Just Who is certifying these airplanes?

[old man emu]

In another thread, Lofty 1 is asking for information about a Morgan Cheetah that has been grounded by CASA. Morgan Aeroworks has replied to that thread in a way that suggests to me that they are not happy to have their name associated with that particular airplane due to modifications made by the builder.

 

My question is: Just who is certifying RAAus airplanes as being fit for registration and hence fit to be flown?

 

I know that this task is supposed to be undertaken by L4s, but if an airplane has been modified from the original design by persons other than the original designer, how much documentation was provided to RAAus to support the application to register it?

 

The workshop where I work carries out the re-assembly, inspection and preparation of documentation for the issue of Certificates of Airworthiness for airplanes purchased overseas. During the assembly and inspection phase we often find faults with the airplanes that require attention to make the airplane airworthy. After we have done our bit, the airplane still has to be weighed and its equipment recorded to set up its weight and balance chart. Sometimes an Electrical Load Analysis has to be done to make sure the electrical storage and generation system can handle the demands of the electricky things in the airplane.

 

All this work can take a month or more to complete. Then all the documentation is presented to a CASA delegate who pours over it, and if it is all OK, issues a C of A. You can imagine the price charged to do all this paperwork.

 

Who is going around visiting builders to see that either they are following the designer's plans; that any modification from the original plans are engineeringly sound, and that all the things that have to be documented have been documented? After that, who at RAAus Headquarters is examining the documentation and issuing approvals for registration (present CASA induced moratorium excepted)?

 

I'm not looking for a list of names of L4s. I can get that off the RAAus website. What I am interested to know is whether this deep examination of airplanes and documentation is taking place.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[damkia]

Not wishing to go on a complete tangent to your thread, but this is why I have always said that home built aircraft of any type (GA/RAA/UL) should be under the auspices of the SAAA, who already have a more than adequate inspection schedule and monitoring/accreditation processes. Even if you are not building to full blown "Amateur Built/Home Built" status, it would be wise for a builder to maybe contact SAAA and organise an inspection by people that have a more experienced and less biased set of eyes than the builder.

 

My second comment would be to Gary Morgan - If he is responsible for the design and any subsequent modifications, then he should be able to get the airworthiness certificate withdrawn if it is deemed as an unacceptable modification. I hope from the inference of the other topic that this is what has happened.

 

 

[winsor68]

Just who is certifying RAAus airplanes as being fit for registration and hence fit to be flown?

Everyone who is at Ra-Aus Central at Canberra at the moment. Isn't this in essence the problem. My take on what I see is this...Their records don't record any of this accurately... regardless of whether new regos are going through a lot will run into a brick wall.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Can a designer get the airworthiness certificate withdrawn? Most of my plans have a statement to the effect that if you modify the design, you are not building an "XYZ" any longer and if that was the case, the designer effectively washes their hands of the aircraft. Not sure how that would hold up legally, but it makes sense from a designers point of view.

 

 

[turboplanner]

in terms of holding up legally, you could probably kiss your proverbial goodbye

 

 

[kgwilson]

Whether you build from a kit, from plans or to your own design which you make up as you go makes no difference. So long as 51% of the build is completed by you the A/C is considered amateur built so the designer has nothing to do with it. If it is of an approved design & the engine has been type approved then the test flying time is 25 hours compared to 40 hours. That's about it for RAA. All the details are contained in the Technical manual. There are some specific requirements such as keeping a build log & receipts for materials but other things are either discretionary or stated to be "advisable" or "recommended" such as a photographic record of the build process.

 

A pre cover inspection is again recommended & this is no different to SAAA but a pre flight final inspection is mandatory. This is to be done by an RAA or CASA approved person & there-in lies the problem as I see it. There are some so called LAME's I wouldn't trust to inspect my dog kennel let alone my newly built aircraft.

 

I will be seeking the best approved person to perform the final for me. Someone who is fussy but also practical & preferably who has previously built an aircraft that has thousands of hours up & he still owns it.

 

Kevin

 

 

[old man emu]

I will be seeking the best approved person to perform the final for me. Someone who is fussy but also practical & preferably who has previously built an aircraft that has thousands of hours up & he still owns it. Kevin

Well, my boss is fastidious and practical. He has built his own airplane which he still owns. He has licences for wood and fabric, as well as licences for airframe and engines. He has over 40 years' experience as a LAME in General Aviation and runs a CASA licensed workshop. Just for kicks he also is an RAAus L2. Why doesn't he become an L4? Simple answer is that is that the money is not in it for him. Also going out to certify planes takes him away from supervising the AMEs who are doing the regular bread and butter work that keeps the shop afloat.

 

Getting back to my original question - who from RAAus is actually going out and looking at these planes during the certification process?

 

OME

 

 

[XAIRVTW]

Not wishing to go on a complete tangent to your thread, but this is why I have always said that home built aircraft of any type (GA/RAA/UL) should be under the auspices of the SAAA, who already have a more than adequate inspection schedule and monitoring/accreditation processes. Even if you are not building to full blown "Amateur Built/Home Built" status, it would be wise for a builder to maybe contact SAAA and organise an inspection by people that have a more experienced and less biased set of eyes than the builder.My second comment would be to Gary Morgan - If he is responsible for the design and any subsequent modifications, then he should be able to get the airworthiness certificate withdrawn if it is deemed as an unacceptable modification. I hope from the inference of the other topic that this is what has happened.

The RAA should be doing what the SAAA is doing in regard to inspection. The SAAA also have TC technical Councilors within each Chapter the builder of an aircraft can get good sound advice on their build. Part of your C of A is you need a minumin of 3 TC reports. Gives you good peice of mind that your aircraft is built sound.

 

Cheers

 

 

[winsor68]

I do believe there are hotspots of very qualified LAME's around who do know their stuff and have their fingers on the pulse... We can't tar the whole system with the same brush.

 

Problem as I see it is that they aren't widespread around the whole of the Ra-Aus fleet... And of course as we are seeing a lot of the paperwork at Ra-Aus is a mess.

 

 

[turboplanner]

AIRPLANES? - Do we even know where we live?

 

 

[ahlocks]

AIRPLANES? - Do we even know where we live?

Hang on and I'll ask the child bride, she can usually remember.

 

 

[Thruster87]

The RAA should be doing what the SAAA is doing in regard to inspection. The SAAA also have TC technical Councilors within each Chapter the builder of an aircraft can get good sound advice on their build. Part of your C of A is you need a minumin of 3 TC reports. Gives you good piece of mind that your aircraft is built sound.Cheers

What you really need is to have a structurally sound designed aircraft in the first place and that can only be worked out via extensive testing by Aeronautical Engineers [Load Tests/Stress Analysis using various methods depending on available funds] or a test pilot with a parachute. L4's only do a external inspection and rely on your check procedures prior to first flight.You only have to look at what happened with the Zodiac 601xl, it is now the most tested design in history of LSA aircraft. Cheers

 

 

[metalman]

First of all, you do not have to be involved with SAAA in any way to build and register a home built aircraft, secondly the reason we have the home built fraternity is so that people can have the joy ( frustration) of building and flying something they have created, and thirdly ,nearly everyone I've talked to laments the fact that we are completely over governed in this country, when I started on the RV6 I rang CASA to be sure that I could actually build my own aeroplane , guess what he said YES, how friggin awesome, I can do this at home ,build it, test fly it, and if it kills me then so be it , but I have been given the right to do something and take total responsibility for the out come . It seems to me that this is almost the last place I can think of where the guvmint will let you risk your own life and leave you alone to do ( perhaps yachting inter country) so please there is a lot of stuff wrong but please don't start to complain about a bit of freedom we still have

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Totally agree MM, but I would like a second opinion- some experienced builder to check my designs and workmanship before I cover the wing, etc. They are thin on the ground!

 

 

[metalman]

Nothing wrong at all with that, problem I found was a lot of experts who had yet to complete an aircraft of their own, I'm lucky ,I have one mate with about 14 RV's under his belt, a couple of jabs and a starlet, and another mate who designs flying machines for money( not a bad pilot for a hack either ;-)

 

It would be hard if you don't have the right connections though! Most of the LAME's I've met are happy to have a look at something if you don't try to get a freebie, for me I've found the less I try to get free stuff out of LAME's the more willing they seem to want to be helpful, Same happens in my workshop ,nothing annoys more than someone trying to squeeze me

 

Met

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

All true. We have to respect the investment people have made in getting their qualifications. I know of LAMEs working as motor mechanics- there is more work and more money.

 

 

[XAIRVTW]

First of all, you do not have to be involved with SAAA in any way to build and register a home built aircraft, secondly the reason we have the home built fraternity is so that people can have the joy ( frustration) of building and flying something they have created, and thirdly ,nearly everyone I've talked to laments the fact that we are completely over governed in this country, when I started on the RV6 I rang CASA to be sure that I could actually build my own aeroplane , guess what he said YES, how friggin awesome, I can do this at home ,build it, test fly it, and if it kills me then so be it , but I have been given the right to do something and take total responsibility for the out come . It seems to me that this is almost the last place I can think of where the guvmint will let you risk your own life and leave you alone to do ( perhaps yachting inter country) so please there is a lot of stuff wrong but please don't start to complain about a bit of freedom we still have

I didnt say you had to be involved with the SAAA .Nor is anyone complaining about the freedom we have. The whole purpose of this is so dont kill yourself & some other inocent party.

 

Not sure if you have finished building your RV as yet but if you do get an AP from CASA to issue your C of A it will cost you more through them than it will through the SAAA. Back to my original comment this is why the RAA should have structures like this not to add more regulations but to give assistance to builders.

 

 

[pylon500]

Just answering off the cuff here, but when I designed and built my second ultralight about 18 years ago (AUF), the 'inspector' (who was actually a CASA mate!) watched me do the inspection, advising if he thought I missed something.

 

The idea was that the inspection was overseen, but the final responsibility rest with me, the builder.

 

The SAAA system had an out side inspector taking all the final responsibility for your work!?

 

As for,

 

Just who is certifying RAAus airplanes

When talking about 'amateur built' ultralights (19-xxxx), they are not certified, that's the whole point.

If someone decides to improve (why would you make something worse?) a plan/kit/finished homebuilt, then it is the designer/manufacturer's prerogative to diss-own the final product.

 

Part of the amateur concept is learning about the technology, design, hand skills and aerodynamics of aircraft, if you just follow someone else's plans/kit/build, then you miss a lot of learning and just end up with ownership of someone else's aeroplane with your paint job.

 

 

[winsor68]

First of all, you do not have to be involved with SAAA in any way to build and register a home built aircraft, secondly the reason we have the home built fraternity is so that people can have the joy ( frustration) of building and flying something they have created, and thirdly ,nearly everyone I've talked to laments the fact that we are completely over governed in this country, when I started on the RV6 I rang CASA to be sure that I could actually build my own aeroplane , guess what he said YES, how friggin awesome, I can do this at home ,build it, test fly it, and if it kills me then so be it , but I have been given the right to do something and take total responsibility for the out come . It seems to me that this is almost the last place I can think of where the guvmint will let you risk your own life and leave you alone to do ( perhaps yachting inter country) so please there is a lot of stuff wrong but please don't start to complain about a bit of freedom we still have

I completely agree MM... Problem is our membership ballooned with people who were presented with the "New GA" Style of flying... Seems not too many people happy to "self certify" or to put it another way... take the damn risk upon themselves... and many are unaware that this was exactly what made the sport affordable.

 

 

[gregrobertson]

I have built aircraft through SAAA and RA-Aus. Both structures are esentially the same in that the builder is the one who actually does the final inspection, yes it is under supervision but the builder is the one with his neck on the line. The SAAA have been in the business for a long time and have very good systems in place to advise the builder on acceptable construction methods and practices. A TC (technical councilor) is generally in place to keep an eye on the build process and advise the builder, he/she writes a report for the AP which is taken into account when the AP issues the special C of A. and can impose flight and flight test conditions. The RA-Aus system is similar but is not as refined at this stage. The bottom line for both systems is that the builder is responsible for the safety and airworthiness of the aircraft. Just as anyone who performs their own maintenance is responsible for the safety of that aircraft.

 

Greg.

 

 

[old man emu]

"Certifying" is obviously a word with particular meaning in the context of home builts. I didn't mean it in the sense that a Lycoming engine is a "certified" engine, or a Cessna 172 id a "certified" airplane. I meant it in the sense that someone with a sound airplane design and construction has examined the airplane to ensure that it has been put together in accordance with "best procedure", and that those measurements and calculations ( weighing and C of G envelope) have been carried out. Following these examinations, the person signs a document in which he certifies that the airplane to be registered is as described in the application and is reasonably expected to be airworthy. The document (otherwise known as a certificate) can them be forwarded to RAAus as proof that the airplane satisfies registration requirements.

 

{by the way, aeroplane/airplane. You say tomahto, I say tomayto}

 

OME

 

 

[pylon500]

"Certifying"

OK, I see where you are coming from.

The nearest we (ultralights) get is more like 'Approved' in the 19-xxxx class.

 

I meant it in the sense that someone with a sound airplane design and construction knowledge

Hopefully, these are L-4's and or LAME's, but I put to you an interesting observation, having worked in GA for nearly 30 years...

The people with the most knowledge of aircraft design, ie Reg35 Aeronautical Engineers, very rarely actually build their own aircraft !?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Get off on holiday two dollar Yank, although I admit it's addictive.

 

 

[old man emu]

I agree that Reg 35 AEs would have the theoretical knowledge, but they probably don't have the hands-on experience. You really need a practical person whose experience lets them see things that are wrong.

 

OME

 

 

[Thruster87]

I agree that Reg 35 AEs would have the theoretical knowledge, but they probably don't have the hands-on experience. You really need a practical person whose experience lets them see things that are wrong.OME

In the real world it would be hard to find a person with all the necessary attributes to give you a definitive answer on all types and construction methods as each job specializes either on theory or practical aspects.The LAME wouldn't know if a longeron or stringer is needed in a certain spot[the Aero- Eng would] but can tell if it is riveted on properly.That's why the L4 only does a walk around and checks paper work for W/B etc. Cheers