I think the issue is the fact that possibly the aircraft in question has no Type Certificate in the appropriate category?
It is not a "Restricted Category" machine but operates in the "Special or Experimental Category".
Special or Experimental category does not allow the type of work that is proposed or been carried out. Part 91.105
The occurrence that brought things to light -
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT OCCURRENCE NUMBER 01/451 WESTLAND WESSEX HC MK 5C ZK-HVK
15KM SOUTH-WEST OF MOTUEKA 12 FEBRUARY 2001
Lets roll back to 2003 -
Here is a summary of action the CAA will take in order to raise the safety levels of ex-military helicopters:
General
• All restricted and special category aircraft must have an approved maintenance programme.
• Any variation to a maintenance programme must be approved.
• Design changes must use approved data.
• All special category helicopters will have limitations imposed on external load and agricultural operations until the level of safety is assessed as adequate for the intended purpose.
• CAA will work with operators to ensure that maintenance and continued airworthiness requirements for currently registered and certificated aircraft are raised to an acceptable level within two years.
Existing Types in New Zealand
• Additional imports of existing types must have adequate maintenance and continued airworthiness aspects addressed for an airworthiness certificate to be issued.
Future Imports
• Imports of new types must meet the type acceptance certification.
• Type certificates must address maintenance and continued airworthiness.
Future Directions
• Review restricted and special category airworthiness certificate categories in Part 21 to with a view to including specific purposes.
• Consider with industry the certification of commercial external lifting operations under Part 133.
• Develop, with industry, guidance and advisory material for heli-logging operations.
Operating a special experimental category aircraft for the carriage of goods for hire or reward (6 charges)
Operating an aircraft without the appropriate and necessary aviation document namely a standard or restricted category certificate of airworthiness (6 charges)
Civil Aviation Act 1990 – 46(1)(a) Civil Aviation Rule 91.105(a) Nelson District Court – 10 July 2002
The defendant company was the operator of a Wessex helicopter used in heli-logging operations without the required documentation.
The court heard that the defendant company, which had since changed its name, had secured a contract in May 2000 to fell and extract logs by helicopter at the rate of $40 a tonne.The helicopter’s special experimental certificate meant it could not be operated for the carriage of goods for hire or reward.
TheWessex continued flying almost daily until February 2001 when it crashed while on logging operations, killing the pilot. Documents were produced showing the company had received payment of $51,032.84 for work carried out between 2 November 2000 and 7 February 2001.
The defendant company pleaded guilty to 12 charges – six laid under section 46 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 for operating a helicopter knowing that it was required to have a standard airworthiness certificate or restricted category airworthiness certificate. The helicopter instead had a special experimental air- worthiness certificate.
Another six charges were laid under Part 91. They related to operating an aircraft with a special air- worthiness certificate for the carriage of goods for hire or reward.
The company was convicted and fined $1000 on each of the six charges and ordered to pay court costs of $130 on each,bringing the total fines and costs to $6780. In addition the CAA investigation costs of $2000 and solicitors fees of $1500 were sought and granted,giving a total financial penalty of $10,280.The company was also convicted on the rule 91.105(a) charges, but as these charges were for the same activity as the other more serious charges, no penalty was either sought by the CAA or imposed by the court.