RAA HQ - legal issues and claims

[BrendAn]

I have a question of my own though.

Can anyone tell me if vh experimental have to be fitted with strobes , nav lights and transponders if they are vfr only not in cta. 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

Is this supposed to be for the never ending story.

I think you've summed things up very well.

What's going on certainly doesn't have much to do with RAA documentation.

[440032]

There are no different specifications for lighting for experimental within the Part 91 MOS.

See MOS

26.22 for anti-collision lights "required by type design" - Experimental amateur-built as an example have no type design. (not type certificated) LSA also is not type certificated.

26.23 for NVFR landing lights

26.26 for NVFR nav lights

Transponder - Class D towers and G airspace (OCTA) - see AIP

[BrendAn]

10 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I think you've summed things up very well.

What's going on certainly doesn't have much to do with RAA documentation.

Neither did spacesailors  question, he asked if wing loading was taken into account for vh experimental.

 

[BrendAn]

11 minutes ago, 440032 said:

There are no different specifications for lighting for experimental within the Part 91 MOS.

See MOS

26.22 for anti-collision lights "required by type design" - Experimental amateur-built as an example have no type design. (not type certificated) LSA also is not type certificated.

26.23 for NVFR landing lights

26.26 for NVFR nav lights

Transponder - Class D towers and G airspace (OCTA) - see AIP

thank you.

[aro]

14 hours ago, turboplanner said:

it's best for the person involved to be contacting the organization responsible for registration

The SAAA are THE experts on this in Australia.

SAAA Authorised Persons probably issue the vast majority of special certificates of airworthiness for amateur built aircraft in Australia - not CASA.

So the SAAA documentation written to assist people to get their airworthiness certificate is an excellent source of documentation - probably the best there is. The next step is to talk to SAAA and an AP.

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, aro said:

The SAAA are THE experts on this in Australia.

SAAA Authorised Persons probably issue the vast majority of special certificates of airworthiness for amateur built aircraft in Australia - not CASA.

So the SAAA documentation written to assist people to get their airworthiness certificate is an excellent source of documentation - probably the best there is. The next step is to talk to SAAA and an AP.

So are you saying that if you have an aircraft rejected on the grounds of safety by Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd, you just take it to SAAA and they will register it?

[BrendAn]

36 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

So are you saying that if you have an aircraft rejected on the grounds of safety by Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd, you just take it to SAAA and they will register it?

. saaa inspectors are not going to pass an aircraft that is not airworthy.

[turboplanner]

6 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

. saaa inspectors are not going to pass an aircraft that is not airworthy.

Well the owner should be told that rather than be given a different story.

[440032]

2 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

. saaa inspectors are not going to pass an aircraft that is not airworthy.

For amateur-built aircraft, APs (of any affiliation) are not responsible for airworthiness. Full stop.

 

 

(p.s. SAAA don't register any aircraft.)

[aro]

40 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

So are you saying that if you have an aircraft rejected on the grounds of safety by Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd, you just take it to SAAA and they will register it?

SAAA very explicitly DO NOT assess the airworthiness of the aircraft. Only the eligibility, paperwork etc.

Airworthiness is up to CASA, and CASA do not set airworthiness standards for amateur built experimental aircraft. Neither do SAAA.

You're Mr Public Liability - if SAAA start assessing airworthiness and rejecting aircraft they deem as unsafe, someone is going come along after an accident and say they should have rejected the aircraft involved. Much safer to just handle the paperwork and let CASA determine the airworthiness standards or lack thereof.

[Thruster88]

44 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

So are you saying that if you have an aircraft rejected on the grounds of safety by Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd, you just take it to SAAA and they will register it?

You should read the provided link above a few times then you may understand how the whole system works. No individual approved person is going to pass an aircraft that are not airworthy. 

[BrendAn]

section 3   deals with inspections and explains wing loading requirements.

advisory-circular-21-11-amateur-built-(abaa)-aircraft-certification (1).pdf

[aro]

8 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

section 3   deals with inspections and explains wing loading requirements.

 

That's for ABAA aircraft, which is different to Experimental. I'd be surprised if anyone is going ABAA anymore. It's a lot more restrictive.

[aro]

24 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

No individual approved person is going to pass an aircraft that are not airworthy.

They are not supposed to assess airworthiness, so it's hard to see how they could reject it?

[turboplanner]

There's a lot of skipping around going on here; either a refused RAA Aircraft CAN be flown in SAAA or another category or it can't.

 

The owner said 21 hours ago(these times will change as time goes on): "I believe the 95-10 Wing Loading" is not applicable to VH Experimental. Am I wrong?"

 

21 hours a document was posted: SAAA Controlled Document IppGen008-001 headed Convert RAAS amateur - built to VH Experimental.

 

This was a general advice information paper  which did not refer to cases such as where RAA has refused to approve/register and aicraft on safety grounds.

 

There was no mention that an aircraft had been refused on safety grounds, no suggestion that this would be advised to SAAA/CASA.

 

At 19 hours ago the owner said the advice which was being posted "does what is needed"

 

Your advice, your responsibility. If CASA rejects this point blank, what are you going to tell the owner?

 

 

 

 

 

[BrendAn]

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

There's a lot of skipping around going on here; either a refused RAA Aircraft CAN be flown in SAAA or another category or it can't.

 

The owner said 21 hours ago(these times will change as time goes on): "I believe the 95-10 Wing Loading" is not applicable to VH Experimental. Am I wrong?"

 

21 hours a document was posted: SAAA Controlled Document IppGen008-001 headed Convert RAAS amateur - built to VH Experimental.

 

This was a general advice information paper  which did not refer to cases such as where RAA has refused to approve/register and aicraft on safety grounds.

 

There was no mention that an aircraft had been refused on safety grounds, no suggestion that this would be advised to SAAA/CASA.

 

At 19 hours ago the owner said the advice which was being posted "does what is needed"

 

Your advice, your responsibility. If CASA rejects this point blank, what are you going to tell the owner?

 

 

 

 

 

 i simply posted what i could find on the subject. i don't believe the comments about registering without inspection.

someone has to do an inspection to provide a coa.

stop trying to turn everything into some liability argument. 

[jackc]

4 hours ago, aro said:

The SAAA are THE experts on this in Australia.

SAAA Authorised Persons probably issue the vast majority of special certificates of airworthiness for amateur built aircraft in Australia - not CASA.

So the SAAA documentation written to assist people to get their airworthiness certificate is an excellent source of documentation - probably the best there is. The next step is to talk to SAAA and an AP.

There is ongoing negotiations between CASA and SAAA on some changes to CASA instruments in relation to aircraft coming from RAA to VH.

There will be a positive announcement shortly, to benefit many aircraft owners 

[BrendAn]

52 minutes ago, aro said:

SAAA very explicitly DO NOT assess the airworthiness of the aircraft. Only the eligibility, paperwork etc.

Airworthiness is up to CASA, and CASA do not set airworthiness standards for amateur built experimental aircraft. Neither do SAAA.

You're Mr Public Liability - if SAAA start assessing airworthiness and rejecting aircraft they deem as unsafe, someone is going come along after an accident and say they should have rejected the aircraft involved. Much safer to just handle the paperwork and let CASA determine the airworthiness standards or lack thereof.

whether it is saaa or casa  appointed people, someone has to do the coa.

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

 i simply posted what i could find on the subject. i don't believe the comments about registering without inspection.

someone has to do an inspection to provide a coa.

stop trying to turn everything into some liability argument. 

It's not a liability argument, its very unlikely that an aircraft which has been grounded on safety grounds will be given a tick by another Administrator if they are given the original reasons yet here we've seen irrelevant documents posted suggesting it can be done.

[aro]

10 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

someone has to do an inspection to provide a coa.

The SAAA Authorised Person does the inspection. But they do not inspect for airworthiness, despite the certificate name. They will inspect for documentation, passenger warning, EXPERIMENTAL placard etc.

The special certificate of airworthiness does not in fact certify that the aircraft is airworthy.

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

It's not a liability argument, its very unlikely that an aircraft which has been grounded on safety grounds will be given a tick by another Administrator if they are given the original reasons yet here we've seen irrelevant documents posted suggesting it can be done.

which one suggests it can be done, i was wrong about wing loadings, there is a section on that. i agree with what you saying but his aircraft may fit criteria under vh rules. for instance if the stall speed is too high for raaus . it might be ok for vh.

only an inspection by a vh exp inspector will provide the ultimate answer.

[BrendAn]

Just now, aro said:

The SAAA Authorised Person does the inspection. But they do not inspect for airworthiness, despite the certificate name. They will inspect for documentation, passenger warning, EXPERIMENTAL placard etc.

The special certificate of airworthiness does not in fact certify that the aircraft is airworthy.

so what do they do when buiding a kit or plans built ac. i thought they had inspections for each stage . i would not want to fly in one that hadn't.

[aro]

4 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

so what do they do when buiding a kit or plans built ac. i thought they had inspections for each stage . i would not want to fly in one that hadn't.

Inspections are recommended and there is builder support to help it happen, but it's not required.

The airworthiness is 100% the responsibility of the builder and later operator. If you wouldn't trust the builder to build an airworthy aircraft, don't fly in it.

SAAA are not in the business of assessing airworthiness, otherwise they would get dragged into court to justify why they didn't reject particular aircraft.

[turboplanner]

34 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

which one suggests it can be done, i was wrong about wing loadings, there is a section on that. i agree with what you saying but his aircraft may fit criteria under vh rules. for instance if the stall speed is too high for raaus . it might be ok for vh.

only an inspection by a vh exp inspector will provide the ultimate answer.

RAA aircraft are only allowed to fly if they can achieve the designated stall speed range in order that landing collisions will result in a lower level of damage/injuries. In this case the structure isn't going to be redesigned, tested and rebuilt to GA standards and stall speeds, so there's no rabbit hole there.