Variable pitch props

[Ballpoint 246niner]

I don't understand how an aircraft can be certified under a European standard and accepted by CASA but the IFA prop has to be certified to ATSM standard.I was under the impression that the manufacturer had to approve changes to the LSA aircraft for it to remain in that category. If CASA requirement is to fit a fixed pitch prop then how does sit with the original certificate from the manufacturer? The recent spiel from the ops manager says inter alia that manufacturers cannot "cherry pick" provisions from various standards but isn't what CASA is now doing?

Billy my understanding is that it's not the certification itself, but in LSA rules the manufacturer must list a common set of standards that the aircraft conforms to. It appears that many manufacturers do not have this signed off for the prop in their statement of compliance. We gave up arguing the case and just fitted an approved fixed pitch prop on our one aircraft that was affected. One day, hopefully soon this will all be sorted out, I see Tecnam now has an approved VP PROP for the Sierra.

 

Australia is so bogged down in rules in procedures that I am sure we are oozing to a stop

[bilby54]

Thanks BP.

 

I know of several Tecnams that have had to change to fixed pitch props for registration because CASA does not accept a particular certification. They can fly in Europe and New Zealand but somehow become non compliant in Australian airspace because the prop does not conform to the American ATSM.

 

Funny thing is the same flying school can use it on line to give IFA propellor endorsements, BFR's or whatever?? Trying hard to understand but it is clear as pea soup.

 

 

[facthunter]

It is because Australia is so clever. Nev

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

It is because Australia is so clever. Nev

I just had a thought- could it be the people trying to manage asylum seekers also are interpreting VP props compliance in their spare time??

 

 

[rankamateur]

Wouldn't the easiest solution not be to build the W-A Vision as an amateur built plane and then fit an Airmaster prop on it?

I think a Savannah S with an Airmaster AP430 hub and Whirlwind Razor blades is the go, just haven't worked out how I am going to get it to Caboolture for my endorsement yet. Just 380 hours to go.

 

 

[Camel]

Just for anyone who is interested in adjustable props there is a certified Sportstar used for training by midcoastcoastflying.com.au for endorsements.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I think a Savannah S with an Airmaster AP430 hub and Whirlwind Razor blades is the go, just haven't worked out how I am going to get it to Caboolture for my endorsement yet. Just 380 hours to go.

Is there a reason why you're planning to get the 3 blade AirMaster rather than the two blade version (AP420)?

 

(they're both similar in price)

 

 

[rankamateur]

The 4 series hubs are machined out of billet so I would have thought a two blade would come out of a considerably more compact billet so should be cheaper and less complex to mill. Jabiru's have two blades Rotax's have three blades, that s the law isn't it?

 

 

[facthunter]

Regarding the TIC comment about" clever", of course WE are not. IF something is accepted in the EU or the USA why can't it be automatically OK here?. I recall the time when a Porsche 911 (or close) had to have the four point harness replaced with an inferior lap sash and the tacho size reduced to smaller than the speedo to meet the Australia Design Rules. Back to aeroplanes. A few years ago I was actually silly enough to believe we were leading the world in reduced red tape. Be funny if it wasn't so serious. Nev

 

 

[eightyknots]

I recall the time when a Porsche 911 (or close) had to have the four point harness replaced with an inferior lap sash and the tacho size reduced to smaller than the speedo to meet the Australia Design Rules. Back to aeroplanes.

That was a crazy requirement!

 

 

[Mick]

I would still like to know why is it that those of us that have in-flight adjustable props ( that we were told we could have ) are now being pinged, when there are alot of aircraft that do not meet the ASTM requirements for stall speed?

 

When LSA was first set up here in Australia we were told there was a few things different with LSA in Oz to the USA, in-flight adjustable props were one thing and stall speeds were another. If we now must comply with ASTMs and can no longer have in-flight adjustable props, will CASA / RAAus do something about all the aircraft that do do not meet the ASTM stall speed requirements?

 

CASA /RAAus are telling us we cannot "cherrypick" from regulations, ie have a prop that meets the new European standards on an aircraft certified to American ASTMs, yet they seem to be picking & choosing which ASTMs they will enforce and which they can ignore?

 

 

[Mick]

CASA /RAAus are telling us we cannot "cherrypick" from regulations, ie have a prop that meets the new European standards on an aircraft certified to American ASTMs, yet they seem to be picking & choosing which ASTMs they will enforce and which they can ignore?

Further to that, the ASTMs say that an LSA aircraft must have a maximum speed in level flight of 120 knots, yet here in Oz we have LSAs that cruise above that?

 

 

[Camel]

For Those truly interested read my post 11 - 15 - 17 on this thread , and read my posting headed http://recreationalflying.com/threads/unbelieveable.58765/

 

Below is a communication I had with CASA , names are taken off but anyone truly interested PM me for info. My Aircraft is 100% legal and none of this applies to me but I do feel there is a problem. I have sent this letter to a person that is actively involved in the sale of aircraft that have In flight Adjustable props as an option.

 

I believe if people feel strong enough they should discuss this with CASA and maybe there could be a change.

 

Full Name

 

XXXXXXXX

 

Email

 

XXXXXXXX

 

Comments

 

Dear Sir.

 

I am starting to wonder if Casa is interested in safety or just causing problems as now the sports aviation LSA rules are being changed in relation to constant speed and in-fight adjustable propellors. Seehttp://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100159/d2p7_lsa.pdf

 

I am disappointed with the process as if things are approved then why pull the plug and change the rules unless safety is a concern. There was no standard for props then they apply one and already approved aircraft are audited.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/02/lsas-with-in-fligh-adjustable-prop/

 

I feel Casa should focus on safety, why was the standand not applied before as it was 7 years ago, why now ?

 

UNCLASSIFIED

 

Dear XXXXXXXXX

 

On behalf of the Director of Aviation Safety, thank you for your feedback email.

 

The issues you have raised are complex and below is some lengthy information provided by our Self Administering Sport Aviation Organisations Section. I hope it assists you.

 

The power point presentation you link to in your email is one that Mick Poole, Technical Officer SASAO, presented at the manufacturers seminar in Brisbane early last year after discovering the concerns with LSA and inflight adjustable propellers. The LSA rules have not been changed in respect to Constant speed and inflight adjustable propellers (IFAP), they are currently under increased scrutiny by SASAO.

 

When LSA was introduced to Australia in 2006 the AC that was produced (AC 21.42(1)) did not list an ASTM standard for propellers because one did not exist at that time. In 2007 an ASTM standard for fixed pitch and ground adjustable propellers was produced, and as our AC has not been revised it still does not include this standard. The reason that the ASTM standard for propellers was (and is currently) for fixed pitch and ground adjustable propellers only is that the standard was developed mainly for the USA market and FAA rules which only allow for a fixed pitch or ground adjustable propeller to be used on an LSA. There is no ASTM standarddeveloped for inflight adjustable or constant speed propellers, there are however other propeller standards available and hence the reference to the CASR and FAR standards in the power point presentation.

 

Unfortunately there is a common perception in industry that because CASA agreed that inflight adjustable propellers or constant speed propellers could be used, it didn’t matter that they did not meet a known standard. This was not CASA’s intention at all, but unfortunately the AC does not accurately reflect this.

 

Regardless of this, manufacturers are responsible for declaring under the statement of compliance that the aircraft propeller meets a known an accepted standard, however, many of these manufactures have sold aircraft to people without the aircraft meeting known and acceptable standards. Maintaining these standards was the greatest requirement for any manufacturer, unfortunately those who have chosen not to be duly diligent now have aircraft with propellers that do not meet any known or accepted standard.

 

CASA form 681, which is required to be completed by the manufacturer (copy attached), can be misleading in this respect. In the section Applicable LSA Standards of the form, it indicates the following in respect to propellers: Propeller (if applicable): the problem here is that manufacturers have not been listing a standard for the propeller because they believe that it isNot applicable. In fact for a LSA powered fixed wing aircraft the Propeller Standard IS applicable.

 

To summarise, the LSA rules have not been changed, they have just been misinterpreted.

 

As such, we now have LSA aircraft operating in Australia being used in flight training facilities, and conducting flights over populous areas, with constant speed and inflight adjustable propellers that have not been certified by the manufacturer as meeting a known standard.

 

Essentially they are effectively Experimental Propellers and as such need to be treated as such and have applicable operational conditions applied, until such time as they meet a known standard. Although some of these propellers have been operating for some time without any known concerns or issues, SASAO is aware of at least one type that has caused an accident after the mechanism failed and the propeller went to full coarse. The aircraft was unable to maintain level flight and crashed into trees on the edge of Wedderburn airstrip.

 

CASA is focusing on safety in respect to IFAPs since the discovery of the issue and the standard was applicablewhen LSA was introduced in 2006.

 

Regards

 

XXXXXXXXX

 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________-

 

 

[eightyknots]

I wonder why there is such angst about CS/IFA props in Australia? I understand that in New Zealand these props can be used on aircraft on the "microlight" part of the aircraft register ....similar to RA-Aus planes in Australia.

 

 

[djpacro]

No angst, just a basic rule of aircraft certification. LSA can be registered VH and used for some aerial work. You get a choice with type of aircraft, category of registration and category of certification. Decide how you want to operate and then simply follow the applicable rules.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Yet, there seems to have been some kind of CASA "goal post shift" over the last seven years. It's a pity that those who have used the CS/IFA props until now, will have to remove them :-(

 

 

[facthunter]

Unsafe CS or IFA adjustable props have much more potential for safety related concerns than might appear at first glance. The structural integrity is one, maintenance, inspection and functionality are others. Operational technique also can cause loss of flight performance, or engine damage.

 

IF some props are OK in UK or Europe one would thing some "standard " would be out there somewhere. Maybe some of them are not up to any standard worth talking about.

 

Unless your plane cruises above 120 knots you will probable be able to get a fairly good fixed pitch prop to work fairly well. Much above that will mean some loss of performance but remember Hurricanes and early Spitfires had fixed pitch props, as well as the Schneider Trophy seaplanes. Nev

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

For Those truly interested read my post 11 - 15 - 17 on this thread , and read my posting headed http://recreationalflying.com/threads/unbelieveable.58765/ Below is a communication I had with CASA , names are taken off but anyone truly interested PM me for info. My Aircraft is 100% legal and none of this applies to me but I do feel there is a problem. I have sent this letter to a person that is actively involved in the sale of aircraft that have In flight Adjustable props as an option.

 

I am starting to wonder if Casa is interested in safety or just causing problems as now the sports aviation LSA rules are being changed in relation to constant speed and in-fight adjustable propellors. Seehttp://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100159/d2p7_lsa.pdf

 

I am disappointed with the process as if things are approved then why pull the plug and change the rules unless safety is a concern. There was no standard for props then they apply one and already approved aircraft are audited.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/02/lsas-with-in-fligh-adjustable-prop/

 

I feel Casa should focus on safety, why was the standand not applied before as it was 7 years ago, why now ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNCLASSIFIED

 

Dear XXXXXXXXX

 

 

 

On behalf of the Director of Aviation Safety, thank you for your feedback email.

 

 

 

The issues you have raised are complex and below is some lengthy information provided by our Self Administering Sport Aviation Organisations Section. I hope it assists you.

 

 

 

 

 

The power point presentation you link to in your email is one that Mick Poole, Technical Officer SASAO, presented at the manufacturers seminar in Brisbane early last year after discovering the concerns with LSA and inflight adjustable propellers. The LSA rules have not been changed in respect to Constant speed and inflight adjustable propellers (IFAP), they are currently under increased scrutiny by SASAO.

 

 

 

When LSA was introduced to Australia in 2006 the AC that was produced (AC 21.42(1)) did not list an ASTM standard for propellers because one did not exist at that time. In 2007 an ASTM standard for fixed pitch and ground adjustable propellers was produced, and as our AC has not been revised it still does not include this standard. The reason that the ASTM standard for propellers was (and is currently) for fixed pitch and ground adjustable propellers only is that the standard was developed mainly for the USA market and FAA rules which only allow for a fixed pitch or ground adjustable propeller to be used on an LSA. There is no ASTM standarddeveloped for inflight adjustable or constant speed propellers, there are however other propeller standards available and hence the reference to the CASR and FAR standards in the power point presentation.

 

 

 

Unfortunately there is a common perception in industry that because CASA agreed that inflight adjustable propellers or constant speed propellers could be used, it didn’t matter that they did not meet a known standard. This was not CASA’s intention at all, but unfortunately the AC does not accurately reflect this.

 

 

 

Regardless of this, manufacturers are responsible for declaring under the statement of compliance that the aircraft propeller meets a known an accepted standard, however, many of these manufactures have sold aircraft to people without the aircraft meeting known and acceptable standards. Maintaining these standards was the greatest requirement for any manufacturer, unfortunately those who have chosen not to be duly diligent now have aircraft with propellers that do not meet any known or accepted standard.

 

 

 

CASA form 681, which is required to be completed by the manufacturer (copy attached), can be misleading in this respect. In the section Applicable LSA Standards of the form, it indicates the following in respect to propellers: Propeller (if applicable): the problem here is that manufacturers have not been listing a standard for the propeller because they believe that it isNot applicable. In fact for a LSA powered fixed wing aircraft the Propeller Standard IS applicable.

 

 

 

Thanks for this Camel, this is a far more detailed but similar explanation I outlined in my earlier post, I trust it demystifies the issue for refers of this forum and pilots and owners affected. More importantly I hope it highlights to importers and distributors their responsibility in a largely unregulated consumer market where the purchaser needs to very diligent in their purchase decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________-

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Thanks for this Camel, this is a far more detailed but similar explanation I outlined in my earlier post, I trust it demystifies the issue for refers of this forum and pilots and owners affected. More importantly I hope it highlights to importers and distributors their responsibility in a largely unregulated consumer market where the purchaser needs to very diligent in their purchase decisions