RAA Registration with IFA prop

[pj8768]

Has anyone successfully had their plane re-registered with inflight adjustable prop since the rego issue cropped up?

 

I asked this question in another thread "a/c gen disc" but was underwhelmed with the response, which may mean I am one amongst many in this rego limbo issue, and the answer is zero.

 

Note updated ASTM rules for manufacturers compliance statements for ifa props.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Our plane we are buying was shifted from 24 to e24 because even with the ASTM rules allowing IFA props. RAA wouldnt continue to rego it in 24. CASA is still saying, ok new installs will be ok, but installs put on 5 or 6 or 3 years ago do not comply, even if they use the exact same IFA prop today.

 

So no luck here.

 

It would be great if someone who knows enough could draft a letter we could all print off and send to Warren Truss or other relevant politicians, as it seems on this issue CASA really is behaving badly, and the only people it seems who have the power to change this is the minister and other politicians.

 

 

[pj8768]

What's annoying is the plane, an Evektor sportstar built 2007 with woodcomp manual IFA prop installed by factory when built, was originally VH registered when it arrived here. So CASA happy with it then. Converted to RAA 24- in 2008.

 

My limited understanding of VH rego is that it is a one off, not an annual renewal as in RAA. Presumably if it had remained VH registered it wouldn't have been caught in this bureacratic web.

 

 

[pj8768]

Our plane we are buying was shifted from 24 to e24 because even with the ASTM rules allowing IFA props. RAA wouldnt continue to rego it in 24. CASA is still saying, ok new installs will be ok, but installs put on 5 or 6 or 3 years ago do not comply, even if they use the exact same IFA prop today.So no luck here.

 

It would be great if someone who knows enough could draft a letter we could all print off and send to Warren Truss or other relevant politicians, as it seems on this issue CASA really is behaving badly, and the only people it seems who have the power to change this is the minister and other politicians.

 

 

Tell me, what's your understanding of flying e24 over developed areas? Have you received approval from tech manager?

 

I'm considering e24 as I've been underwhelmed from the "assistance" from the distributors so far, but regularly fly through class C with PPL - so e24 would only be ok if this could continue.

 

Maybe an aviation solicitor might help, but probably cheaper buying new fixed prop or setting fire to wallet.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So if there is now an ASTM standard that covers IFA props, then to have that be of use to you doesnt the prop manufacturer have to generate an apprpriate statement ( and i dont know what form that would take) that says the props model V from date X and serial number Y meet the ASTM standard W

 

Without something like that then the standard alone is useless isnt it?

 

I can see that doing so from this date forward is of advantage to him in ability to sell but cant see too,much upside in arrears unless the manufacturer was very sure of the standards he used and his record keeping? Reputation vs business risk

 

Andy

 

 

[pj8768]

I had slightly conflicting advice.

 

One distributor I spoke to said

 

Need to obtain 2 statements:

 

1. From Evektor - Letter of Approval - indicating fitting of that prop is approved.

 

2. From Woodcomp - Statement of Compliance - referring to ASTM F2506-13, indicating that the prop is compliant.

 

The tech manager only mentioned statement from evektor.

 

I imagine others have previously submitted statement X as requested, only to receive request for Y, and then after X+Y, reminded to get Z as well.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So is 2) available?

 

Without it i think you'll struggle.

 

I dont think this is a raaus only issue, LSA is same age raaus as VH and i suspect that youd have the same questions VH just maybe from who ever issues your maintenance release rather than rego......( with guiding prompts from CASA to the LAME first)

 

Andy

 

 

[DrZoos]

A friend spoke with RRA today and i believe there might be a break through either just happened or about to happen. Me personally i wrote a letter to Warren Truss to inform him of the ridiculous situation and hoped he might step in and help Casa see some sense.

 

 

[DrZoos]

My extremely limited understanding of e24 is its identical to 24 except you have something on the aircraft that does not conform to ASTM. I believe it does not affect where you can fly. But it does mean you cannot train in or rent the aircraft out.

 

 

[pj8768]

I hope that might explain the lack of response from the distributor - waiting for a decent decision from up high to be made.

 

The distributor did indicate they had been instrumental in driving the new ASTM, to cover both Evektor and Flight synth that they often distribute with IFA props.

 

The frustrating thing is the uncertainty - I'm sure there are plenty out there who have waited months on the rego issue, but not knowing whether you might get stuffed around for weeks, months or a year is just wrong.

 

I might as well write a letter to Warren Truss as well. Any point trying RAA board member as well or are they impotent in this issue?

 

 

[DrZoos]

I dont know if RAA can do anything more then they are doing. In my opinion it seems to be beligerance by some "public servant" oops road block further up in CASA. And only a minister can do anything about that.

 

The entire situation is ridiculous, should never have happened . Let alone dragged on. CASA needs to be taken to task on this, and a minister is the only one that can do anything bout it.

 

 

[pj8768]

My extremely limited understanding of e24 is its identical to 24 except you have something on the aircraft that does not conform to ASTM. I believe it does not affect where you can fly. But it does mean you cannot train in or rent the aircraft out.

That's good - goes along withwhat the CAR etc stuff seems to say.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Raaus get to execute casa policy we dont get any ability to position to either side especially as any determinations are being checked by casa delegates.

 

Andy

 

 

[pj8768]

If the RTA did something similar to car registrations there'ld be riots.

 

Did the CASA public servant consider- Grace period vs grounding the entire fleet.

 

Changing the goal posts several years later, reinterpreting or re-administering the rules - is there an admission somewhere that someone, somewhere, stuffed up several years ago?

 

Any lawyer types out there? Class action anyone?

 

Perhaps the more letters to the minister, the better.

 

I can't see how a bit of paper miraculously improves safety, on a plane whose flying characteristics are now second nature.

 

How would swapping to a fixed prop improve my safety in this plane?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

If the RTA did something similar to car registrations there'ld be riots.Did the CASA public servant consider- Grace period vs grounding the entire fleet.

 

Changing the goal posts several years later, reinterpreting or re-administering the rules - is there an admission somewhere that someone, somewhere, stuffed up several years ago?

 

Any lawyer types out there? Class action anyone?

 

Perhaps the more letters to the minister, the better.

 

I can't see how a bit of paper miraculously improves safety, on a plane whose flying characteristics are now second nature.

 

How would swapping to a fixed prop improve my safety in this plane?

Cant argue with you, however as long as its clear RAAus has 0% ability to do anything other than what it has.

 

Arguably in years gone understanding LSA as we didn't back then initial registration shouldn't have been provided by RAAus, nor indeed by CASA before it........Reality is that LSA is cheaper than traditionally Type certified or primary category aircraft for a reason.....

 

People going through the process now with new aircraft etc wouldn't or rather shouldn't suffer the same issues....but I'm sure that's cold comfort to you.

 

Andy

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

If the RTA did something similar to car registrations there'ld be riots.Did the CASA public servant consider- Grace period vs grounding the entire fleet.

 

Changing the goal posts several years later, reinterpreting or re-administering the rules - is there an admission somewhere that someone, somewhere, stuffed up several years ago?

 

Any lawyer types out there? Class action anyone?

 

Perhaps the more letters to the minister, the better.

 

I can't see how a bit of paper miraculously improves safety, on a plane whose flying characteristics are now second nature.

 

How would swapping to a fixed prop improve my safety in this plane?

Please correct me if I have this wrongly - but my understanding is that the aircraft manufacturer of an LSA must declare that the aircraft as a whole - i.e. including the engine and propeller - complies with the ASTM standard (or whatever standard applies in the particular case). For that to include an IFA propeller, firstly the standard against which the manufacturer is declaring compliance must not exclude such a propeller; and secondly, there must be a declaration of compliance by the manufacturer of the propeller. So if you have an LSA that had a fixed-pitch propeller on it when the manufacturer made his original declaration, then fitting an IFA propeller (or in fact ANY different propeller) subsequently constitutes a modification, which ONLY the original aircraft manufacturere can approve.

 

If you are talking about a type certificated aircraft, then a propeller change can be approved by a third party, which would normally be CASA because such a change is a major modification and would nowadays normally require an STC (can be a one-off STC). IFA propellers are normally subject to vibratory stress survey requirements for each engine type, whereas FP wood propellers do not require this.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

It was pointed out to me that what I posted above technically was incorrect.

 

What I should have said was :-

 

while its logical that the prop manufacturer should have certified the prop technically it’s not required because in order to register the aircraft, the prop compliance statement of itself is useless, for registration purposes its all about the aircraft OEM’s statement of compliance for the combination aircraft / prop. As a prudent owner, however, such a statement of compliance for the prop is very useful because it identifies that the prop has been tested against at least one known standard.

 

I'm further told that the majority of Woodcomp props are certified to standards beyond that called out in the new ASTM standard and as such the effort the Aircraft OEM needs to expend to produce a statement of compliance for LSA purposes for the Aircraft prop mix is much less than if they had to test the prop to the ASTM standards themselves.

 

Sorry for confusion...I was right practically but wrong in that for Rego purposes its the aircraft OEM statement that is the only one that allows or disallows registration.

 

Andy

 

 

[pj8768]

This plane, like what I'm told is in the same boat as others caught in this mess, has only had one prop. Uno. Une. Eins.

 

Built by evektor Jan 2007 with Woodcomp prop fitted by Evektor. Shipped Australia, regsitered with CASA, and swapped to RAA 24- when distributor had no GA buyers.

 

The plane has never been modified, other than oil filter changes, brake pads, and a set of fluffy dice.

 

Both Evektor and Woodcomp are Czech so I'm sure it's a common combination.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

<wanders away to check ASTM standard for fluffy dice... But only out of interest cause its the oems acceptance of said dice that matters>

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

This plane, like what I'm told is in the same boat as others caught in this mess, has only had one prop. Uno. Une. Eins.Built by evektor Jan 2007 with Woodcomp prop fitted by Evektor. Shipped Australia, regsitered with CASA, and swapped to RAA 24- when distributor had no GA buyers.

 

The plane has never been modified, other than oil filter changes, brake pads, and a set of fluffy dice.

 

Both Evektor and Woodcomp are Czech so I'm sure it's a common combination.

Are you being logical AGAIN? I'm sure I spoke to you about that . . .

 

 

[dodo]

For that to include an IFA propeller, firstly the standard against which the manufacturer is declaring compliance must not exclude such a propeller; and secondly, there must be a declaration of compliance by the manufacturer of the propeller.

In the RA cases, I think the aircraft were supplied as compliant with the prop from the manufacturer...so that sounds OK

 

However, if the US doesn't accept LSAs with IFA props, perhaps the ASTM standard doesn't allow for IFA props?

 

Otherwise, I can't see why CASA would have a problem with these.

 

dodo

 

 

[dodo]

Update - apparently the props are not certified by the prop manufacturer as ASTM compliant, therefore cannot be certified by the manufacturer as compliant...pretty much as Dafydd said.

 

dodo

 

 

[frank marriott]

As asked earlier by someone, can anyone point to the actual limitations of ELSA.

 

It is clear only for private use i.e. no training other then for the owner. After some reading I have a non conclusive opinion. I get the feeling that CTA is also not available, but I may have missed or misread something. It is of no consequence to myself, but I have been asked by a friend who had to register ELSA (in flight adjustable prop) My answer was I am not sure, but I think not. As it is not an option for the individual at present, but it is of interest for him down the track.

 

Someone might be able to point me to where I am wrong. ( I mean legislation as opposed to just opinion)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Update - apparently the props are not certified by the prop manufacturer as ASTM compliant, therefore cannot be certified by the manufacturer as compliant...pretty much as Dafydd said.dodo

I used exactly this argument with an importer I spoke to and they pointed out that while the prop wasn't manufactured by the Aircraft OEM, neither was the engine, the tyres, the brakes, the paint, the aluminium etc etc......at what point do you require subcontractor certification. For that matter does a U/L Rotax 912 meet a specific ASTM requirement (and I ask that not knowing the answer....)

 

So what? Well if the Aircraft Manufacturer is being pulled up by a CAA saying "show us ya suppliers certification" then why don't they similarly ask for engine certification and all those other things as well......

 

I admit it made my head hurt thinking about where the line is and given that the whole thing to self certification is the "Self" bit.....I wondered what right a CAA has to ask for anything beyond the OEM certification......Sort of suggests a lack of trust or previous history at some point, or is it just par for course with LSA which is an enormous shift from traditional approaches to aircraft manufacturing and CAA certification of the result.

 

Andy

 

 

[pylon500]

So, the way I see it, the ultralight needs to be built using materials that are certified by a release note.

 

It has to be built in a world standard accepted workshop, fitted with parts from manufacturers that have previously had said parts certified, including engines, instruments, props, wheels, brakes and seat covers.

 

Then the ultralight manufacturer has to supply their own certification to comply with the American LSA system, which is then blindly copied by CASA, who then enforce the removal of any optional parts that were OK to supply with the ultralight when previously sold to the Australian ultralight community while operating under the original 101:55 rules?

 

On top of that, CASA decides that while changing 101:55 to LSA, they don't like the idea of mere manufacturers (the people that thought up, designed, built, marketed and hold the responsibility for the ultralight) having the right how the aircraft is used, so they (CASA) reissue their own certificate for the ultralight before it can fly.......

 

The only thing now missing LSA ultralights is the VH at the beginning of the rego !!