CAVEAT EMPTOR

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

CAVEAT EMPTOR

 

This article does not apply to those hardy individuals who design their own scratch-built aircraft; however if you’re contemplating the purchase of a factory-built aircraft, and you wish to survive the experience, here is some important information:

 

Many people assume that a factory-built aircraft has the automatic assurance of meeting Government-mandated standards for airworthiness, safety etc. and that therefore one does not need to look beyond the fact that it IS a factory-built aircraft to have such confidence. Having rather taken that for granted, they then turn to the published information - particularly claimed performance (which is not necessarily the same as actual performance in real-life) to make their purchase decisions because they believe that safety etc. is effectively guaranteed. Is this realistic and safe?

 

Sadly, NO. Definitely NOT. In the area of recreational aircraft; you need to know what you are looking at.

 

Firstly, the benefit of direct government overview of the design and manufacture process is confined to aircraft that have a Type Certificate (or a Type Acceptance Certificate) and a Certificate of Airworthiness. Only a National Airworthiness Authority can issue a Type Certificate or a Type Acceptance certificate – and they do not do so lightly, at least if they are ICAO signatories and want to stay that way.

 

If you are offered a product for which a Type Certificate is claimed, ask to see a copy. You should also be able to download the corresponding Type Certificate Data Sheet from the relevant Authority’s web site; see, for example, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration site:

 

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

 

RULE 1: If it has not got a TCDS, it is NOT certificated.

 

Is that all there is to it? Unfortunately, NO. Question 2 is, against what design standard is the TC issued? To discover this, look in the back part of the TCDS, where it says “Data applicable to all models”, and find the “Certification Basis”.

 

A Type Certificate is a certificate issued by the responsible national airworthiness authority, attesting that the product was investigated and found to meet a specific product safety standard (design standard). TCs are issued for aircraft, engines, and propellers only. The certification basis is that product safety standard. It’s written in shorthand form in the TCDS; here’s a short guide to translation:

 

Ground Floor:

 

CAR 3: Means U.S. Civil Air Regulations, Part 3. Almost all the older single-engine Cessnas, Pipers and Beech aircraft were certificated to this standard. It was superseded in about 1965 by US Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 23 (which came into being partly as a response to the efforts of Ralph Nader, who stated that government should legislate for the results, not the methods needed to achieve them). It was used under “grandfather clauses” until quite recently, where a manufacturer was raising a new model of an existing aeroplane.

 

FAR 23: Means U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 23. The later versions of most light aeroplanes are certificated against this standard; however it’s not that simple, either, because we’re currently up to amendment 58 of FAR 23, and it’s often necessary to delve into the actual amendment status that was used. FAR 23 stays up to date, so any aeroplane certificated against it, was pretty much up to current standards as they were at that time. FAR 23 has word-for-word equivalence with the European standard, CS 23 (used to be JAR 23). It is the practical international standard for light aircraft.

 

JAR-VLA (now CS-VLA). This is a sub-set of FAR 23, for two-place aeroplanes up to 750 Kg., whose Vso stall speed does not exceed 45 Kts CAS. It has international acceptance. It does not allow aerobatics or instrument or night flying. JAR stands for the European Joint Airworthiness Requirements; however the Euro Joint Airworthiness Authority has now been taken over by the European Aviation Safety Authority, (EASA), and the old JAR standards are now called CS standards.

 

These standards (and a few now superseded national standards) allow an aircraft to be given a “standard” certificate of airworthiness. This means, a Certificate of Airworthiness that is recognised under ICAO Annex 8, which allows one to operate the aeroplane in the airspace of any ICAO-signatory country.

 

OK, that’s the ground floor, as far as small personal aeroplanes goes. Now we come to the next level down, which is where modern recreational aeroplanes begin.

 

Basement 1:

 

The next level, is where the design standard is a “watered-down” standard, but the certification is still done by the National Airworthiness Authority.

 

Standards of this sort include Australian Civil Aviation Order 101.55, and British Civil Airworthiness Regulations, Part S (BCAR S). Primary category sort of fits in here, too, though it’s not, strictly speaking, a design standard.

 

You can download Type Certificate Data Sheets for this class of aircraft; see, for example,

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_93274

 

For this class of aircraft, the design standard has been somewhat simplified, leaving out aspects that were not, at the time, considered necessary for recreational aeroplanes; the requirement to demonstrate an adequate safe fatigue life, for instance, or to declare a limiting speed in rough air, or to prove it can recover from a spin, or its safety in the event of an overturn, and such trivia. (more recent standards have, so some extent, recitified such omissions – but not always very effectively). In some standards (e.g. CAO 101.55), the actual clauses were negotiable. CAO 101.55 is a “shell” standard, within which the applicant was allowed to elect to use any of a variety of recognised standards – but not to “cherry pick” the easy bits.

 

However, within the limitations of the watered-down standard, the Government was still in there, protecting the consumer. These aircraft are eligible for a Special Airworthiness Certificate (if they are VH-registered); “Special” means the certificate is recognised only in the country of issue.

 

Basement 2: Mezzanine

 

Now we come to a level where the Government does NOT guarantee that the product complies with a recognised standard.

 

This is the level of factory-built Light Sports Aircraft (LSA). The standard was NOT put into place by the Government; it was raised by a private body, the American Society for the Testing of Materials (ASTM). It’s not actually a bad standard, if it’s properly applied, however there are some notable weak spots in it, for example in regard to the means of demonstrating freedom from flutter. However, the important bit is that the manufacturer does NOT have to prove to the steely-eyed agents of the National Airworthiness Authority that every clause has been properly met; under certain conditions, he is allowed to make a unilateral declaration to that effect, with no third-party overview whatever.

 

This would be all right, if the manufacturer is both knowledgable and responsible. Many of them are. However, it has aspects of putting the fox in charge of the hen-house, just the same, because the method of enforcement is by charging the manufacturer with fraud if it turns out he made a false declaration. This means, it’s a recipe for “regulation by litigation” - improvements are made when it becomes too expensive through litigation for the manufacturer to risk no t making them. There is increasing evidence that some manufacturers who really do not have sufficient knowledge are making declarations that shouldn’t ought to be made. See http://search.alot.com/web?q=light-sport+aircraft+manufacturers+assessment

 

For these aircraft, you cannot download a TCDS, because there isn’t one. These aircraft are NOT certificated by any national airworthiness authority. You can’t examine the certification basis (you can assume it’s the ASTM consensus standard, but it may not be). If the manufacturer turns out to have made a false declaration, your dependents can sue the manufacturer for fraud. (Good luck).

 

In this area, one finds some very emotive advertising – long on “sex appeal” but short on hard fact. Factory-built LSA aeroplanes are eligible for a Special Airworthiness certificate in Australia – but you need to read the fine print on the certificate. Best bet here is to choose a manufacturer who has a long reputation – but even that is not a guarantee. Oh, and watch the insurance hull rate, on this class of aircraft -- those with bad accident records and high cost of repair will inevitably attract higher premiums than those with a good accident history and lower repair costs.

 

“Bargain” basement:

 

Here we have the various aircraft types that were “accepted” by various non-government bodies in their country of origin. This is often the case for aircraft from Eastern European countries. These aircraft may not comply with any particular design standard – or if they do, it will often be a homespun thing, full of holes – and there will be no authoritative third-party overview. You will not be able to find a TCDS or even what the design standard actually said; just lots of hype about what a marvellous device it is. These may be “accepted” under CAO 95.55.1.6(a)(i)(B). This means the RAA has no discretion about accepting these aircraft and the idea that the RAA, as a delegated authority under CASA, can protect you, the buyer, from being offered a substandard product is entirely false. Yes, CASA is supposed to overview acceptance but it rarely intervenes unless there is a demonstrated history of problem/s with a particular aircraft that basically forces CASA's hand. As a prospective owner of an aircraft you almost certainly do not want to become part of that 'demonstrated history'.

 

The importer is, in principle, liable under the Trade Practices Act as though he were the manufacturer. However, if you buy through an importing company and you ultimately need to litigate against that company for defects in the aircraft, you may find yourself without adequate redress if the company does not have the resources / insurance to meet a judgement.

 

This sort of aircraft has produced the sort of lethal thing shown below. The manufacturer’s website states that it has four-point harness. So it does; they didn’t say it was attached so as to provide any useful protection. (It had a single layer of light glass either side of the ply). They didn’t say it met any safety standard at all. People don’t ask those questions, evidently.

 

Perhaps they should - and as in the case of the aircraft in which those harnesses were installed, while they are still alive to do so..

 

 

 

[paulh]

I don’t usually comment on this type of thread, as they can get a little pointed with “discussion” about the application of the rules etc., and my own knowledge would fit on a postage stamp – however posts like this from knowledgeable experienced people like Dafydd always make me think of the human behaviours at play when people are assessing an aircraft purchase - seems to be a whole different set of criteria than when making a purchase for other forms of transport or recreational vehicle.

 

Not many would even consider a new car with a $100k or so price tag that wasn’t well engineered and didn't have a 5 star safety rating, or a new boat that wasn’t from a reputable designer/manufacturer that had proven the design with robust testing.

 

This a completely separate issue from ultra light aircraft strength limitations due to weight limits etc. and very much “caveat emptor” . Apparently with very little in the way of consumer protection that we are used to in Aus, but conversely still with all the other usual liability risks attached to the operator.

 

Seems to me the LSA rules may have been in part an effort to reduce the cost of certification and release the potential of the free market from excessive Government control, but the pendulum has gone too far out from the centre and the regulators are not happy with some of the consequences - perhaps the pendulum will get pulled back a bit. Looking at the photo of the harness anchorage it needs to.

 

Or maybe I missed the point completely

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I don’t usually comment on this type of thread, as they can get a little pointed with “discussion” about the application of the rules etc., and my own knowledge would fit on a postage stamp – however posts like this from knowledgeable experienced people like Dafydd always make me think of the human behaviours at play when people are assessing an aircraft purchase - seems to be a whole different set of criteria than when making a purchase for other forms of transport or recreational vehicle.Not many would even consider a new car with a $100k or so price tag that wasn’t well engineered and didn't have a 5 star safety rating, or a new boat that wasn’t from a reputable designer/manufacturer that had proven the design with robust testing.

 

This a completely separate issue from ultra light aircraft strength limitations due to weight limits etc. and very much “caveat emptor” . Apparently with very little in the way of consumer protection that we are used to in Aus, but conversely still with all the other usual liability risks attached to the operator.

 

Seems to me the LSA rules may have been in part an effort to reduce the cost of certification and release the potential of the free market from excessive Government control, but the pendulum has gone too far out from the centre and the regulators are not happy with some of the consequences - perhaps the pendulum will get pulled back a bit. Looking at the photo of the harness anchorage it needs to.

 

Or maybe I missed the point completely

No, you got it dead right.

 

 

[arielle]

Anyone priced a new GA aircraft lately? Caveat emptor, definitely, but you can't have it both ways.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Anyone priced a new GA aircraft lately? Caveat emptor, definitely, but you can't have it both ways.

Sure - your choice, pal, but make it with full knowledge.

 

 

[rgmwa]

Seems to me the LSA rules may have been in part an effort to reduce the cost of certification and release the potential of the free market from excessive Government control, but the pendulum has gone too far out from the centre and the regulators are not happy with some of the consequences - perhaps the pendulum will get pulled back a bit. Looking at the photo of the harness anchorage it needs to.Or maybe I missed the point completely

I don't think you have missed the point. To add to the confusion, LSA standards and rules are not the same worldwide. For example:

 

1. In the US, the top speed at sea level for an LSA is limited to 120 kts, but there is no such limit in Australia. We are also happy to allow higher stall speeds than the US.

 

2. If you build a kit ELSA in the US, the kit manufacturer (not you) is officially the builder of your aircraft. Not so in Australia, where CASA's view (quite reasonable I think) is that if you built it, you are the builder and it's your name on the registration plate, not the kit manufacturer's.

 

3. In the US and here, to register your plane as an ELSA, it has to be an exact copy of the manufacturer's original SLSA prototype. However in the US, they have a bizarre rule that once you have passed the inspection for your ELSA certificate, you can make whatever changes you like to your aircraft as long as those changes don't violate the LSA performance parameters. Where does that leave the aircraft manufacturer, whose is still the registered `builder' of your now modified aircraft?

 

4. Under the RAA rules, I think (may be wrong) that the builder can sign of the annuals for an ELSA, however you can't do that with a VH registered ELSA.

 

The whole thing's a bit of a mess. However if you do decide to build or buy an LSA, it would at least be advisable to get one from a reputable manufacturer.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I don't think you have missed the point. To add to the confusion, LSA standards and rules are not the same worldwide. For example:1. In the US, the top speed at sea level for an LSA is limited to 120 kts, but there is no such limit in Australia. We are also happy to allow higher stall speeds than the US.

2. If you build a kit ELSA in the US, the kit manufacturer (not you) is officially the builder of your aircraft. Not so in Australia, where CASA's view (quite reasonable I think) is that if you built it, you are the builder and it's your name on the registration plate, not the kit manufacturer's.

 

3. In the US and here, to register your plane as an ELSA, it has to be an exact copy of the manufacturer's original SLSA prototype. However in the US, they have a bizarre rule that once you have passed the inspection for your ELSA certificate, you can make whatever changes you like to your aircraft as long as those changes don't violate the LSA performance parameters. Where does that leave the aircraft manufacturer, whose is still the registered `builder' of your now modified aircraft?

 

4. Under the RAA rules, I think (may be wrong) that the builder can sign of the annuals for an ELSA, however you can't do that with a VH registered ELSA.

 

The whole thing's a bit of a mess. However if you do decide to build or buy an LSA, it would at least be advisable to get one from a reputable manufacturer.

 

rgmwa

The the top speed and stall speed differences were applied to the Australian LSA rules as a result of representation at the time by (amongst others) Bill Whitney and myself; the reasons are: (1) The top speed in level flight (Vh) is essentially controlled by the stall speed; very few aeroplanes manage better than four times the stall speed - so there is no practical necessity to limit both the stall speed and Vh; limiting either one will suffice. (2) Putting the limit on the VSO stall speed rather than the flaps-retracted stall speed, allows a higher wing loading, which helps to reduce the gust loads. Australia has a more severe environment in regard to turbulent air than is commonly indicated elsewhere. Neither change prevents foreign LSA types from being accepted here, but Australian designed ones are likely to be safer in typical Australian summer conditions, and generally more practical aircraft. We thought this to be no bad thing.