronautical Association We see this NPA as a welcome first step towards a substantial reduction of administrative burden. It should be noted however this NPA doesn’t bring much change for the Netherland, as the proposals are in line with the current situation. In our view, a second phase should bring further reduction of red tape. Where up to now for activities had to be applied for a ‘minor change’, this won’t be always necessary anymore. This is a great advantage as it saves paperwork. This NPA addresses also some activities which now already take place by maintenance organisations without a Minor Change Process. This is for instance the case when an EASA STC or SB has been issued, or situations the activity isn’t a Minor Change. Also, some of the (sub) activities, e.g electrical wiring of systems, at the moment can’t be performed by some companies and has to be outsourced. This NPA doesn’t change this, as it addresses mainly what activity can be done, but not by whom. The latter is denoted by Part M. We would like to note that the GA sector would like to see a change on this part as well as this would bring a substantial cost reduction. Additionally, in line with the current situation, AC43.13 will be used as a guideline. Thus, this won’t result into a large change. Yet, the application of AC43.13 will be more formalised, which is a good thing. European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 32 of 165 An agency of the European Union We wonder however why a distinction is made between VFR and IFR, weight classes and complex vs. non-complex aircraft. From our point of view there is no distinction between the activities involved in the installation, repair or change of these aircraft. When maintenance organisations are certified for a certain aircraft, they should be able to perform these activities not only for VFR but also IFR. For example CS.STAN.20 should be sufficient. As the system of EASA STC/ SB’s was already in use, we wonder why this won’t be extended to FAA STC’s. This would benefit the GA significantly, taken into account the origin of many aircraft and equipment. There is a bilateral agreement between the US and EU (Agreement between the USA and the EU on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety). It seems to us that this arranges what needs to be mutually recognized before something is allowed, instead of a direct mutual recognition. Thus, it seems that still an EASA STC is still required even when there is an FAA STC. A direct mutual recognition would An additional explanation of the definition of ‘exchange/ replacement’ and ‘installation’ would be desirable. For instance, is it allowed to replace a 25 kHz radio with a 8.33 kHz radio, or would this be categorised as ‘installation’? Does this NPA allow the use of alternative (not OEM, but approved) equipment, whereas this is not possible at the moment ? An explanation is preferred. The implementation process of the NPA takes much time, while for instance the exchange/ installation of 8.33 kHz radio’s is required. Does EASA provide in a fast implementation or work around? response Noted. With regard to your comment on the release to service, please refer to the response to comment 2. A phase 2 of this rulemaking activity will allow expanding further the list of Standard Changes and might also increase the applicability of some of the changes already proposed in the NPA. The recognition of the design approvals approved under another system (FAA STCs) is a matter of formulation of a Bilateral Agreement, which is being under consideration due to the GA roadmap. A replacement of a 25 khz radio with a 8 khz radio is an exchange or replacement. A new installation is the first installation of a radio or the installation of an additional one. Some of the equipment is required to be ETSO (or similarly) approved. This provides assurance for compliance of design and manufacturing standards. 1. Procedural information p. 3-4 comment 179 comment by: Howard Torode General comment by the European Gliding Union The European Gliding Union, on behalf of more than 20 national associations, strongly supports the principle and measures set out in NPA2014-24 (CS-STAN). This represents the strongest indication yet that EASA is finally making some progress towards an European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/Internet. Page 33 of 165 An agency of the European Union ideological understanding of Sport and General Aviation. This measure will be economically beneficial to the GA movement and we look forward to further, better regulations in this vein. While we will raise further detailed comments to specific points in the leaflets, the basic terms and paragraphs are fundamentally acceptable. The identification of the qualified person as the responsible signatory to the change/repair may raise concerns with some, given that in sport aviation any change is usually made at the specific instruction of the owner, but we feel that the wording carries sufficiently specific terms to be acceptable. For example, the changes and repairs identified are typically required to meet the specified requirements of the associated references rather than demanding them to be unequivocally and demonstrably safe. This is a key feature of this regulation and one which we welcome. We also note the general mission and purpose of this CS as a developing document. The 'living' nature of the document should enable sensible, proportionate and hopefully, timely, adoption of new technology equipment, without having outdated regulation standing in the way of progress as has been so often in the past. Thus, the Annex material dealing with FLARM, Transponders, Shock Absorbant cushions and 'sporting' instrumentation are particularly welcomed by the soaring community. We are further expectant that future emerging technologies will be addressed in the same practical manner. response Noted. See also the response to comment 347. 2. Explanatory Note p. 5-6 comment 11 comment by: J. Soyka BBA The NPA should also include GM to Part-145. Standard changes / repairs affect as well maintenance organizations as they may perform and release standard changes / repairs. The current proposal developed GM to M.A.801(a). M.A.801(a) states that it applies to aircraft, except for aircraft released to service by a Part-145 maintenance organization. Therefore a Part-145 maintenance organization normally would not consider GM to Subpart H of Part M. response Agreed. A new paragraph AMC 145.A.50 has been introduced. comment 63 comment by: Niklas Larsson - Member of GA Task Force, representing AOPA Sweden and IAOPA Europe The objectives of this NPA is well received in the GA Community and we really appreciate the good gesture by the Agency. Many good things will come out of this amendment, especially if some corrections are made. AOPA are looking forward to work together with the Agency to achieve a high safety standard combined with a user-friendly environment where the regulations are proportional to the risk. On many of these subjects you open up for a positive effect but then you add a limitation that immediately closes it again which is very unfortunate. By not allowing any of these installations to raise the operational capability of the(eg VFR to IFR) you will not get the European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to NPA 2014-24 4. Individual comments (and responses) TE.RPRO.00064-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA in