Whats required for "Normal" catergory design under FAR 23?

[Basefor02]

Please forgive my ignorance, but I am a pilot from Australia and I am having some troubles with the national regulator (CASA) with regards to the operations our aircraft is allowed to perform. We own a Pipistel Virus SW (ICAO code PIVI) and we have been told by CASA that we cannot use the aircraft for photography work because it has not been designed to, quote "Normal Category Type Design (FAR 23)".

I would now like to see where the aircraft doesn't meet the normal category type design specifications in order to work out whether it is reasonable for CASA to put such a broad ban on us. Can anybody tell me, or ideally provide me with, the specifications that have to be meet to fit into the normal catergory? Are they with regard to performance, maintenance, manufacturing standards or a combination?

Thanks in advance.

[john_tullamarine]

I'm not familiar with your machine but presume it is an amateur built or ultralight ?

CASA's use of "FAR 23" in this case, I suspect, doesn't mean that the aircraft has to be designed with consideration of FAR 23 but that it has to be certificated to that Standard to be used for unrestricted operations.

If you need I can do a little research for you or else find an appropriate current name to contact in the Authority to discuss.

[Basefor02]

It does fall into the Ultra light category simply because it is very light weight, although it has for more in common with your light GA aircraft than the typical ultralight. It is a factory built plane from Slovenia and is VH registered, currently under a special category airworthiness certificate.
We have had some discussions with the Authority so far with us stating our position that the aircraft is equally, if not more suitable for the photography role than your standard GA aeroplane, that it was factory built and actually modified at the factory (with the appropriate manual supplements) for photography. We have got testimonials for the manufacturer saying that it is suitable, from our maintenance organisation saying that it is being maintained to the same standard as any other airwork category aircraft they work on, but CASA have come back to us and said that due to the requirements of CAR262APA (1988) they cannot/will not allow our aircraft to be used in that capacity.
I can see that our aircraft falls into the scope of this law, but I cannot see how it is reasonable, and I certainly cannot see how it would be a safety issue.

Any help or advise you are able to give would be appreciated.

[westhawk]

This issue piqued my curiosity upon reading the first 2 posts, so I did a little research of my own and reached the same conclusions regarding the certification status of the Virus aircraft as stated by the OP in post #3. It appears from what's been posted so far that the local Aero cops are taking the position that an airplane not certified in the normal category may not be used in commercial aerial photo work.

Is that essentially the issue?

If so, perhaps there's a waiver process which might be employed?

Best of success,

Westhawk

[Basefor02]

Hi Westhawk,

This is the avenue that we originally looked down also and in my corospondence so far with CASA I asked if there was a way we could apply for a dispensation or concession to allow us to use our aircraft for the photography role. The reply was that after speaking with the Airworthiness and Engineering branch there would be no concessions or dispensations forthcoming and that we will need to obtain an aircraft that is approved for the purpose under the existing rules.
Obtaining another aeroplane is rather cost prohibitive, so I am now trying to get a clear picture of why this rule (CAR262APA) need apply to our aircraft or if there are ways for us to avoid it (for example, if our aircraft was reclassified as Normal category rather than ULA).

[john_tullamarine]

Ultra light category

But is it certificated to FAR 23 ? - most likely, not.

it has for more in common with your light GA aircraft than the typical ultralight

nice to know but irrelevant

currently under a special category airworthiness certificate

which says, explicitly, that it doesn't comply with one or more standard certification requirements

the aircraft is equally, if not more suitable for the photography role than your standard GA aeroplane

again, nice to know, but irrelevant

testimonials for the manufacturer saying that it is suitable

ditto

from our maintenance organisation saying that it is being maintained to the same standard as any other airwork category aircraft they work on

at least that's a tick in the box

CAR 262APA (1988)

(1) A person must not operate a light sport aircraft covered by regulation 21.186 of CASR unless:

(a) the aircraft is being operated for:
(i) private operations; or
(ii) conducting or undergoing flying training; or
(iii) glider towing;

Reg 206, on the other hand -

(1)For the purposes of subsection 27 (9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:

(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV):
(i) aerial surveying;
(ii) aerial spotting;
(iii) agricultural operations;
(iv) aerial photography;
(v) advertising;
(vi) flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate issued under regulation 21.195A of CASR or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(vii) ambulance functions;
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);

is what creates your problem.

but I cannot see how it is reasonable, and I certainly cannot see how it would be a safety issue.

while I might sympathise, it is now a Regulatory/legal matter and you will need to seek legal opinion if you intend to pursue it. Not for me to recommend particular solicitors to start you off but there is a number of such folk about the Australian landscape who could help. My legally non-competent view is that you would be wasting your time.

CASA officers will be unlikely to exercise any delegations in respect of 262APA to help you out so the only realistic avenue is to get the Reg changed and it's the way it is due to the differences in design and certification standards - Catch 22, I'm afraid ...

our aircraft was reclassified as Normal category rather than ULA

forget it .. unless you want to go into the aircraft design and certification business and have LOTS of money. The OEM would have gone this path if it made any commercial sense.

[westhawk]

I'm afraid JT has dug up the truth of the matter as far as the regulatory specifics go. It's interesting to note that a 70 year old cub would satisfy the regs applying to your intended use while still being eligible for use by sport pilots at the same time. But the cub was certified to the old CAR 3 standards, which later became part 23. Certifying a new part 23 airplane is a considerable expense for any manufacturer, requiring extensive certification expertise and experience.

LSA is a somewhat less cumbersome certification route which was intended to put new aircraft in the air and attract new pilots to aviation with it's lower cost and complexity. I perceive this to be the primary reason why light sport certification was successfully pushed through the regulatory juggernaut. Part of the concessions that needed to made in order to create this category was a regulatory recognition that less oversight on the design and testing of aircraft certified in this category should naturally be to place more restrictions on their allowable uses and performance capabilities. Looked at objectively, it seems a logical conclusion. These limitations on use are also reflected in the less rigorous academic and performance standards for sport pilot certification. I think they really hoped to bring more of the completely unregulated ultralights into the certification fold and it appears that they have achieved some success in that area.

Bottom line: As far as the various aviation regulatory authorities are concerned, these non-part 23 normal category airplanes are intended to be used for recreational and training purposes only. Other uses will require that the more exhaustive and more expensive normal category certification process be followed.

I had thought that some regulatory loophole like restricted category certification or a waiver process might solve your problem, but you've apparently pursued these avenues to a dead end.

Westhawk

[FlightPathOBN]

JT nailed it, not certified for commercial use. It ends about right there. CASA exemption process would be stressed to the extreme, and expense would be on the order of OEM participation.

Not sure what type of photographic equipment you intend to use, but any commercial aircraft would have to be certified per that specific piece of equipment add-on. (assuming the 'pod' would be mounted to the exterior of the aircraft)

[john_tullamarine]

Some extra thoughts -

(a) AC 21.6(0) might provide an avenue for investigation ?

(b) used to be that the photography of concern was that which was near vertical (can't recall the angular cutoff just now) ie didn't apply to out of the window happy snaps. A quick look through the Act and Regs doesn't show up this distinction so it may have gone the way of the dodo years ago.

[Basefor02]

Thank you very much for all your info/advice and clarifications. With regard to the oblique/vertical situation, I do believe it is a bygone situation. We have had a few people mention that we shouldn't even require an AoC because of that but looking at Reg 206 it lists aerial photography as airwork, not vertical photography.

I will look into the restricted category however, you never know!

[john_tullamarine]

Who are you dealing with in the main at the Authority ? PM, if you prefer.

[FlightPathOBN]

Commercial use is commercial use. Do not violate that premise.

Your fly is unzipped at this point.