Applying an FAA STC to a Canadian Aircraft

[sstocker31]

What is the process to get an FAA STC approved for use on a Canadian registered Aircraft??
Please.....no heresay or "I thinks" I need facts....Thanks...

[culver10]

Install it, update log books, W&B amendment and fill out a major modification report and send a copy of last 2 items to Transport Canada

[CID]

culver10, not quite. It depends on the circumstances. If it's an FAA STC for a mod on a US state of design airplane and that airplane is in the normal, utility or aerobatic category, or VLA then it's TC accepted without review. Any other situation requires a formal review. You can find the information here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 03-968.htm

[sstocker31]

Thanks for the replys guys....So CID....It's for a piper pacer PA-20. I have a Faa STC for installing a 150 hp engine (in place of 125hp) and increasing the gross weight by 150 lbs. So all I have to do is comply with the STC instructions, update the logs and wt& balance and I'm on my merry way....cool

Thanks for the link, I went searching this afternoon and couldn't find anything....

[twotter]

Sstocker listen to what culver had to say and ignore CID. Culver had it absolutely correct..

Cheers
twotter

[Hedley]

Anyone else getting some Deja vu?

[CID]

twotter, the guidance doesn't just exclude transport category. If you have a commuter category aircraft or equivalent (SFAR 41C) then you need formal review. That includes airplanes like Metroliners, Beech 1900s etc.

Also, if the US is not the state of design, you need a formal review. So If your Twin Otter had an FAA STC applied to it you'd have to get a formal review. That goes for Beavers, Chipmunks, Otters, Found aircraft products and ANY aircraft not manufactured by a US company.

So I guess nobody on this forum operates normal, utility or aerobatic aircraft manufactured anywhere but in the US? And nobody here owns an airline that uses a PC-12? Or a Beech 1900? Or a Kingair 300? Or a Bell 206? Or a Beaver? Or an EMB 110? And nobody in Canada could possibly operate an Aerospatiale Tobago? Or a an Extra 300? Or a Zlin 242? Or a Diamond DA20? Or a Slingsby T67? PC-6? Zenair Zenith? PA 25 Pawnee? Eurocopter ANYTHING? Augusta AW119? Britten Norman Islander? Noordyn Norseman? Grob 120A? Partenavia P68? Reims built Cessnas...........

There are more examples but my interest in humoring you is waning. I was simply providing sstocker31 with an answer to his question. I certainly hope this isn't a sign that this forum is going to deteriorate to the levels I previously experienced.

Let's keep this civil shall we?

[sstocker31]

HEDLEY....I found the other thread on page 4, thanks for the heads up.

[sstocker31]

Ok I did some reading, and I've included a page from the above noted "Staff Instruction"....to me it looks like my Pacer is exempt from review. If you read the informational notes at the bottom note "B" applies to my aircraft.
I suppose it would be a good idea to send in copys of the STC and updated weight and balance to the boys a TC as well.

[Hedley]

I suppose it would be a good idea to send in copys of the STC and updated weight and balance to the boys a TC as well

uh, yeah. Any time a major repair or major modification is performed on a C-registered aircraft, in addition to aircraft logbook entries, a 24-0045 form should be filled out and sent in.

[CID]

Actually, the 24-0045 form doesn't officially exist anymore and it hasn't for several years. CAR 571 Appendix L contains guidance to fill out the "modification report" required. It can be viewed here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... l-1902.htm

In part, Appendix L states:

5. Transport Canada does not publish a Major Repair or Major Modification Report form. The report may be reproduced by the user as a printed form or in computer generated format. User produced forms must comply with the format provided herein, including block numbers and must have the blocks located as per the layout provided. The size of the blocks may be varied to suit individual applications, but not to the extent that would make the report unrecognizable.

A sample form can be viewed here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-cars/repair.pdf

It pretty much looks like the old 24-0045 form. The only reason I mention this clarification is so that you don't actually go looking for the 24-0045 form on line. You won't find it. Some people might still have some old blank copies of it and they are perfectly acceptable if you want to use one to submit as a modification report. TC used to provide them in a big paper pad.

For further clarification, regarding your statement to have a 24-0045 (or equivalent) for modifications to a "C" registered aircraft, you can actually submit an FAA 337 form as a modification report when the work is done by an FAA repair station. The form just has to contain the prescribed information.

[sstocker31]

To everyone that has replied (especially CID)....thanks for helping me understand how to do this, your participation is greatly appreciated

We could only wish Transport Canada would take the time to outline the steps to take, in a easy to understand format, on a task that probably occurs frequently.

Once again thank you!!

[The Tool]

To everyone that has replied (especially CID)....thanks for helping me understand how to do this, your participation is greatly appreciated

We could only wish Transport Canada would take the time to outline the steps to take, in a easy to understand format, on a task that probably occurs frequently.

Once again thank you!!

They do... it is in the Staff Instruction you just read. Those that do the task frequently know how to do it (for most part).

I am tired of individuals using this maintenance forum to get information and advice on the cheap. Further the individuals that pipe up and give free, and sometimes very incorrect, advice.

Lets keep this forum to AME issues and not helping owners cut corners. Again AMEs shooting themsleves in foot. You can afford an aircraft you can afford to pay for proper advice and service !!

To make matters worse these types get on here...then we fight amongst ourselves at whose free advice is correct....

Technical questions to aircraft we should only assist owner in finding local AMO/AME.

End of rant...

[Hedley]

Technical questions to aircraft we should only assist owner in finding local AMO/AME

Like four part bluegrass harmony, that sounds good, but there is a problem with your idea.

According to Transport Canada, the OWNER/OPERATOR is responsible for AD compliance. When the owner of a private aircraft gets an AD in the mail, how can he tell if it's applicable? Can he go flying that day? Is an AME/AMO going to answer his AD question on a Sunday morning? The owner needs to know about initial AD complicance. Is it a repetitive AD? If so, when is his aircraft next not airworthy again? Air time? Calendar?

Keeping owner/operators in the dark about maintenance is a really bad idea, IMHO, and a poor business practice, because when an expensive AD comes through, it's the AME/AMO that's the messenger of bad news that's going to get shot, because the owner doesn't understand the implications of the AD.

Whatever works for you, I guess.

[sstocker31]

The Tool....(Fitting name)

What is the difference between me (The aircraft owner) starting this thread or a young fellow AME just out of school and looking for advice from more experienced AME's on how to proceed with the paper side of the job.......NOT TOO MUCH
I'm doing it so my AME friend doesn't have to fill the paperwork. We work together on my annual, share a few laughs, enjoy our time together, and no money exchanges hands.
I just want to have the paperwork prepared for him to review so he doesn't have to.

This is not AME only section........

[The Tool]

Thank you for noticing carefully selected handel....

Hedley... and thank you for understanding at least where I was coming from and not jumping to quick conclusions as another reader just did...

I understand and support your (Hedley) point, especially in regards to AWDs. It also shows me a mis-understanding of my point... I do not wish to keep owners in dark. I just see too much help being given out (and not only on this forum) for free and to the detrement of safety. Yes an owner should know how to track his AWD. However hints and tips on performing it should not be given out willy-nilly.

Trust me I am fully aware of the owners legal obligations in regards to maintenance and my opinion being stated here was not go around that.

The scenario at hand here is the installation of a forgein STC. I have seen waaaaay too many of these mis-handled. It is not a simple thing. Too many times safety has been put at risk by STC's being abused/mis-used. Further if the installation doesn't meet regulatory requirement and is 'caught' monetary implications can be large. Even on a simple appearing STC.

Basically I am putting in opinion against troubleshooting over the phone. I am not taking stance against free flow of ideas in the interest of aviation safety. Too many people seeking information here in the interest of saving bucks.

Then it really hurts me to watch very experienced people like Twotter, CID, Hedley etc. get in a pissing match (guess put my name in there now) because somebody has asked a question that really should be answered by somebody who is paid to provide such opinion.


Just trying to give fellow maintenance providers food for thought. Still interested in open discussion....

The Tool (and proud of it)

[Hedley]

It must be because it's late and I'm not thinking clearly, but I still don't understand the problem. Regardless of whatever nutty idea an owner comes up with, he still needs an AME/AMO to sign off the maintenance release in the logs for the installation of an STC, fill out the 24-0045, etc.

If that STC is not eligible, well, the AME gets to educate the owner about that. I still don't see what the problem is.