MARAP

[Guest Andys@coffs]

lets be cautious of terminology...repairs isn't necessarily modification...... repairs where something is broken, replace it, is just maintenance and the MARAP process doesn't apply........

 

maintain airworthiness has specific meaning....The aircraft was airworthy and now it isn't....restoration of the aircraft back to airworthiness as it was is not a MARAP modification as I understand it..... but I have no more technical airworthiness knowledge than you do so my answer is worth at least the 0c you paid for it

 

 

[Ron5335]

Andy,

 

Thank you for your comments and interest in the matter, but I think you have missed something.

 

The the title of the program is Maintenance And Repair Process.

 

So to "Repair something that is broken" Does fall into the category.

 

Your Grandfathering comment in the previous post gives me a bit of glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

 

At the moment I can't see how this will bring up the level of safety, it tends to make people dive for cover.

 

 

[Oscar]

At first blush, this appears to be another case of CASA not actually understanding the meaning of its own damn regulations (as was the case with CASA including experimental aircraft in the restrictions on Jabiru engines, which is clearly contrary to the exemptions for experimental aircraft).

 

This requires examination by someone extremely familiar with the actual CASR's. I'll P.M. you.

 

 

[Ron5335]

Whoops,

 

I left out the Approval in the MARAP

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So this was the email that was sent out to members:-

 

If you read it tell me how many time maintenance is discussed and how many time modification is discussed

 

An amendment to CAO 95.55 was released on 24 February 2015. The amendment will allow Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus) to authorise and permit modifications to RA-Aus registered type certified and amateur built aircraft. This process does not apply to LSA aircraft. These amendments are in the form of 2 new subparagraphs (1.2 (d) (iv) and 6.1 (f) (iv)). Apart from this, there are no changes to the existing contents of CAO 95.55 except for updating certain provisions, including the exempting provisions mentioned in section 3. The changes only involve removing outdated references that are no longer in force and replacing them as necessary. In relation to the amendments of CAO 95.55 that permit RA-Aus to approve modifications to RA-Aus registered type certified and amateur built aircraft, these have been agreed after CASA was satisfied with the relevant procedures set out in the RA-Aus Technical Manual amendments. A MARAP frequently asked questions document (FAQ) is available under the Technical tab on the website or by clicking here. MARAP will enable members to apply to modify their type certified and amateur built aircraft. Some examples of modifications include but are not limited to engines, propellers and MTOW increases. In some circumstances applications may take up to 12 months, however in others the time to process the application may be shorter. Recreational Aviation members will be able to make application using the Tech Manual form 014. Members will also be required to complete and provide an Aircraft Condition Report (ACR). Section 7.4.3 Annex B of the Technical Manual covers this requirement, which must be completed by a suitably qualified RA-Aus L2 privilege holder.

 

When an application is received the Technical Manager will review the application and make the initial decision to accept or refuse the application based on the information supplied by the applicant with Tech Form 014. In some circumstances the Technical Manager may request further information for clarity and/or additional data. Members should follow the below 5 steps to familiarise themselves with the formal application process. Recreational Aviation Australia will further advise members of the necessary processes to follow as they become available. Any initial enquiries can be sent to [email protected]

 

Step 1 – read the FAQ

 

Step 2 – read MARAP process document

 

Step 3 – download tech manual form 014

 

Step 4 – Arrange completion of an Aircraft Condition Report

 

Step 5 – Deliver the completed documentation package to [email protected] or mail it to PO Box 1265, Fyshwick ACT 2609.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy,Thank you for your comments and interest in the matter, but I think you have missed something.

 

The the title of the program is Maintenance And Repair Process.

 

So to "Repair something that is broken" Does fall into the category.

 

Your Grandfathering comment in the previous post gives me a bit of glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

 

At the moment I can't see how this will bring up the level of safety, it tends to make people dive for cover.

No it isn't........ Its Modification and Repair Approval process. The AND is important! its not to be read as Or, that is, repairs are only its remit if they are part of modification...Repairs that are part of standard maintenance where you pull off a broken bit X and replace it with a new X (where X is exactly the same) is not, as I understand it, part of the MARAP process.

 

Did you guys read the FAQ, and the process document that the email linked to?

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes a repair is a repair, replacement with IDENTICAL components, to fit an improved one or anything which isnt a repair is modification

 

Ive spent hours reviewing CASR and RAA documents and I truely cant see in them, other than that for factory LSA, where the issue is discussed, i asked Darren, as you ased me, where it says you cant modify, no reply yet.

 

Following advice to my incompetance and reeling in guilt for not understanding the rules we have operted under for 19 years.

 

If asked of course CASA are going to include them in needing approval. Nice work making reality match the perception

 

Watch how fast they can ammend regs when a hole is pointed out to them

 

but that makes it the same as experimental CofA, ( which is not Experimental LSA). Id assume then they will qualify for access to CTA ???

 

as different to special CofA (for factory built LSA) as different to experimental LSA which has experimental LSA CofA

 

Which of course is differnt for a modified special CofA which reverts to Experimental LSA CofA but carries E rego. This is modified factory built LSA, not sure who ensures this remains LSA as the manufacturer no longer is involved and it cant be run through MARAP so it seems it cant be modified but it already has been. It can fly CTA too.

 

So MARAP applies to experimental LSA, type certified but not modified factory LSA experimental CofA or Special C ofA

 

Experimental CofA related only to aircraft under SAAA, and could include those built under ABAA sytem but not protoypes or used for promotion or demonstration

 

They too can fly CTA

 

But not 19 experimental LSA as they are too risky to fly over built up areas.

 

As far as modifications go seems RAA manual says they have to be approved by CAR 35 engineer, these no longer exist. youd have to know you which breed of LSA CofA you have.

 

I cant find the CASA reg to suppport this rule on RAA tech manual

 

And im incompetant because i dont fully inderstand this??

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Jetjr

 

Ive said all along it was my understanding that 2nd and subsequent owner never had the right to do major modifications........which just shows that your understanding and mine are different that's all. We have asked CASA for their legal interpretation, and its one that we can come to rely upon in a legal sense.... now whether we ask for that interpretation now, or some time in the future the answer is in all likelihood going to be the same, the difference is in asking for it now in support of a process no one gets hung out to dry......

 

I really wont be participating in this discussion anymore until I have that interpretation because all we can do is the "Im right!" "No No.Im more righter than you" thing which gets old pretty quick!

 

Andy

 

 

[aro]

FolksI spoke with the Techman today about this issue......His view, as mine, was that it is clear in regulations that 2nd and subsequent owners have no right to modify 19 registered aircraft.

Can you at least tell us which regulations you believe state this?

 

from CAO 95.55:

 

1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that:

 

...

 

(e) is mentioned in paragraph 1.2

 

 

 

1.2 For subparagraph 1.1 (e), an aeroplane must be 1 of the following:

 

...

 

(e) an aeroplane, the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation...

 

 

 

6 General conditions

 

...

 

(f) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (b), © or (f) — the aeroplane must not have been modified without the approval of CASA or of an authorised person for the purposes of regulation 35 of CAR 1988;

 

(g) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) or (g) — the aeroplane must:

 

 

 

(i) before its initial flight, have been inspected by a person authorised by CASA for that purpose; and

 

 

 

(ii) if any condition or limitation has been imposed under paragraph 6.3 — be operated subject to that condition or limitation.

 

If the limitation comes from 6(f), that does not apply to amateur built aircraft (subparagraph 1.2 (e) ) - only subparagraph 1.2 (b), © or (f).

 

I am looking for something that applies only to the builder but I don't see it. It seems like another case of someone reading the regulations to mean what they think they SHOULD say, rather than what they actually say...

 

 

[jetjr]

Andy youll notice i am infact admitting i may have been wrong or at least is isnt clear.

 

I guess the fact that Darren is seeking clarification means its not as clear as it may have appeared.

 

Im concerned that this could be a loophole CASA will close, at least we know it could take many years to redraft the regs.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think it goes back to the 51% rule which chequebook builds have made look foolish for years. Your plane is supposed to be an educational experience. Fastbuild hasn't got a 51% component unless you fake it. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

Can you at least tell us which regulations you believe state this?from CAO 95.55:

 

1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that:

 

...

 

(e) is mentioned in paragraph 1.2

 

 

 

1.2 For subparagraph 1.1 (e), an aeroplane must be 1 of the following:

 

...

 

(e) an aeroplane, the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation...

 

 

 

6 General conditions

 

...

 

(f) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (b), © or (f) — the aeroplane must not have been modified without the approval of CASA or of an authorised person for the purposes of regulation 35 of CAR 1988;

 

(g) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) or (g) — the aeroplane must:

 

 

 

(i) before its initial flight, have been inspected by a person authorised by CASA for that purpose; and

 

 

 

(ii) if any condition or limitation has been imposed under paragraph 6.3 — be operated subject to that condition or limitation.

 

If the limitation comes from 6(f), that does not apply to amateur built aircraft (subparagraph 1.2 (e) ) - only subparagraph 1.2 (b), © or (f).

 

I am looking for something that applies only to the builder but I don't see it. It seems like another case of someone reading the regulations to mean what they think they SHOULD say, rather than what they actually say...

OK Perfect - we have a completely incompetent BOARD and TECH Manager

 

I have quoted the above because it is correct - I did not read the new 95,55 closely enough -the two areas of change - as noted in the post I quote - only impact aircraft under 95.55 that are NOT under 1.2(e) ... that those excluded are the 19 reg aircraft.

 

So there you go there is NOT an inclusion of 19 reg in the change from CASA to the CAO

 

Now, apart from the tech manual - the law for 19 reg remains as it was last Wednesday... and despite what any board member or Tech manager may WISH TO BELIEVE the requirement to reg a 19 ultralight is NOT a continual process it is a POINT IN TIME determination.

 

Once an aircraft meets the definition in the CAO it can be placed on the RAA register and it remains registered FOREVER but only permitted to be operated when the requirements of the RAA annually are complied with - annual RAA aircraf processes are not a registration each year but akin to an annual revalidation.

 

So there you go. ANYTHING from the RAA - Board, Tech manager or front office staff - saying that 19 reg aircraft are impacted by the 95.55 change last week need to be shown the red card - they are wrong.

 

 

[aro]

Once an aircraft meets the definition in the CAO it can be placed on the RAA register and it remains registered FOREVER but only permitted to be operated when the requirements of the RAA annually are complied with - annual RAA aircraf processes are not a registration each year but akin to an annual revalidation.

That's not entirely true - the CAO can be changed, and as far as I understand you need to be in compliance with the CAO as it exists at the time the flight takes place. The CAO also requires that you follow the RAA Ops and Technical manuals, so the RAA can basically write any additional restrictions they like - but with a quick look I didn't see anything there restricting modifications to 19 reg to the original builder.

 

 

[jetjr]

Could be right but the claim was that CASA prevented owners modifications, seems its RAA manual that does

 

It is being rewritten

 

If there a things to change or clarify lets do it

 

Current practice aees things finalised and released apparantly before the board know about it.

 

 

[Camel]

MARAP was brought in to allow changes like allowing certified sport planes to run engines on condition even in flying schools as GA have been doing and use different props etc, so I was told !

 

So why stop doing what we have been doing to 19 and modify ? if you can modify an LSA and put an E in front then what is going on ?

 

I'm getting very tired of the CASA complications that seems to come from their Sport Aviation department.

 

 

[kasper]

Could be right but the claim was that CASA prevented owners modifications, seems its RAA manual that doesIt is being rewritten

If there a things to change or clarify lets do it

 

Current practice aees things finalised and released apparantly before the board know about it.

Yes and not applicable

 

Yes the CAOs can be changed to remove entirely the exemptions so that is the ultimate.

 

No - against anyone (CASA or RAA) saying that the second and subsequent owners of 19 reg aircraft can't mod or repair the CAO 95.55 is clear - it MUST be a point in time registration determination of CAO satisfaction or there there could be no second or subsequent owner as to contrue the annual RAA fee as a new registration excludes the ability of the aircraft to meet the requirements of 19 reg to anyone but the original builder.

 

So yes and no. Yes the the CAO can be withdrawn or rewritten but No, the construction of and interpretation of 95.55 to mean that each annual registration is a registration is not supported.

 

IF the RAA Tech are looking at amending the Tech Manual to include 19 reg is the changes tat now apply to other type certified stuff then it is for the BOARD to state what the policy is and let the MEMBERSHIP know what they are doing because it is NOT due to the CAO changes from CASA.

 

 

[planesmaker]

Thanks Kasper

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Could be right but the claim was that CASA prevented owners modifications, seems its RAA manual that doesIt is being rewritten

If there a things to change or clarify lets do it

 

Current practice aees things finalised and released apparantly before the board know about it.

So I recently said we knew about it just before you guys..... back on page 2....perhaps some clarity.....most (but not all) the board were aware of the process at a high level for some time, we were aware of the major issues we had with Audit and how this approach would provide a way forward. So conceptual at a very high level for some time.

 

We became aware of the email content sent to the members 1 week before it was sent (which is slight imho given that I believe this process has been under construction for heaps of time, longer than a year as I understand it......)

 

Aro I saw your question but I didn't answer because I cant find the smoking gun that we are looking for....when I first became aware of the 19 related rights and privs was when I was looking to buy a J230 back in 2008 long before I was aware RAAus had a board, and was looking to understand what 19 registered was and wasn't...I spoke to some L2's and a L4 at the time and got my understanding from them..... The closest I can find now is AC 21-11(1) and it clearly(ish at least to me) doesn't relate to 19 registered aircraft under RAAus control. I said Darren and I were of a like mind, but honestly what mind we are of becomes immaterial because the regulator will provide his view, the only one among all of us who post here that actually matters a damn.

 

Kasper you are missing a very important step.... I know that the step that's missing doesn't fit with your agenda that its the board and staff that are out on a mission to bone the members.... The step that's missing is we can rewrite the tech manual till the cows come home (and we all know that it was due for a complete rewrite about 30 seconds after first release!) until CASA are happy that everything they want included, is, and everything they want omitted, is , the document can not be released to the members as "The Tech Manual" . You seem to think its our remit and to an extent it is, its our words...right up to CASA wants them changed!

 

Andy

 

 

[aro]

I spoke to some L2's and a L4 at the time and got my understanding from them..... The closest I can find now is AC 21-11(1) and it clearly(ish at least to me) doesn't relate to 19 registered aircraft under RAAus control. I said Darren and I were of a like mind, but honestly what mind we are of becomes immaterial because the regulator will provide his view, the only one among all of us who post here that actually matters a damn.

AC21-11(1) relates to 101-28 ABAA registered aircraft, these are 28- registered in RAA. This basically predates the GA Experimental rules that we now have, and was how you built an amateur built aircraft in the "old days" before the experimental category. In the GA world these ABAA aircraft are treated the same as certified aircraft in many ways e.g. LAME maintenance required, but less restrictions on flight. I don't think it is possible to build under ABAA any more - and if it is I don't know whether anyone would do it.

 

These are the aircraft referred to in CAO 95.55 1.2 (a) an aeroplane to which Order 101.28 applies that complies with the design standards specified in that Order

 

Ultimately peoples "understanding" of the rules should not matter. What is important is what the rules actually say. "Darren/Lee/Someone from CASA says you can/can't..." is how RAA got into trouble with the audit in the first place. People saying what their "understanding" was, without actually verifying what the rules actually say. And yes, the same thing happens in the GA world.

 

its our words...right up to CASA wants them changed.

CASA seem to have missed the point of the first "S" in SASAO. If they want to write the rules, they should just go ahead and do it. If they want to delegate, delegate.

 

 

[jetjr]

Thanks Andy

 

Got to love a number of views on things

 

On fourth or fifth reading

 

RAA manual 3.5.5

 

Says what the categories of LSA are and use limitations are

 

Clearly theres Special Cof A for production LSA and Experimental certificate for kit built

 

Says 19 are covered under 95.5 sect 1.9, which i cant find.

 

Then just says must be maintained as per AC 21.41. Nothing on mods at all.

 

AC 21.41 - i believe is just advisory.

 

Says similar to RAA texh manual

 

What they are, also states owners do not have to be builder

 

How to get an experimental cert

 

Limitations

 

Then sect 8 is in reference to production LSA, second and third part clearly but the first only by the fact is states manufacturer has continuing responsibility for airworthiness which cant be the case for amateur built surely. and the example is regarding production aircraft too

 

95.5

 

Sect 1.2 says aircraft must be one of the catagories

 

19 could fall into catagory e or h

 

IF you claim e, then theres nothing on mods

 

If you claim h then Sections of concern are 4 a iv- certificate invalid if modification not approved by manufacturer.

 

In sect 6, Its interesting that the new MARAP system DOESNT apply to LSA of any sort, experimental or production, only those in 1.2 b,c or f NOT g,h or e

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

.......CASA seem to have missed the point of the first "S" in SASAO. If they want to write the rules, they should just go ahead and do it. If they want to delegate, delegate.

Don't see it that way myself, they delegate how we administer.....there are probably 1000's of iterations as to how we could administer our pilot certificates, but in the end they wont form a view on whether the way we choose is good / bad or indifferent, but they absolutely will form a view as to whether the way we choose to administer ticks all of the regulatory boxes they want ticked, if it does...all good...if not then try again....similarly if we want to replace our transactional computer system "PoS v1" with "Superbo V2" again fill your boots but show that regulatory requirements A, B and C are met before you take it into production.....

 

Self Administering <> Self Regulating

 

 

[aro]

CASA have the power to write whatever regulations they like, so using RAA as a conduit is just inefficient (or a way of avoiding legal, parliamentary etc. scrutiny that they get when they write their own regulations).

 

That's a side issue however - I'm still looking for where these restrictions on 19 reg. that supposedly exist can be found. My gut feeling is that they are someones imagination/wishful thinking.

 

 

[kasper]

much clipped ...Kasper you are missing a very important step.... I know that the step that's missing doesn't fit with your agenda that its the board and staff that are out on a mission to bone the members.... The step that's missing is we can rewrite the tech manual till the cows come home (and we all know that it was due for a complete rewrite about 30 seconds after first release!) until CASA are happy that everything they want included, is, and everything they want omitted, is , the document can not be released to the members as "The Tech Manual" . You seem to think its our remit and to an extent it is, its our words...right up to CASA wants them changed!

 

Andy

Andy,

Sorry but I do not have an agenda - I have no interest in pushing one side or the other just to understand that what is told to us by the RAA (board or executive) is correct in facts.

 

IF the CAO 95.55 change did not impact on 1.2(e) aircraft (the 19 reg) then ALL of the statements from RAA Tech and board are based not on a requirement from law but from a document authored by the RAA over which the board does have oversight and control.

 

I am absolutely aware that the tech manual is an approved document and needs CASA approval prior to being operational within the RAA.

 

However, that fact alone does not change the reality that when the Tech Manual goes further than the CAOs and places limitations on one group of aircraft that are specifically NOT included in the CAOs a very reasonable assumption from those not involved is that the inclusion is coming from the RAA not CASA or they would have included it in the changes to the CAOs themselves as they have full drafting control over this area. And if the CAO are trying to insist on extensions within the RAA Tech Manual that are were explicitly not included in the very recent CAO change why the hell are the RAA Board and Exec not standing outside the Ministers office screaming bloody murder? After all, from my point of view, thats the reason the board are there - to represent the views of the RAA membership in defense of the operations that we consider to be legitimate, valid and justified based on risk and evidence.

 

My agenda, if you like, is to see the RAA board and executive communicate more openly with the membership.

 

Where are the board statements of principle of what the RAA is all about?

 

Where are the positions of the RAA on areas of aviation regulatory change to be found?

 

Why is it that this absolutely devastating change to the 19 reg aircraft comes at the membership out of the blue with no consultation period ... because I can assure you if members had understood the scope fo the impact on the 19 reg the consultation would have been heated!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ok...your point is clear and I will be discussing with the other board members. My view has changed over the days, I came into this thinking I understood the legislation and found that in fact what I thought existed and could be easily found is not easily found (but I wont go so far as to say doesn't exist....). The question has been asked of CASA and we will wait to hear back.

 

Those "where are" statements you asked are all on the raa.asn.au website under "About" and then "the Corporation" towards the bottom after the history......the location and ease of finding these is not ideal which is why the entire website and our backend infrastructure to support our day to day transactions is changing as a function of a major project underway now.

 

In a recent strategy day the board rehashed these, but the fundamental drivers of affordability and minimum bureaucracy are still as valid today as they were in the past.

 

Your point re consultation is heard and will be discussed

 

Andy

 

 

[aro]

The question has been asked of CASA and we will wait to hear back.

Please press CASA for an answer backed by references to the actual legislation etc., not just a yes you can/no you can't answer without any supporting information.