Weight restricted MTOW

[JabiruJoe]

I own an aircraft that was issued (around 2005-6) a Certificate of Compliance by Ra-Aus to operate at 520kg. Before purchasing the aircraft I contacted RA-Aus to confirm the registered MTOW as I had read reviews that mentioned 450kg, 520kg, 544kg and 600kg. The paperwork received back showed 520kg. As this figure was needed for the purpose for which I was going to use the aircraft (2 people and required endurance with reserves to do a min of 3 hrs) I went ahead and purchased the aircraft. Two years ago, when rego renewal was due I was kindly advised by RA-Aus that I could no longer operate at 520kg. The MTOW was now restricted to 450kg! That effectively meant I owned an aircraft that was useless for the purpose for which it was purchased. On enquiry why the restriction I was advised by the tech manager that it was due to Australia having to comply with the country of certifications MTOW. By the way, the POH says the aircraft has MTOW of 520kg, the design data says it has been designed to 520kg and other data says that 520kg is the go. The aircraft actually has 600kg in the USA I believe.

 

Here is the kicker,....the original Certificate of Compliance, issued by RA-Aus, signed by the then tech manager seems to have been (according to the current tech manager) issued WITHOUT AUTHORITY. So here we have a situation where RA-Aus has its stamp all over the letterhead pages, the tech manager has his signature all over the relevant spots on the pages of compliance but neither was ever authorised to issue the certificate.

 

I did my due diligence before I purchased the aircraft because it had to be suitable for a specific purpose and relied to a large extent on the MTOW advised by RA-Aus.

 

Who is responsible for this stuff up and financial loss in resale value due to the aircraft being restricted to a single seater instead of two places?

 

It would seem CASA were negligent in not providing sufficient oversight to its delegate, Ra-Aus and RA-Aus did not provide sufficient oversight to its staff, the tech manager, and finally, the tech manager signed off on an illegal Certificate of Compliance.

 

I have been trying to be reasonable with RA-Aus over the past 2 years and have been told variously : it is being worked on and won't be long, it will be ready before Natfly 2014, it will be done by Octobr 2014, I've just come from a meeting with CASA and they have approved a return verbally, the MARAP process will get it done within 12 months, you were no 3 in returned completed MARAP requests and it will be done after the Bolly Props, etc,etc,etc. Now, despite messages left on mobile numbers and e-mails to both the tech manager and assistant tech manager to PLEASE return my calls and e-mails there is a deathly silence. So much for better communication with members by RA-Aus!

 

By the way, I did suggest early on to the tech managr that an interim return to 520kg whilst the mess was sorted would be a fair thing for all concerned. After all, the aircraft type (of which there are a few) had been flying in Australia for over 6 years without incident. This idea was pooh poohed. Compromise and acceptance of responsibility is obviously an issue.

 

I understand that a fair number, of different brand aircraft, that were made in Europe are subject to this same restriction. My question is how many?

 

I don't know how his site works with regard to private messages but would appreciate any help anyone can give as well as a rough indication of numbers of aircraft affected.

 

I'm curreñtly trying to ascertain who the best person for legal advice on aviation regulations and culpability is with a view to further action. Any suggestions from anyone?

 

 

[william russell]

I believe my Hanuman is certified to 600kg is Aus but is only 450 in the UK

 

 

[kasper]

I believe my Hanuman is certified to 600kg is Aus but is only 450 in the UK

That would be because the UK definition of microlight is 450kg extended to 472.5 if and only if full recovery chute is installed - nothing to do with the airframe and entirely to do with the class of registration in the UK.

And as the Hanuaman is a homebuilt in Australia from kit the MTOW is not a certified MTOW as such BUT the declared MTOW of the builder such that it still complies with the stall limits of the 19 series experimental homebuilt. So 600kg is legal in Australia so long as the aircraft can meet the stall performance at that MTOW ... many people overlook the fact that 19 reg aircraft in australia (like SSDR in the UK) are NOT limited by the original designer/kit manufacturer declared MTOW but are at the declared MTOW of the builder as they are for the registration purposes the designer

 

 

[kasper]

I own an aircraft that was issued (around 2005-6) a Certificate of Compliance by Ra-Aus to operate at 520kg. Before purchasing the aircraft I contacted RA-Aus to confirm the registered MTOW as I had read reviews that mentioned 450kg, 520kg, 544kg and 600kg. The paperwork received back showed 520kg. As this figure was needed for the purpose for which I was going to use the aircraft (2 people and required endurance with reserves to do a min of 3 hrs) I went ahead and purchased the aircraft. Two years ago, when rego renewal was due I was kindly advised by RA-Aus that I could no longer operate at 520kg. The MTOW was now restricted to 450kg! That effectively meant I owned an aircraft that was useless for the purpose for which it was purchased. On enquiry why the restriction I was advised by the tech manager that it was due to Australia having to comply with the country of certifications MTOW. By the way, the POH says the aircraft has MTOW of 520kg, the design data says it has been designed to 520kg and other data says that 520kg is the go. The aircraft actually has 600kg in the USA I believe.Here is the kicker,....the original Certificate of Compliance, issued by RA-Aus, signed by the then tech manager seems to have been (according to the current tech manager) issued WITHOUT AUTHORITY. So here we have a situation where RA-Aus has its stamp all over the letterhead pages, the tech manager has his signature all over the relevant spots on the pages of compliance but neither was ever authorised to issue the certificate.

 

I did my due diligence before I purchased the aircraft because it had to be suitable for a specific purpose and relied to a large extent on the MTOW advised by RA-Aus.

 

Who is responsible for this stuff up and financial loss in resale value due to the aircraft being restricted to a single seater instead of two places?

 

It would seem CASA were negligent in not providing sufficient oversight to its delegate, Ra-Aus and RA-Aus did not provide sufficient oversight to its staff, the tech manager, and finally, the tech manager signed off on an illegal Certificate of Compliance.

 

I have been trying to be reasonable with RA-Aus over the past 2 years and have been told variously : it is being worked on and won't be long, it will be ready before Natfly 2014, it will be done by Octobr 2014, I've just come from a meeting with CASA and they have approved a return verbally, the MARAP process will get it done within 12 months, you were no 3 in returned completed MARAP requests and it will be done after the Bolly Props, etc,etc,etc. Now, despite messages left on mobile numbers and e-mails to both the tech manager and assistant tech manager to PLEASE return my calls and e-mails there is a deathly silence. So much for better communication with members by RA-Aus!

 

By the way, I did suggest early on to the tech managr that an interim return to 520kg whilst the mess was sorted would be a fair thing for all concerned. After all, the aircraft type (of which there are a few) had been flying in Australia for over 6 years without incident. This idea was pooh poohed. Compromise and acceptance of responsibility is obviously an issue.

 

I understand that a fair number, of different brand aircraft, that were made in Europe are subject to this same restriction. My question is how many?

 

I don't know how his site works with regard to private messages but would appreciate any help anyone can give as well as a rough indication of numbers of aircraft affected.

 

I'm curreñtly trying to ascertain who the best person for legal advice on aviation regulations and culpability is with a view to further action. Any suggestions from anyone?

Odd but understandable - if yours is the original Allegro 2000 with the tapered wings the testing was to the higher 521kg limit and was availabl;e in non-Czech countries at that level HOWEVER the Czech definition of microlight for their own purposes has a max of 450kg .. which means if yours came into Australia as a factory built under the Czech certification tests it SHOULD have been always limited to 450kg even though the airframe was tested to higher and in other countries it was sold with higher. The issues appears to be a combined whammy of Australia granting factory built acceptance for registration based on Czech certification at 450kg BUT the wrong data being supplied to RAA and accepted by RAA and CASA as to what the Czech limits were and originally signing off at 520kg.

Triple whammy now that the manufacturer is no more.

 

Hate to say it but unless its an LSA MARAP can theoretically save you but I as a member of RAA hope our insurance is clear on this one because I think we as an organisation bear some financial responsibility for your loss even if MARAP can get you back in the air at the MTOW you had confirmed directly by RAA before you purchased.

 

 

[Oscar]

The first problem in this particular saga, was that the aircraft, unless privately imported, was associated in this country with Michael Coates.

 

It is not by a very long way the only aircraft that suffers this major affliction and if you look carefully at those that had their MTOW reduced in the CASA Audit, those imported and distributed by Coates are well (some might suggest, over) represented. The non-LSA Stings are amongst these.

 

As kasper has stated, the Czech 'certifying Authority' ( its equivalent of RAA), had an upper weight limit applied for any aircraft it certificated of 450 kgs. Under ICAO reciprocal rights agreements, the certification conditions of the issuing ICAO-signatory Authority, of which EASA is one and CASA another, are required to be accepted by other ICAO authorities.

 

Had the Court case for the Goulburn Sting crash proceeded, the nature, validity and authenticity of supplementary data that was supplied to RAA to justify an MTOW increase over that specified in the Certificate of Airworthiness for the specific aircraft, would have become public knowledge. That, in turn, might provide the OP with some additional guidance as to just where he might direct his efforts at legal remedies for the situation in which he finds himself (through no fault of his own, and in the face of having undertaken pretty much all the 'due diligence' that anybody could expect).

 

Again, as kasper says - the RAA has some questions to answer in terms of having accepted supplementary information supplied by the importer without extensive 'diligence' as to its validity. In hindsight, the RAA Technical Manager at the time should -perhaps - have weighed the reliability of the source of that information and been alerted to undertake an exceptional level of diligence on the documentation. That would be, I suspect, an argument that could be presented in Court.

 

To be reasonable towards the RAA Technical Manager at the time, the level of 'diligence' required to verify the supplementary documentation supplied would have been at the forensic level. That WAS undertaken in preparation of evidence for the Sting crash case and those privy to that are well aware of the 'problems' with the documentation. Without reference to any particular aircraft, and I stress that, I would suggest that if documentation supplied to RAA to support an 'Australian' MTOW limit (and I speak here theoretically, of course) supplied to RAA that a specific aircraft was flight tested in Czechoslovakia for compliance with standards when it was by record resident in Australia,, RAA should have repudiated the submissed documentation.

 

That the Technical Manager at the time did not dig forensically into the validity of data supplied to him to establish a reliable Australian MTOW, is the cause of information being supplied to the OP regarding the MTOW applicable to his aircraft - but we might be wise to be a little circumspect in apportioning the quantity of blame for that. We might also want to examine the 'culture' enforced within RAA at the time to determine whether the Technical Manager at the time was encouraged or left free to undertake proper diligence, or indeed directed to accept whatever 'evidence' was supplied.

 

RAA has indeed some answer to provide - and these might tarnish some fairly lofty reputations. However, if I were the OP, I'd be looking beyond RAA for culpability for the MTOW clusterfaark.

 

And I'd be contacting Spencer Ferrier.

 

 

[Oscar]

Additional: if the OP POH is the 'Australian' edition, produced by the importer, then if it is consistent with the Goulburn Sting case, it is not worth squat as an evidentiary document.

 

The 'Australian' POH for the Goulburn Sting crash was a central point for the Court case: it indicated a stall speed for the lower MTOW of the certificated model, which if followed faithfully by the pilot(s) -- both Sting owners and careful, conservative pilots and great friends who trusted each other completely), very possibly contributed hugely to the crash being fatal rather than survivable.

 

 

[kasper]

I was trying to be polite about MC and his business operating practices ... and how RAA appear to have accepted materials and data from sources other than the certifying authority that they perhaps should not have because it was either less than accurate or, more directly, in conflict with the ICAO reciprocal acceptance ... basically if it 'aint from the Czech LAA (as certifying authority under EASA for ICAO acceptance by CASA) then it was not worth the paper it was printed on in terms of acceptability for registration in OZ by CASA / RAA.

 

And before anyone says anything - I KNOW this post is acronym central but I promise to cut back next post :)

 

 

[Oscar]

kasper: being 'polite' about M. C.'s business practices is necessary in the face of the possibility of legal action, but for the sake of the health, welfare and financial safety of his customers, it is extremely difficult to remain silent. However, they of course have the discretion to accept any figures that MC may publish with complete personal confidence. It's their choice.

 

And everything in your post #7, I would endorse.

 

And if MC was selling the Sydney Harbour Bridge, I wouldn't drive across it - but that's just my prejudice. I have NO REASON to hold that opinion...

 

 

[kasper]

This may be true that you can declare whatever weight you want but the Hanuman is limited to its design weight in Australia of 560 kgs, there is one at our airport (Jason's) and we were talking about this a few weeks ago when i asked why he didnt register at 600 kgs. He said he probably could have BUT it was higher than the manufacturers 560 design weight and he didnt want the wings falling off.

what you write is contradictory - either its limited to a design weight per your first statement or its per declaration.

Jason or anyone else can choose to register at any weight up to 600 under 95.55 1.2 e

 

 

[Clive.croxford]

Would love to join a class action to either have this silly ruling reversed or seek damages for loss of value etc.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

basically if it 'aint from the Czech LAA (as certifying authority under EASA for ICAO acceptance by CASA) then it was not worth the paper it was printed on in terms of acceptability for registration in OZ by CASA / RAA.

Thank you all who have responded with thought to my first post. I look forward to reading and gleaning more information in preparation.

 

Kasper, one of the documents IS from the Czech LAA specifying 520kg, it should therefore have been accepted by RA-Aus/CASA at that weight in your opinion?

 

Clive, you probably don't remember but I spoke to you at the time I was purchasing and we spoke of the varying figures for MTOW. Yours was for sale at the time. I'll figure out how to do a pm and get back to you.

 

Oscar, Spencer Ferrier I have heard of. Do they come recommended for this sort of thing, if so would you know the contact person?

 

RA-Aus monitor (and I know you are there), why does it have to get to this stage, why not do an interim return to MTOWs that existed before the audit, until it is sorted? That would be sensible and create a lot of goodwill.

 

If any one knows of anybody affected by this issue could you please direct them to this thread so they can have the opportunity to comment. Thanks again all.

 

 

[Oscar]

JabJoe: I think you may be confusing with Ferrier Hodgson, the people who do, I think, receiverships and that sort of thing - Spencer Ferrier is an individual and a very well respected lawyer in Aviation matters: http://www.ferrierlaw.com.au/our-lawyers.php

 

 

[jetjr]

Who are you taking action against?

 

If the data presented to RAA was faulty, it may be lazy but not negligent.

 

If they havent seen adequate documents to prove the higher MTOW is safe, how can they approve, temporary or otherwise?

 

Original home builders can stipulate higher MTOW but without support from manufacturer, it wont be approved.

 

 

[Oscar]

JabJoe:

 

You might find it useful to examine the differences in the Flight Manuals for (what I presume is) your aircraft published on-line by mcp.com.au and Fantasy Air UK. Both cite the Type Certificate number : Type Certificate LAA Czech Republic No.05/2000 from October 17.2000. Google: Type certificate allegro 2000

 

Both APPEAR to be the product of the manufacturer, with presumably some details changed according to the re-publisher.

 

The mcp.com.au quotes MTOW as 520 kgs. The Fantasy Air UK quotes the MTOW as 450.

 

How the same Type Certificate could have alternate MTOWs seems strange; your research may determine how this could be the case.

 

 

[kasper]

much clipped ...Kasper, one of the documents IS from the Czech LAA specifying 520kg, it should therefore have been accepted by RA-Aus/CASA at that weight in your opinion?

 

...

 

RA-Aus monitor (and I know you are there), why does it have to get to this stage, why not do an interim return to MTOWs that existed before the audit, until it is sorted? That would be sensible and create a lot of goodwill.

 

...

I am aware of the document that was from the Czech LAA directed to RAA stating 520mtow was tested. UNFORTUNATELY that makes not a jot of legal difference to the fact that the mtow that can be 'imported' into Australia for factory built Czech aircraft with CZECH certification is the CZECH legal mtow...and that is 450. Unfortunately it is not for the Czech LAA to understand under what provision a foreign country is recognising their aircraft - they DID test to 520 and for countries NOT limited by legal requirements to maintain no greater than the Czech mtow they are (and did) provide confirmation that testing to 520 was done and was satisfactory.

 

The error really does appear to be in the RAA Tech Manager at the time not understanding what legally was able to be accepted from Czech factory aircraft ... and legally it was the Czech legal mtow of 450.

 

And because it is a legal issue of what can be accepted there is no ability to interim anything above the legal max that could ever apply to the airframe.

 

It was not kit built, it is factory built under a certificate - it is and must remain under that certificate unless and until that certificate is legally altered ... the certificate is the Czech 450kg, the ways to amend may include

 

1. amend the Czech certificate - not legally possible unless the law in Czech changes to increase their max legal on the aircraft above 450 ... and even then the Czech manufacturer is no longer in existence

 

2. amend the Australian acceptance of the Czech certificate under which it legally flys in Oz ... MARAP might work here but as its an ICAO recognition of EASA certification its going to be tricky as I suspect the level of support required is going to be quite deep ... eg at a higher MTOW it is a requirement for certification to re-fly and re-document the entire flight test schedule AND re-write the operating manual AND assess if the maintenance schedules require amendment ... even if no change is required it takes time and expertise to assess and validate that it is not required.

 

Been there done that on UK factory certification under BCARS and it aint a simple documentary process - it involves time, money, testing and documentation using fairly highly skilled people ... there is a very valid reason why certificated aircraft cost more than un-certificated aircraft.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

JabJoe: I think you may be confusing with Ferrier Hodgson, the people who do, I think, receiverships and that sort of thing - Spencer Ferrier is an individual and a very well respected lawyer in Aviation matters: http://www.ferrierlaw.com.au/our-lawyers.php

Thanks for jogging my tired old brain Oscar, you are correct, that is who I have heard of. Appreciate the link too and will go there.

 

Who are you taking action against?If the data presented to RAA was faulty, it may be lazy but not negligent.

If they havent seen adequate documents to prove the higher MTOW is safe, how can they approve, temporary or otherwise?

 

Original home builders can stipulate higher MTOW but without support from manufacturer, it wont be approved.

Hi jetr, hope you can help. The aircraft is a factory built and has done, according to the factory supplied paperwork, proving and testing to the 520kg. The Czech, German and other regulatory bodies have approved the higher weight and their standards are recognised by most aviation bodies(UL-05/2000 Czech, 61174-DaeC Germany, FIN/U003 CAA Finland,. 72-11006-2 CAA Denmark). Based on what I have, Australia is one of those bodies that recognise the standard listed. If they (RA-AUS) have seen the documents that do prove its safe, complies and is designed to the higher weight as per those standards, what is their problem?

 

I see the problem as one of negligence by CASA and RA-Aus in performance of their duties which has, or possibly can, cause consequential loss to a number of people. Always remembering that loss does not need to be always financial, it can be a loss of amenity. I still see the tempory fix as a return to the previous MTOW until its sorted.

 

To answer your question as to who the action would be against, I don't know. Hence the need to find someone who has had experience in aviation law so that guidance can be obtained. At this stage, without any legal advice being so far provided, I would guess it would be joint RA-Aus and CASA as both seem to have failed in their duties of oversight with the resultant problem. I only surmise this, I have no idea but do want to find out what the options are. It may turn out there are others responsible or it may turn out no one is. It may also turn out a lot less harrowing with an interim upgrade permitted until the MARAP process can run its course.

 

Thanks for your comments I want all views and advice I can get on this.

 

 

[kasper]

Sorry but the fact that the Allegro holds Czech and German certifications does not impact the legal limits. Czech = 450kg and Germany = 472.5 IF fitted with parachute and 450 without ... other European 'certificates' will not help your issue with MTOW as they all are frames around the 450/472.5 European standard.

 

You might find an acceptable ICAO certification at higher than 450 in a country like Italy (if it was separately certified there) or New Zealand where they I understand go up to 510kg ... but I am afraid hanging your hopes on any of the known European certificates for greater than 450 is I believe a dead end ... CASA and RAA just do not legally have the ability to up the MTOW above the 450 due to the path for acceptance of the certificates.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

JabJoe:You might find it useful to examine the differences in the Flight Manuals for (what I presume is) your aircraft published on-line by mcp.com.au and Fantasy Air UK. Both cite the Type Certificate number : Type Certificate LAA Czech Republic No.05/2000 from October 17.2000. Google: Type certificate allegro 2000

 

Both APPEAR to be the product of the manufacturer, with presumably some details changed according to the re-publisher.

 

The mcp.com.au quotes MTOW as 520 kgs. The Fantasy Air UK quotes the MTOW as 450.

 

How the same Type Certificate could have alternate MTOWs seems strange; your research may determine how this could be the case.

Yes Oscar, you are correct in saying they have different figures but it is explained in the Confirming Certificate where it states the standards "meet or exceed". The factory data indicates it is designed and flown to the 520kg.

 

Here in Oz we need to comply with the country of origins certifications BUT we can have a higher MTOW provided a whole pile of requirements are met. The data RA-Aus have been provided complies with all those requirements to permit a higher MTOW. One of the requirements is an independent (not manufacturer) statement that the standards are met and it is none other than the Czech LAA that have provided this statement saying it complies wih the UL-05/2000 standard. And then we get back to Australia's acceptance of the standard, or perhaps .........

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

.. CASA and RAA just do not legally have the ability to up the MTOW above the 450 due to the path for acceptance of the certificates.

Oh, that's a bundle of good news Kasper!!!

 

Does that therefore mean the Certificate of Compliance to operate at 520kg, issued by RA-Aus, under delegation from CASA is illegal? Did they CASA/RA-Aus, commit an illegal act? If the answer is "yes" because they did not have the authority to do so, then are they not negligent? The negligence has resulted in loss to many. They need to fix it.

 

 

[Oscar]

JabJoe:

 

I believe that kaspers explanation of why the 'letter' from the Czech LAA is an invalid basis for RAA to raise the MTOW beyond that in the Czech Republic Type Certificate is completely accurate. In the Goulburn Sting action taken against RAA and joined with CASA, the point kasper has made was a major legal argument since an almost identical set of circumstances was present. It is actually the nature of the reciprocal agreements between ICAO signatory authorities that takes precedence, as I understand it, which is why CASA required RAA to 'pull back' to the actual Certificated weight from the manufacturer's country in the Audit.

 

However, I suspect it may take a Spencer Ferrier to disentangle all of this - there may be someone in Shine Lawyers who also has the expertise.

 

 

[kasper]

Oh, that's a bundle of good news Kasper!!!Does that therefore mean the Certificate of Compliance to operate at 520kg, issued by RA-Aus, under delegation from CASA is illegal? Did they CASA/RA-Aus, commit an illegal act? If the answer is "yes" because they did not have the authority to do so, then are they not negligent? The negligence has resulted in loss to many. They need to fix it.

Go talk to a solicitor who is able to answer that one because I cannot for a whole heap of reasons relating to not holding a current practicing certificate etc.

I may well be a solicitor but I am not practicing and I am not giving legal advice - I am in effect sitting here on a forum playing the legal version of 'emperors new clothes' with the limited data available and my understanding of the inter operative aspects of international certification of aircraft.

 

Nothing I say is legal advice and is purely my personal opinion.

 

A good/well respected solicitor for aviation matters has been provided on this thread and if you (or a group of affected individuals) wish to engage a solicitor to clarify what they consider to be your options that's for you.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

JJ I would ring the CEO and discuss with him before talking with a lawyer......he won't cost you to talk where as the alternate will cost....whether subsequently those costs are or aren't attributed to someone else is a long term investment at best.

 

I say discuss with the CEO in that your complaint, in broad terms, is not unique and there may well be an established way forward.....

 

If you feel you haven't gotten what you need from the CEO then you can contact Mick Monk the president......who was in a personally similar situation, while the CASA audit process was underway. I believe his situation cleared up but it was a different airframe so not sure of the whys/wherefore

 

Lawyers are an expensive exercise, best used as a last resort, but I suspect I'm telling you nothing you don't already know....

 

Andy

 

 

[kasper]

Agreed you should talk to the CEO and the President ... and they may get you along the lines of a hot foot to the MARAP to get you up and flying at higher MTOW ... but I suspect if you want more than just the increase in MTOW ie financial recompense for value reduction/inconvenience etc it would be unlikely for the RAA to offer $$ without using a lawyer on their side to establish liability (its not a commercial organisation after all, its a member one) so if you are bent on looking for $$ you are likely to be either engaging or dealing with lawyers on this.

 

Note - I am a solicitor myself and my advice to me has always been DO NOT go to legal remedy as a first option and not even second but as a last ... and then only if there is no option and the situation I am in is completely unworkable for me. Managed to get through life so far without using solicitors in actual legal action - only for advice and conveyancing and hope to end my days in the same state.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I believe my Hanuman is certified to 600kg is Aus but is only 450 in the UK

The X Air Australia website says 560 kg "maximum weight" (see http://www.mcp.com.au/xair/aircraft_models/hanuman/hanuman.html) but I understand the same plane is sold as X Air LSA at 600 kg "gross weight" (see http://www.x-airlsa.com/). Go figure!

 

 

[Oscar]

As, a side issue entirely - and of no help to JabJoe, though perhaps he might appreciate a wry laugh right now to stop from going nuts at the apparent insanity of his situation:

 

If you think all of this is convoluted as a result of international; agreements, think what is going to happen when the ICON seaplane tries to be registered as an LSA..

 

It has an 'exemption' from the LSA standard - which has been 'accepted' by various Airworthiness Authorities - issued by the FAA to allow it to fly AS an LSA but above the LSA MTOW.

 

But the ASTM standard is NOT a 'national airworthiness authority certification standard' acceptable to ICAO signatory nations - it is a sort of 'accepted de-facto standard', that (if I am not mistaken, has been 'accepted' by individual airworthiness Authorities). It's not 'reciprocally' accepted between ICAO members in the same terms as Type Certificates.

 

SO: I think the situation is: in the USA, an Icon can fly as a LSA-certified aircraft with the 'special dispensation' of the FAA. HOWEVER: that means that it does not comply with the ASTM standard, and since the FAA is not the 'issuing airworthiness authority' for LSA aircraft - even ones manufactured in the USA - I can't see how the 'dispensation' can carry over outside the FAA jurisdication. Either: ASTM will need to change the standard OR individual Airworthiness Authorities will have to specifically adopt the same 'dispensation' .

 

And I don't see CASA suddenly deciding it will take some responsibility for LSA aircraft when it is off 'scot-free', as it were, at the moment....