Approved engines and built-up areas

[sfGnome]

Possibly this has been discussed before, but I’ve spent the last few hours googling to no avail. My understanding is that for flight over built up areas, the engine must be of some ‘approved’ type. I also understand that this does not mean ‘certified’, so in general such types as Rotax and Jabiru are acceptable. Is that correct so far?

 

If so, then my real question is, how much modification renders the engine unacceptable? For instance, does adding a big bore kit to a Rotax make it unacceptable for such flight? Does a modified engine such as those from Edge pass or fail the acceptability test? For that matter, who decides (and how do they decide) what is acceptable?

[LoonyBob]

AFAIK, "approved" is used to mean type certified to a" non-ICAO" standard; for example, JAR-VLA. The propellor also has to be "approved", which is easy for fixed-pitch wood, difficult for everything else... The donk also has to have been maintained strictly in accordance with the manufacturer's maintenance schedule, e.g. a dual-ignition Rotax 503 that falls into a serial number block that was type certified to JAR-22, would have to have  records showing the 25-hourlies etc... from new!

 

Until CASA ceases to be a Body Corporate, able to sue and be sued in its own name (unique amongst ICAO signatory countries!), you won't get much more courage out of CASA than the above limited view, I suspect.

 

If anyone has more encouraging data, please speak up!

[skippydiesel]

Hmm - Is it the engine or the whole aircraft that is/not approved?

 

Me thinks its the whole of aircraft .

 

If you think about it the engine/ airframe combinator may be, sort of fixed, for a certified aircraft but when it comes to homebuilt s & experimental (not always one in the same) almost any engine (within weight limits) could be installed.

 

The above, assumes a degree of logic from the authorities. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by skippydiesel

[onetrack]

I would think the SAAA advice below, probably contains all that you need to know, about approvals for flight over populous areas.

 

https://saaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IPM-FO-002-002-Flight-over-populous-areas.pdf

[kgwilson]

I doubt that many owners of amateur built aircraft whether they are GA or RA registered, have bothered to get an approval. The only time it will be required is if you crash into someones house and there is an investigation. Many aerodromes controlled and uncontrolled are close to populous areas and a lot have approach paths over populous areas. I have never heard of a prosecution because an aircraft did not have an approval to fly over populous areas.

[facthunter]

I would expect the Authority would be found LAX if it didn't apply some standard and that would tend toward or most likely be the ICAO standard as most VH stuff is. . Flying in controlled airspace is not just getting into aerodromes when visual pr transiting a zone .  Nev

[440032]

49 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I would think the SAAA advice below, probably contains all that you need to know, about approvals for flight over populous areas.

 

https://saaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IPM-FO-002-002-Flight-over-populous-areas.pdf

Note - that SAAA advice applies to VH registered experimental. RAAus? NFI.

[skippydiesel]

Way back, RAA used to provide a letter authorising the aircraft to fly over a built up area - was good for time?

 

Have a feeling they don't provide this service any more.

[onetrack]

Seeing as you can convert from RAA to VH-experimental, and from VH-experimental to RAA, without major roadblocks (provided the rules are met), I would have thought the SAAA document would have been relevant to any RAA aircraft.

 

 

[LoonyBob]

4 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Hmm - Is it the engine or the whole aircraft that is/not approved?

 

Me thinks its the whole of aircraft .

 

If you think about it the engine/ airframe combinator may be, sort of fixed, for a certified aircraft but when it comes to homebuilt s & experimental (not always one in the same) almost any engine (within weight limits) could be installed.

 

The above, assumes a degree of logic from the authorities. 

LOGIC??? What madness is this?

 

Ok, there is a sort of logic... HOSCOTS 1986 decreed that (1) there must be ultralight training for ultralight pilots, and (2) such would be a Service under the Goods & Services Act, and therefor the unsuspecting vic... students should be protected by an "acceptable" standard of aircraft safety. ANO 95:25 appeared, calling up BCAR "S" as an acceptable level of safety. However, this grandfathered Thrusters and WB Drifters with unpedigreed 2S Rotaxes and any old prop, so the powerplants were deemed to be less safe that the rest of the aircraft. To provide an acceptable level of safety for the cabbages of the suburban peasants, such aircraft were told to stay away from suburbia.

 

95:55 came along, which still allowed powerplants meeting no standard, then 101:55, then JAR-VLA; both of which have standards for donk & prop that are deemed to produce a predictable and low probability of failure. The cabbages are safe!

 

Any combination of airframe / engine / prop that does not meet such standards in any particular respect, may graduallu earn some freedom based upon a history of safe operation; the guidance for which is well established by the EAA, and picked up by the SAAA.

[LoonyBob]

46 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Seeing as you can convert from RAA to VH-experimental, and from VH-experimental to RAA, without major roadblocks (provided the rules are met), I would have thought the SAAA document would have been relevant to any RAA aircraft.

 

 

VH-LSA is not VH-Experimental; VH-LSA meets a Design Standard for all of its systems and structure and handling/performance, AND is maintained to a system which will not degrade that level of airworthiness. VH-Experimental may be a nuclear powered Gyrocopter made from brown paper and custard, maintained by - gasp - one of US!

 

ANO101:28 Homebuilts have quite a bit of airworthiness applied, and are demonstrably more airworthy per se that a nuclear powered gyroplane, even with good quality custard... and the SAAA works hard to ensure the owners of such (originally, the builder(s) have good groundings in maintenance techniques relevant to their Jodel Starlet (or Corby bebe, whatever grabs you!).

 

LSA-E is LSA that cannot be guaranteed to meet the specifications of the test specimen(s) that demonstrated compliance with the design standards, because the manufacture, maintenance,  or use of some aspect of the aircraft is no longer controlled to the same degree.

 

95:10 allows fixed-wing brown paper and custard aircraft, and I'm not sure the SAAA would welcome one...

[440032]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

Seeing as you can convert from RAA to VH-experimental, and from VH-experimental to RAA, without major roadblocks (provided the rules are met), I would have thought the SAAA document would have been relevant to any RAA aircraft.

VH amateur built are experimental, which the regs (various in CASR 91) apply to, specifically.

RAAus amateur-built are not (by same definition/regs) experimental. I don't know what RAAus do as equiv.

[440032]

LoonyBob mentioned Corby bebe.

 

Me thinks the loon might have some knowledge of the Corby (and 3 others) Star Baby design (never built) which preceded the other three John Corby designs.

[LoonyBob]

3 minutes ago, 440032 said:

LoonyBob mentioned Corby bebe.

 

Me thinks the loon might have some knowledge of the Corby (and 3 others) Star Baby design (never built) which preceded the other three John Corby designs.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Innit luverly, though...

[BrendAn]

16 hours ago, sfGnome said:

Possibly this has been discussed before, but I’ve spent the last few hours googling to no avail. My understanding is that for flight over built up areas, the engine must be of some ‘approved’ type. I also understand that this does not mean ‘certified’, so in general such types as Rotax and Jabiru are acceptable. Is that correct so far?

 

If so, then my real question is, how much modification renders the engine unacceptable? For instance, does adding a big bore kit to a Rotax make it unacceptable for such flight? Does a modified engine such as those from Edge pass or fail the acceptability test? For that matter, who decides (and how do they decide) what is acceptable?

assuming you are raa registered then you have to submit the mods for approval and if approved and registered you can fly over a built up area at 1000 agl minimum or the height required for safe gliding distance to clear the built up area.

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

assuming you are raa registered then you have to submit the mods for approval and if approved and registered you can fly over a built up area at 1000 agl minimum or the height required for safe gliding distance to clear the built up area.

See my earlier comment  - RAA letter of authority

[BrendAn]

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

See my earlier comment  - RAA letter of authority

Sorry. I missed it.  As you say there is no letter of authority. It's all in your raa syllabus.

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, 440032 said:

VH amateur built are experimental, which the regs (various in CASR 91) apply to, specifically.

RAAus amateur-built are not (by same definition/regs) experimental. I don't know what RAAus do as equiv.

RAA  have 19 registered aircraft - home built. If you modify a factory built an  E (I think) is added before the  first two numbers

[skippydiesel]

Just now, BrendAn said:

Sorry. I missed it.  As you say there is no letter of authority. It's all in your raa syllabus.

I am a convert (GA- RAA) so have not gone through the RAA  syllabus.

[facthunter]

Techmen are the threatened species in the U/L department. You'd be insane to take that job.. I don't see how CASA can task out THEIR responsibility. actually. .  Nev

[BrendAn]

sorry i put this in the wrong thread and can't delete it.

Edited December 4, 2023 by BrendAn

[sfGnome]

Thanks all for your comments. Although not necessarily applicable to an RAAus registered craft, Onetrack’s SAAA link was very interesting - particularly the risk assessment section (my googling found some SAAA docs, but not that one). Looks like I’ll have to bother the RAAus tech folk again. I seem to have them on speed dial lately. 🙄

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, sfGnome said:

Thanks all for your comments. Although not necessarily applicable to an RAAus registered craft, Onetrack’s SAAA link was very interesting - particularly the risk assessment section (my googling found some SAAA docs, but not that one). Looks like I’ll have to bother the RAAus tech folk again. I seem to have them on speed dial lately. 🙄

You have been given the answer.

[sfGnome]

11 hours ago, BrendAn said:

You have been given the answer.

Well, I’ve been given two answers For RAAus rego; your one that said that approval was required, and Skippy’s that says there is no letter of authority (ie approval). What I don’t want to do is drop significant dollars on an engine and then find that it is restricted, and so given that there’s not a clear agreement, I’ll go to the source (which is somewhat slower). As I said, thanks to all who commented, including your comments which were very helpful. 

[turboplanner]

19 hours ago, facthunter said:

Techmen are the threatened species in the U/L department. You'd be insane to take that job.. I don't see how CASA can task out THEIR responsibility. actually. .  Nev

Self Administering Bodies administer and automatically assume the legal responsibility. If an Entity tells them how to administer or what to administer, the liability shifts to that Entity.