Problems

[Guest Andys@coffs]

It would appear that there are registration problems for a number of European sourced aircraft where RAAus is now repudiating historical RAAus issued type certificates and as such the seemingly only way forward for those members who may well have been historically flying at weights in excess of 544kg are being asked to go back to 470ish Kgs MTOW. Realistically for those in this situation it makes an aircraft that had a useful load that was indeed useful to an aircraft with a useless load. An example being 2 80kg humans and 10L fuel.....

 

I had heard 3rd hand that Flight Designs and at least some of the aircraft that Michael Coates imports have been caught up I this issue. I had also heard that these were being dealt with as they came due for registration. Can anyone confirm or deny? If its true who amongst the members of this site are caught up in this issue?

 

If it were me, and I had a $100k plus aircraft that was suddenly made effectively unsalable, I'd be out looking for blood.....

 

All of the above is sourced 3rd hand it may or may not be true and if you have a Flight Designs or Michael Coates sourced aircraft it may well be worth checking out before the rego falls due and you cant fly......

 

Anyone? Any other aircraft caught up in this issue?

 

Andy

 

 

[damkia]

RAA Tech Ops would be the people to contact, rather than scaremongering third hand information.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Regrettably it is true and it applies at the very least to CTLS and Pipistrels. I have this information first hand from two people affected.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If true that is a grave situation for both RAA and the operator who have a duty of care IMMEDIATELY as in not even one flight allowed at the heavier figure to ENSURE that the aircraft does not operate above to the correct rating. Allowing continuing flight at the higher level with this knowledge could result in criminal prosecution including manslaughter charges if someone is killed. I wouldn't think continued flight at the lower, correct weight would be an issue, but I would strongly recommend getting advice before even doing that, because you could be called on to prove the takeoff weight among other things if an incident occurred.

 

Knowing about the situation and waiting until registration is due is just plain reckless.

 

Hopefully someone has their wires crossed here, and the above information is not true, but if it is, then for once some immediate action is required.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Can I ask why?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

RAA Tech Ops would be the people to contact, rather than scaremongering third hand information.

There are things you know, and things you can say. In a public forum they are rarely the same, especially if you have a care for your family assets!

 

Scaremongering......lets discuss that in a few days when we get some answers....or not!

 

Andy

 

 

[ave8rr]

I have often wondered why some of the European aircraft have been flying here at greater weights than the same aircraft which seems to be limited to the 470ishKG weights in the UK. I thought that that was a UK category weight limit. Maybe not.

 

 

[damkia]

I have often wondered why some of the European aircraft have been flying here at greater weights than the same aircraft which seems to be limited to the 470ishKG weights in the UK. I thought that that was a UK category weight limit. Maybe not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation

Goes some of the way to explaining the different nations definitions of ultralight/microlight/LSA...

 

I would expect that the aircraft may need to have been designed with the 544/600kg limit in mind, including all the relevant safety margins. Whilst they may be safe in most conditions, extreme conditions that would not normally cause an aircraft structure to fail (544/600 kg), may allow these (~450kg) to fail

 

As stated I hardly see how new regulations can be considered to be hush-hush/secret squirrel business. A phone call to Tech Ops may all that is needed to clarify, perhaps with a post here or on RAA website explaining what is happening. My best guess at "scaremongering" speculation is that it was a review brought about by one of the CASA audits that may have noted that these aircraft may have been approved by RAA but not have been designed to carry the weight that is now being put on them, ie they are using their safety margin design limits to comply.

 

 

[Yenn]

The regs are simple to understand, but if someone is registering an aircraft with a false weight, then there is no way they can get recompense from RAAus.

 

At the present it seems that RAAus are just keeping quiet and ignoring the rank and file. Yesterday I phoned to see how my registration renewal was going, they didn't want to talk to me, grudgingly agreed to email me, but no response yet. it doesn't inspire confidence in our Tech manager.

 

I was talking to my local rep at Old Station and he says the bottle kneck is CASA having someone there only 2 days a week to do all the approvals. If that is the case our staff should not be too busy to answer a legitimate querie which was put politely.

 

 

[facthunter]

I wouldn't have a go at the tech manager without knowing the real picture. While the situation is totally unsatisfactory as to the current outcomes, why doesn't CASA make staff qualified to their requirements available? Sort the cost out later. The show must go on.

 

Having Individuals waiting not really knowing what is happening is not acceptable. You have planes you can't use nor can you sell them at any reasonable price. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

.......My best guess at "scaremongering" speculation is that it was a review brought about by one of the CASA audits that may have noted that these aircraft may have been approved by RAA but not have been designed to carry the weight that is now being put on them, ie they are using their safety margin design limits to comply.

Surely guessing is beneath you.......

 

The explanations provided of course, were after discussions with the Tech manager, the affected owner was less than satisfied with the responses, my view (guess!) is that the Techman is suffering from lack of historical traceability and time to deal with complex issues that are snowballing at present. The particular owner i was discussing this with (so 2nd hand in this case) identified the problems go back to circa 2005.

 

Its going to get ugly!!!

 

But.... I could simply be scaremongering still....after all I'm sure the current members reps are up to the task, its not like they've let us down yet.......PM for prime-minister!!.........of faraway land

 

 

[Guest airsick]

It's completely true. I am one of the affected ones and have spoken to a number of others in the same boat. I have documents produced by RA-Aus accepting the aircraft, I have copies of the of the test reports, I have copies of documents produced by the factory and foreign airworthiness authorities. All of these state that the aircraft is within its design parameters if flown at 544kg.

 

I'm yet to find out why RA-Aus is failing to recognise their own documentation for renewals. I'm struggling with the idea that they can ground my aircraft and yet they are ok with other aircraft of the same type still flying simply because they haven't fallen due for renewal.

 

I'm baffled...

 

 

[damkia]

It's completely true. I am one of the affected ones and have spoken to a number of others in the same boat. I have documents produced by RA-Aus accepting the aircraft, I have copies of the of the test reports, I have copies of documents produced by the factory and foreign airworthiness authorities. All of these state that the aircraft is within its design parameters if flown at 544kg.I'm yet to find out why RA-Aus is failing to recognise their own documentation for renewals. I'm struggling with the idea that they can ground my aircraft and yet they are ok with other aircraft of the same type still flying simply because they haven't fallen due for renewal.

 

I'm baffled...

What contact with RAA have you made about this? Put a name to them, not so much for the "name and shame" aspect but to try to let others who are yet to be affected contact the RAA and preempt the issues by getting all required paperwork in order, if that is what is needed.

 

A bit of public pressure for the RAA to announce these sort of problems before actually acting on them is really all that is needed. ("Proposed rule change") If everyone sits back and lets this sort of stuff happen, then it WILL keep happening just as it HAS been happening in the past, as there is no mandate to the management at RAA for change in transparency.

 

Clearly not a great deal has changed at RAA HQ since the EGM/AGM fiasco....

 

 

[Yenn]

I did get a reply from Techman.

 

It seems the photo I sent in with the AUW and other cockpit notices has to be dated. I thought a jpeg image had the date on it. No worries, sent it in again with the date in an email. They also want "Final Inspection" whatever they mean by that. Problem is it was done 11 years ago and I can't even remember the name of the LAME who did it. They got the paperwork to register it and no doubt it has got lost.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

It would appear that there are registration problems for a number of European sourced aircraft where RAAus is now repudiating historical RAAus issued type certificates and as such the seemingly only way forward for those members who may well have been historically flying at weights in excess of 544kg are being asked to go back to 470ish Kgs MTOW. Realistically for those in this situation it makes an aircraft that had a useful load that was indeed useful to an aircraft with a useless load. An example being 2 80kg humans and 10L fuel.....I had heard 3rd hand that Flight Designs and at least some of the aircraft that Michael Coates imports have been caught up I this issue. I had also heard that these were being dealt with as they came due for registration. Can anyone confirm or deny? If its true who amongst the members of this site are caught up in this issue?

 

If it were me, and I had a $100k plus aircraft that was suddenly made effectively unsalable, I'd be out looking for blood.....

 

All of the above is sourced 3rd hand it may or may not be true and if you have a Flight Designs or Michael Coates sourced aircraft it may well be worth checking out before the rego falls due and you cant fly......

 

Anyone? Any other aircraft caught up in this issue?

 

Andy

Firstly, RAAus does not issue type certificates, it issues type acceptance certificates. The two are quite different; see CASR Part 21.013A and CASR 21.029A. A TC under 21.013A requires the issuing authority (CASA in that case) to make a determination that the design of the aircraft complies with a relevant design standard. That requires a level of technical competence that is not posessed by RAAus. (I say this from the perspective of having been involved in that capacity in two Australian type certification exercises.) By contrast, a TAC under CASR 21.029A is an acknowledgement that a Type Certificate has been issued by the National Airworthiness Authority of a recognised foreign country. COA 95.55.1.6(A) in effect allows RAAus to issue a TAC based on the foreign type certification. It does NOT allow RAAus to increase the MTOW beyond that given in the foreign TC; however I have evidence of two instances in which it has done precisely this. It would appear that the CASA audit has found a numer of such instances, and is now requiring the situation to be corrected.

 

Secondly, many aircraft design standards require that the aircraft must be able to carry either (i) Full fuel plus an 86 Kg pilot; or (ii) full seats (86 Kg occupant weight) plus fuel for one hour. The reason for this is that full tanks with pilot only is useful for a positioning flight, and full seats with one hour's fuel is the minimum acceptable safety standard. With such ridiculously tight category limits as the Euro microlight standard, one can understand why manufacturers are forced to do this. So purchasing an aircraft is caveat emptor, and it really pays to read the fine print. However some importers of aircraft of this ilk, have gone to great lengths to try to try to get the MTOW increased to the Australian category limit of 544 Kg, instead of the Euro limit of 450 Kg (472.5 Kg with a ballistic recovery parachute system); I am aware of one such case where the importer resorted to outright fraud.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Dafydd

 

Thanks for the clarity its good of you to share. Its a paperwork area that I'm not at all familiar with in a civilian context.

 

So, to pose a query:-

 

1) Faraway land manufacturer X manufactures an Aircraft IAW one of the acceptable LSA standards and presumably has Faraway land equivalent of CASA issue a type certificate.

 

2) Australian importer of the Farawayland flyer has CASA review the Faraway land type certificate and presumably they or CASA issue an acceptance certificate that mirrors the type certificate.

 

3) Farawayland manufacturer subsequently see benefit in having their aircraft certified to a higher Australian MTOW and as such undertakes a series of engineering analysis's and potentially destructive testing done with a view to proving that lifting the MTOW is safe.

 

4) Faraway land airworthiness authority writes, on request from the manufacturer, to CASA identifying that the manufacturer has done analysis and testing to prove that a higher MTOW is achievable on their aircraft and that they Farawaylands airworthiness authority have overseen and accepted the results, presumably the very initial analysis was done only up to the point that the Farawayland local UL regulations allowed rather than what the actual aircraft design and manufacture allowed.

 

5) At this stage can the RAAus or CASA acceptance certificate be reissued or upissued for MTOW to reflect the new analysis, or must a new type certificate be issued?

 

Andy

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

DafyddThanks for the clarity its good of you to share. Its a paperwork area that I'm not at all familiar with in a civilian context.

 

So, to pose a query:-

 

1) Faraway land manufacturer X manufactures an Aircraft IAW one of the acceptable LSA standards and presumably has Faraway land equivalent of CASA issue a type certificate.

 

2) Australian importer of the Farawayland flyer has CASA review the Faraway land type certificate and presumably they or CASA issue an acceptance certificate that mirrors the type certificate.

 

3) Farawayland manufacturer subsequently see benefit in having their aircraft certified to a higher Australian MTOW and as such undertakes a series of engineering analysis's and potentially destructive testing done with a view to proving that lifting the MTOW is safe.

 

4) Faraway land airworthiness authority writes, on request from the manufacturer, to CASA identifying that the manufacturer has done analysis and testing to prove that a higher MTOW is achievable on their aircraft and that they Farawaylands airworthiness authority have overseen and accepted the results, presumably the very initial analysis was done only up to the point that the Farawayland local UL regulations allowed rather than what the actual aircraft design and manufacture allowed.

 

5) At this stage can the RAAus or CASA acceptance certificate be reissued or upissued for MTOW to reflect the new analysis, or must a new type certificate be issued?

 

Andy

Andy, in the case of a non-recreational aircraft type, CASA would issue the TAC; this is standard practice for imported certificated aircraft types. In the case of recreational aircraft, RAAus issues the TAC. The requirement for subsequent increase of the MTOW was set out in a CASA email in 2003.

 

 

 

[ave8rr]

DafyddThanks for the clarity its good of you to share. Its a paperwork area that I'm not at all familiar with in a civilian context.

 

So, to pose a query:-

 

1) Faraway land manufacturer X manufactures an Aircraft IAW one of the acceptable LSA standards and presumably has Faraway land equivalent of CASA issue a type certificate.

 

2) Australian importer of the Farawayland flyer has CASA review the Faraway land type certificate and presumably they or CASA issue an acceptance certificate that mirrors the type certificate.

 

3) Farawayland manufacturer subsequently see benefit in having their aircraft certified to a higher Australian MTOW and as such undertakes a series of engineering analysis's and potentially destructive testing done with a view to proving that lifting the MTOW is safe.

 

4) Faraway land airworthiness authority writes, on request from the manufacturer, to CASA identifying that the manufacturer has done analysis and testing to prove that a higher MTOW is achievable on their aircraft and that they Farawaylands airworthiness authority have overseen and accepted the results, presumably the very initial analysis was done only up to the point that the Farawayland local UL regulations allowed rather than what the actual aircraft design and manufacture allowed.

 

5) At this stage can the RAAus or CASA acceptance certificate be reissued or upissued for MTOW to reflect the new analysis, or must a new type certificate be issued?

 

Andy

I wonder (for example) if the Foxbat weight increase ref their web site http://www.foxbat.com.au/public/editor_images/2011%20November%20Final%20b_3.pdf for the model 22L is in fact legal. It states that the certificate only needs to be placed in the flight manual. The factory have approved the increased weight but with conditions such as reduced "G" loadings etc.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I wonder (for example) if the Foxbat weight increase ref their web site http://www.foxbat.com.au/public/editor_images/2011 November Final b_3.pdf for the model 22L is in fact legal. It states that the certificate only needs to be placed in the flight manual. The factory have approved the increased weight but with conditions such as reduced "G" loadings etc.

Depends on whether it complies with the requirements specified in Gary Carr's email. If it does, then RAAus can presumably issue a revised Type Acceptance Certificate. If it doesn't, caveat emptor.

 

 

[David Isaac]

David,

 

Thank you for such informative information.

 

It has long been my understanding that the onus is on the manufacturer / importer / distributor to provide complying documentation if they want a particular MTOW increase beyond the Type Certificate issued by the NAA. The documents produced to RA Aus in an attempt to have the higher MTOW approved by Type Acceptance Certificate (TAC) issued by RA Aus must meet the requirements laid down by CASA as you have described. If it subsequently turns out that the documentation provided by the manufacturer / importer / distributor did not meet the requirements or was misleading or was subsequently found fraudulent then the TAC issued by the RA Aus would no longer be valid. Is it the responsibility of the RA Aus or the manufacturer / importer / distributor for the validity of the documentation? I would have thought the latter.

 

Clearly the invalid nature of certain documentation is the contentious issue with a number of brands of aircraft currently registered by RA Aus carrying TACs to a higher weight than can be legally supported and why the RA Aus is refusing to re-register these aircraft until an amended TC by a recognised NAA can be produced to the higher MTOW.

 

I had assumed in this RA Aus debacle that there was something wrong with the documentation in and even if it was initially ‘accepted’ by RA Aus either in good faith or in error, the responsibility go back to the manufacturer / importer / distributor who must prove his performance claims legally? The manufacturer / importer / distributor must prove the weight capacity and based on the legality of the ‘proof’ the RA Aus can issue a TAC for registration to the revised MTOW.

 

I would have thought the RA Aus is not being bloody minded for the sake of it, and refusing the documentation for no valid reason. There clearly is a major problem with the TACs and the current Tech Manager appears to have inherited a problem of mammoth proportions.

 

I am not sure as to how valid my view point on this is, but if I were such an aircraft owner and I had a contract with one of the manufacturer / importer / distributors (who clearly gained commercial advantage from the weight increase that they had advertised the aircraft to); I would have a case under the CCA (Consumer and Competition Act formerly Trade Practices ACT) against the manufacturer / importer / distributor for fraudulent and deceptive advertising among other things. I don’t see how the RA Aus is at fault here apart from (in good faith) issuing an unintentionally invalid TAC.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

David,Thank you for such informative information.

It has long been my understanding that the onus is on the manufacturer / importer / distributor to provide complying documentation if they want a particular MTOW increase beyond the Type Certificate issued by the NAA. The documents produced to RA Aus in an attempt to have the higher MTOW approved by Type Acceptance Certificate (TAC) issued by RA Aus must meet the requirements laid down by CASA as you have described. If it subsequently turns out that the documentation provided by the manufacturer / importer / distributor did not meet the requirements or was misleading or was subsequently found fraudulent then the TAC issued by the RA Aus would no longer be valid. Is it the responsibility of the RA Aus or the manufacturer / importer / distributor for the validity of the documentation? I would have thought the latter.

 

Clearly the invalid nature of certain documentation is the contentious issue with a number of brands of aircraft currently registered by RA Aus carrying TACs to a higher weight than can be legally supported and why the RA Aus is refusing to re-register these aircraft until an amended TC by a recognised NAA can be produced to the higher MTOW.

 

I had assumed in this RA Aus debacle that there was something wrong with the documentation in and even if it was initially ‘accepted’ by RA Aus either in good faith or in error, the responsibility go back to the manufacturer / importer / distributor who must prove his performance claims legally? The manufacturer / importer / distributor must prove the weight capacity and based on the legality of the ‘proof’ the RA Aus can issue a TAC for registration to the revised MTOW.

 

I would have thought the RA Aus is not being bloody minded for the sake of it, and refusing the documentation for no valid reason. There clearly is a major problem with the TACs and the current Tech Manager appears to have inherited a problem of mammoth proportions.

 

I am not sure as to how valid my view point on this is, but if I were such an aircraft owner and I had a contract with one of the manufacturer / importer / distributors (who clearly gained commercial advantage from the weight increase that they had advertised the aircraft to); I would have a case under the CCA (Consumer and Competition Act formerly Trade Practices ACT) against the manufacturer / importer / distributor for fraudulent and deceptive advertising among other things. I don’t see how the RA Aus is at fault here apart from (in good faith) issuing an unintentionally invalid TAC.

David, yes, the onus is on the applicant (be that the manufacturer, the importer or the distributor) to provide the documentation. It is certainly not CASA's or the RAAus's function to do so. In the case of a non-recreational aircraft, CASR Part 21.029A requires that:

 

21.029A Type acceptance certificate for imported aircraft certificated by NAA of recognised country

 

Subject to regulations 21.029B and 21.029C, CASA must issue a type acceptance certificate for an aircraft manufactured in a foreign

 

country, without making the type acceptance certificate subject to any conditions, if:

 

(a) a foreign type certificate or equivalent document issued by the NAA of a recognised country is in force for aircraft of that type; and

 

(b) the applicant has given CASA:

 

(i) evidence that the type design has been approved by the NAA of the recognised country by issue of a type certificate or equivalent document; and

 

(ii) details of any equivalent safety determinations or waivers (however described) that were made in the course of the type certification; and

 

(iii) a copy of the applicable type certificate data sheet; and

 

(iv) a copy of the flight manual that contains all the available options applicable to the type, and that was approved by the NAA that issued the foreign type certificate; and

 

(v) a copy of the manufacturer’s instructions for continued airworthiness of the aircraft; and

 

(vi) a copy of the parts catalogue for the aircraft; and

 

(vii) a list of all current field service documents applicable to the aircraft; and(viii) an undertaking from the holder of the foreign type certificate to continue to supply to CASA service bulletins and instructions for the continuing airworthiness of aircraft of that type and any amendments of the documents mentioned in subparagraphs (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii).

 

Note the word "must" in the second line. Also note the words "of a recognised country" in the fourth line. Recognised countries are defined in CASR 21.012; so such automatic acceptance does have some constraints. Since, in regard to aircraft accepted under CAO 95.55.1.6(a), RAAus is acting in lieu of CASA, I would assume that it would also be bound by CASR 21.029A. In 2003, the recognised countries listed in CASR 21.012 were:

 

(a) Canada;

 

(aa) Federal Republic of Germany;

 

(b) New Zealand;

 

© The French Republic;

 

(d) The Kingdom of the Netherlands;

 

(e) The United Kingdom;

 

(f) The United States of America.

 

So the Type certificate for the Pipistrel issued by the French DGAC would qualify for such automatic acceptance.

 

The question of the duty of care of either CASA or RAAus to ensure that they are not presented with fraudulent documents by the applicant, is outside my area of expertise; however, (for example) a purported flight test report of testing conducted, under the Euro registration, in a European country, that is dated three months after the aircraft concerned received its Australian registration (which requires a certificate of deregistration from the country of export), I would expect to cause some questions to be asked. Also, the accepting authority must surely be sufficiently competent to recognise what the documents it receives actually are. So I would imagine that gross negligence in these regards would be actionable.

 

Subject to the above, I consider your view of the matter to be entirely correct.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Thanks David,

 

Would it not be entirely reasonable then for a manufacturer/ importer/distributor to engage a subpart 21M (formerley CAR35) engineer to check the design records, do certain calculations and assessments and issue an Australian Type Certificate for say a Pipistrel to a higher engineering acceptable weight and that would end the problems?

 

But of course that would require someone to put their hand in their pocket for some $10 to 20K, but that would be satisfactory for all aircraft of that type would it not?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Thanks David,Would it not be entirely reasonable then for a manufacturer/ importer/distributor to engage a subpart 21M (formerley CAR35) engineer to check the design records, do certain calculations and assessments and issue an Australian Type Certificate for say a Pipistrel to a higher engineering acceptable weight and that would end the problems?

But of course that would require someone to put their hand in their pocket for some $10 to 20K, but that would be satisfactory for all aircraft of that type would it not?

No, that would not solve the problem. Whilst CAR 35/ subpart 21M engineers who have had some experience of aircraft type certification would be knowledgable insofar as being able to recognise the nature of submitted documentation, the requirements set out by Gary Carr make it quite clear that the assessment and acceptance must be done by the original certificating authority, who must also issue a Flight manual for the increased MTOW. Also, if you read CASR Part 21 subpart B, you will see that the data that are required under 21.029A are only the summary documents, whereas the original certificating authority must be supplied with the complete Type Design (for definition, see 21.031). The difference between the two is enormous; a full TC exercise for a finding of compliance requires a full exposure of the whole of the Applicant's IP, and it is a very large task. The cost is likely to run to the better part of half a million dollars, not $10 to 20K.

 

Further, CAR 35/subpart 21M authority holders do not, ipso facto, have the authority to issue a Type certificate. Under CASR 21.33(3), authorised persons may be appointed (on a specific project basis) to find compliance with specific paragraphs in the design standard; this is under the overview of CASA, not in isolation, and the eventual TC is issued by CASA. In some countries, the certification of recreational aircraft is delegated by the NAA to a body which is recognised by the NAA as being competent to do so, as reflected by CAO 95.55.1.6.(i)(B), but there is no such recognised body in Australia.

 

The requirements for a Australian TC for an imported aircraft that does not have a TC from its country of origin would apply, and these are given in CASR 21.029, and this would require the original foreign TC holder to supply his entire IP to the Australian representative and thence to CASA, and it would be every bit as large a task as a new Australian TC exercise.

 

In regard to your previous question as to the responsibility/liability of RAAus, I would add a rider to my previous answer:

 

Fitness for flight requires three things: (1) The aircraft must be designed correctly; (2) It must be built correctly; (3) It must be maintained correctly. In the mainstream of aviation, a Certificate of Airworthiness covers the first two of these, and should strictly be considered as a "certificate of eligibility to be airworthy if correctly maintained". A C of A is a pre-requisite for a Maintenance Release; and a Maintenance Release is a pre-requisite for flight.

 

In the RAAus system, neither a C of A nor a Maintenance Release exists. Therefore, RAA members have nothing other than the RAAus registration to indicate whether their aircraft will be airworthy when correctly maintained. Thus, the RAAus Certificate of registration is seen, for want of anything else, as the de facto equivalent of a C of A. This presents to the RAAus membership, an illusion of a standard of safety that does not in fact exist, in view of your comments.

 

 

[winsor68]

(a) Canada;(aa) Federal Republic of Germany;

 

(b) New Zealand;

 

© The French Republic;

 

(d) The Kingdom of the Netherlands;

 

(e) The United Kingdom;

 

(f) The United States of America.

Would this indicate that (as of 2003) any Recreational Aircraft not manufactured in these countries is not able to be registered in Australia without full CASA type acceptance? Does this include LSA's?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

No, my understanding is that the limitation of the list of "recognised countries" (which has altered enormously since 2003, due to the advent of EASA) is only relevant in regard to CASR 21.029A, which covers automatic issue of a Type Acceptance Certificate on the basis of the foreign TC. CAO 95.55.1.6 does not restrict acceptance to "recognised countries" but broadens it to "contracting States" (which means States that are signatories to the ICAO convention). However, where the aircraft is from a contracting State that is not a "recognised country", the "must issue" clause of CASR 21.029A does not apply - so RAAus would not be able to use that as a defence if it wrongly accepted an aircraft from such a country.

 

In regard to LSA aircraft, these do not have any form of Type Certificate and therefore the question of Type Acceptance Certificates does not arise. Instead, the manufacturer certifies that the aircraft complies with the LSA design standard. These do not come under CAO 95.55.1.6; they are covered by CAO 95.55.1.8 and 1.9 - and iv VH-registered, under CASR 21.186. Their MTOW is what the manufacturer says it is in his certification, unless the rules in the receiving country set a lower limit.