Weather radar STC
Weather radar evidence support for STC installation approval
Weather radar STC installation evidence support readies the data that shows a radar works and stays safe once it is installed on a specific aircraft under a supplemental type certificate. A certification engineer runs it for the modifier or supplier while the installation design is settling, before the STC data package is compiled. The focus shifts from the article itself to the installation: antenna mounting and radome effects, wiring and interface integrity, the DO-160G environment at the installed location, and how the radar presents on the flight deck it now shares. You receive an installation evidence gap list, a trace map from the certification basis to the installed configuration, and a closure order that clears the integration risks first.
When this review is needed
- A radar with an existing authorization is being installed on a new airframe and the installation evidence has to be built from the aircraft up.
- The radome, mounting, or antenna location differs from anything the equipment authorization anticipated.
- Flight-deck integration raises questions about how the radar shares a display or control with other systems.
- An STC applicant needs the installation compliance record checked against the basis before the package is compiled.
The problem
An equipment authorization proves the radar performs in the abstract; an STC has to prove it performs on this aircraft, in this radome, at this antenna location, wired into these systems. The installation evidence is generated late, often by installers rather than the original design team, and it rarely arrives already tied to the certification basis the STC will be judged against. The engineer compiling the package is left reconciling installation drawings, interface data, and environmental assumptions that were never written to a common frame.
What gets reviewed
- Antenna mounting, radome effect, and installed location assessed against performance assumptions
- Wiring, bonding, and interface integrity for the installed configuration
- DO-160G environment at the installed location reconciled to the equipment qualification
- Display and control integration on the shared flight deck
- The installed configuration reconciled to the equipment authorization it relies on
- Deviations from the equipment assumptions introduced by this installation, each with its substantiation
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Identify what is missing against the means of compliance.
What gets validated
- The installed antenna location and radome are consistent with the performance the equipment authorization assumed
- Interface and bonding evidence exists for the actual harness, not a representative one
- The installed DO-160G environment does not exceed the categories the radar was qualified to
- Display integration is verified on the flight deck the radar shares, including failure and priority behavior
- Every point where the installation departs from the equipment assumptions carries substantiation
Evidence normally required
- The equipment authorization and the installation assumptions it declared
- Installation drawings, radome data, and antenna location details
- Interface control and wiring information for the installed configuration
- The DO-160G environment characterization at the installed location
- Flight-deck display and control integration documentation
Common discrepancies
- An antenna location or radome that alters performance the equipment authorization assumed unchanged
- Interface evidence generated against a representative harness rather than the installed one
- An installed environment that exceeds a DO-160G category the radar was qualified to
- Display integration that leaves radar priority or failure indication ambiguous on a shared screen
What is at stake
Installation evidence that does not close against the basis leaves the STC exposed to authority questions on exactly the points a radar installation turns on: radome transmission, antenna placement, and display integration. Each unresolved point stalls the approval, and a radar that presents ambiguously on a shared flight deck can force a design change late, when it is most expensive.
How the work runs
Anchor to the equipment authorization
Read out the installation assumptions the equipment authorization declared so the installation can be checked against them.
Assess the installed configuration
Evaluate radome, antenna location, wiring, and environment as installed on this airframe.
Check flight-deck integration
Verify display, control, priority, and failure behavior on the flight deck the radar now shares.
Sequence closure
Order the open installation gaps so integration and environmental exposure clears ahead of the submission.
What the buyer receives
- An installation evidence gap list scoped to this airframe and configuration
- A trace map from the certification basis to the installed configuration
- A closure order that resolves the integration and environmental risks first
Who uses the output
- STC applicants compiling the installation data package for submission
- Engineers confirming the interface and environmental evidence for the installation is complete
- Program managers weighing which integration gaps must close before authority review
How the work fits into the transaction or program
This work picks up where the equipment authorization leaves off and carries the radar onto a specific aircraft. It feeds the STC data package directly and depends on the equipment evidence being sound, so it is often run after the equipment readiness pass rather than in place of it.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements map to substantiating evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA both accept an STC route for a radar installation but differ in how installation compliance is documented and how a foreign approval is validated. The gap list flags where installation evidence assembled for one authority will need adjustment before it supports approval under the other.
Regulatory limits
The work assembles and checks installation evidence against the basis. It does not grant the STC, approve the installation, issue any installation approval, or determine airworthiness of the modified aircraft. Those remain with the authority and the STC holder.
What this review does not cover
- Performing the physical installation or ground and flight test
- Producing the installation drawings or interface data
- Filing the STC application or securing its approval
Specific to this review
- Radome transmission characteristics can shift installed radar performance enough that the equipment authorization no longer covers it, which is why the radome is checked before anything else.
- Installation evidence is frequently generated against a representative harness, and an STC needs the installed harness, so interface trace is a recurring gap.
- On a shared flight deck the hardest evidence to close is not radar performance but how the radar's failure and priority behavior presents alongside other systems.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Type certificates, STCs (Subpart E), TSO authorizations (Subpart O), PMA (Subpart K), and export airworthiness approvals (Subpart L).
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
RTCA. Environmental qualification test categories and procedures referenced by TSO and equipment qualification.
RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).
Frequently asked questions
We already have the equipment authorization. Why is separate installation evidence needed?
The equipment authorization proves the radar performs against a standard under declared assumptions. The STC has to prove those assumptions hold on your specific aircraft, including the radome, antenna location, harness, and shared display. That installation evidence is distinct and is what this pass prepares.
Relevant glossary terms
Related pages
Where this fits
Talk to an engineer who has done this work
We will walk through your current state, the records or evidence involved, and a scoped first engagement.
Talk through the aircraft, records, evidence, deadline, and next useful step.