When Is An Aircraft An Aircraft?

[Sunfish]

To put that another way, when does a collection of chunks of Aluminium become something that is subject to the regulations?

[Wally Mk2]

............sheeez 'sunny' what ya drinkin' there but to put it simply the moment you get airborne yr under some sort of regulation !:-


Wmk2

[waren9]

Before that even, I would suggest.

As soon as those chunks are airside, or anyone with a medical or LAME licence so much as lays eyes on it.

[Widewoodenwingswork]

Good question. I'd say that it's when it is registered to an owner/operator before it has a certificate of airworthiness issued. The aircraft cannot be issued a Certificate of Airworthiness without first being on the register so I wouldn't say it's when it has a CoA.

I'm sure if you asked CASA you'd get 10 different answers from 5 different FOI's.

[Creampuff]

That's a very, very good question, Sunfish.

I reckon that we're allowed to build a 747 in our backyards if we want to, and the civil aviation rules have zero application. We just have to make sure we comply with the local zoning and environmenal laws - it may be that building a 747 is noisy and we need a large shed with building approval in which to build it. But it's none of CASA's business if we're private individuals building a 747 in our backyard within a State.

When we want to apply the electrodes to our frankenstein and fly it - that's a very different and complicated regulatory world.

Of course, many builders and manufacturers engage the regulator well in advance of the flying stage, to ensure that the necessary inspections and certifications are obtained in advance of the ultimate goal.

[Avgas172]

When it's a DHC2
the beaver ballad - Google Search (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+beaver+ballad&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari)

[Sunfish]

Serious question.

When do the regulations begin to apply to a collection of aluminium parts?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I 'really' don't know Sunny,

But...I would guess fairly accurately I would think, that the moment you join two of those components together.....for the intention of....'commiting aviation'.

Engineering wise...you had better have it 'right'....and according to the 'plan'....

Otherwise......:ugh::ugh::=:=

Cheers:ok:

[jas24zzk]

Sunny,
your not loading a bullet and thinking of those wing in ground effect machines are you? you know the ones you also need a ship masters ticket for ?
:sad:

[baron_beeza]

It is a very good question and as we will all realise there will be a range of answers.

It all depends on the end use.
If it was ever intended to fly then I would say it should be treated as an aircraft very early in the peace.
With a repair to a deregistered, but certified, aircraft type then the regulators will want to go right back. Part 21 for the supply and design of aeronautical products will be applicable and they will want to see release notes etc.

I would imagine that with non-certified types it would not be so critical.

I do know of one homebuilt type machine though that did not pass muster through a lack of documented history.

If the pieces of aluminium, were ever expected to fly then I would suggest getting the rulebook out sooner would be the go. Later could possibly be too late.

[VH-XXX]

The old saying for homebuilts was something along the lines of, the aircraft is ready to fly when the weight of the paperwork is equal or greater than that of the aircraft. That was until experimental came along....

[thunderbird five]

keep guessing, or........

CASA Aircraft Register Procedures Manual


2.4 What is an Aircraft for the Purposes of Registration?
For the purpose of registration an aircraft is:
Any machine or craft that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air, other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface, as defined in the Civil Aviation Act 1988; and that is intended to be used as an aircraft

Whilst ultralights do not use the ICAO issued Australian prefix “VH” and they are not registered in accordance with the provisions of the CASRs, CARs or this Manual, ultralight aircraft are considered to be Australian aircraft.

Civil Aviation Act 1988 Part 1 Interpretation:

aircraft
means any machine or craft that can derive support in the

atmosphere from the reactions of the air, other than the reactions of

the air against the earth’s surface.

So the answer would be "when it is registered".

[Howard Hughes]

aircraft

means any machine or craft that can derive support in the


atmosphere from the reactions of the air, other than the reactions of


the air against the earth’s surface.

So a ground effect machine is a boat!:ok:

[djpil]

Sunfish - it depends what you are going to do and what category.
With the sort of stuff that I have got involved with the regulations start to apply shortly after the gleam in my eye. I'd need to do a draft certification plan etc. The bits of metal in the prototype for conformity inspection will need paperwork for when I get to that stage. Might be a new airplane or a major mod to existing one.
I'm sure that you can find aeronautical activities where there is minimal regulation. Perhaps you should read the Advisory Circulars that abound on the CASA website.

[Tankengine]

If you are planning on building then I would talk to SAAA.:ok:

[Ixixly]

Isn't there also something about if it remains under 300feet it doesn't count either? or is that only for Model Aircraft?

[Sunfish]

VH experimental from a kit via the SAAA. I've already done the maintainers course so I can do the MR. I am assuming the aircraft is "controlled" by the regulations from the minute its registered, but it doesn't become flyable until it receives its provisional C of A.

I'm already assembling "approved data" for everything not covered by the manufacturer in the kit - wiring, paint, fuel lines, electronics, etc.

My objective is to try to approach Boeings standard of technical documentation since its the only one I know the slightest bit about. References and standards for everything. Document and configuration control.

Probably go to Schedule 5 for the system of maintenance.

When the weight of the paperwork exceeds the weight of the aircraft.........

[Wally Mk2]

'IX' I think you'll find that toy planes come under a different heading with regards to flying machines.Up to 7 kg's you can fly without restriction other than height (300ft) & location with regards to a licensed drome. Abv 7 kg's you need a heavy models permit,, issued in house with the MAAA & abv 25 kg's it's a permit to fly every time, I think:-)


Wmk2

[KRviator]

According to NRMA and Allianz insurance, when it leaves Vans' factory as a "kit aircraft". No amount of arguing with the idiots in the call centre would change their point of view that it is a plane rather than a very expensive pile of aluminum until it gets the special bit of paper.:mad:

So you kitbuilders, best you cover your plane through some aviation insurer lest you find out the hard way if your house burns down...

[Fondair]

When it exceeds 600kg MTOW :E

[VH-XXX]

Let me guess.... and when it exceeds 650kg as a float plane?


C'mon Sunfish, fess up, what is the project?

[Andy_RR]

Sunfish,

You make your life too complicated by overly worrying about bureacracy.

Let me tell you that when you finally get to play with your aluminium bits, the paperwork and Boeing-standard documentation will be a long way from your mind!

How to get that damned rivet set correctly will be a more immediate concern.

[scrufflefish]

To put that another way, when does a collection of chunks of Aluminium become something that is subject to the regulations?
I got around this issue by building in wood.

[PilotKarl_777-300]

When it exceeds 600kg MTOW :E
HAHAHAHA...:ok:

Doesn't implying regulations on newly built aircraft begin way before aluminium part's?

Example as to design, weight, speed, etc..

As other's said it also depends on what the aircraft is going to be used for ect.. Normal, utility, acrobatic, or commuter category airplane.

[Sunfish]

Andy:

Let me tell you that when you finally get to play with your aluminium bits, the paperwork and Boeing-standard documentation will be a long way from your mind!

How to get that damned rivet set correctly will be a more immediate concern.


With respect NO! I can set the rivet correctly, but how do I convince CASA that:

(1) It is a rivet.

(2) A real live aviation rivet of the right size and characteristics.

(3) Its in the right place, according to the plans.

(4) The rivet gauge i use is a real rivet gauge.

(5) The spec. I measure against is the appropriate spec.

(6) My measurement is kosher.


I don't mean to be a pedant, but maybe it's because I once worked for an ex Air Force engineer. Then again there was our delightful but paranoid Chief Inspector at Ansett.

[BronteExperimental]

Sunfish

In the multiple years that it will take you to build your dream aircraft, either:

The paperwork burden will have potentially diminished due to the continual work of the ever diminishing ranks of competent, motivated, proactive, dedicated volunteers (perhaps addressing some of your concerns), or...

Will have increased significantly in line with the over-regulation that is slowly crippling most modern democracies, unchecked by the proliferation of self interested, uncoordinated, recreational aviation splinter groups.

Either way, the paperwork and regulations are such a small part of the process. Attempting to be compliant before staring construction will likeley doom the project.

I wish you the best of luck, but if you want to build an aircraft, you need to get into the garage. None of us can predict the future.

Cheers

[Andy_RR]

Andy:



With respect NO! I can set the rivet correctly,


When you've completed your first flight in your RV-whatever or whatever, I think you'll have the credibility to say that, but until then, I'd suggest you'll be drilling out rivets like the rest of us! :ugh:


but how do I convince CASA that:

(1) It is a rivet.



CASA don't give a ****, it's your arse!


(2) A real live aviation rivet of the right size and characteristics.



CASA don't give a ****, it's your arse!


(3) Its in the right place, according to the plans.



CASA don't give a ****, nor do they approve the plans (unless it's an LSA, then, why are you bothering CASA?)


(4) The rivet gauge i use is a real rivet gauge.



CASA don't give a ****, it's your arse!


(5) The spec. I measure against is the appropriate spec.



CASA don't give a ****, it's your arse!


(6) My measurement is kosher.



CASA don't give a ****, it's your arse!

Just flippin' buy the kit and get rivetting!

[Plazbot]

Aircraft- An aircraft is any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface. (ICAO Annex 1, Annex 6 Part I)

[Sunfish]

Andy RR:

How to get that damned rivet set correctly will be a more immediate concern.

Well at least I'm not building in composites.

Noted American Wooden Yacht Designer L. Francis Herreshof famously called epoxy; "Frozen Snot".

:)

[osmosis]

I remember Clive Canning talking at length about the comparisons of building his Thorpe T18 and, later, his Rutan Defiant. The former was a walk-in-the-park compared the latter thanks to added regulatory compliance. Further, the Defiant was first-of-type in Oz. Is that why you're worrying, Sunfish; doing a first of type?

[Sunfish]

Nah, won't be last of type either.

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
If you want an authoritative explanation of the underpinning "philosophy" for Experimental Amateur Built certificates ( or most non- standard cat. aircraft, for that matter) talk to Stephen Dines of Dines Aviation in Sydney, he produces the final paperwork for a good proportion of all the amateur builts flying, probably more than SAAA.

I am afraid the SAAA have some rather odd "policies" that are a hold over from the pre-1998 days, and the old very restrictive and bureaucratic AABA approach to life.

In short, there are no standards, and the safety of the public under the flightpath of the aircraft, and other airspace users is controlled by the operating limitations that will be an annex of your Experimental Certificate, when you finally get same.

Andy_RR's colourful description is accurate.

Tootle pip!!!

[tnuc]

I know of someone that was "prosecuted" by CASA for carrying out maintenace on an aircraft. The said person was not a LAME nor a qualified AME.

This person purchased a damaged and unregistered certified aircraft type which he subsequently rebuilt in his garage. despite having no formal qualifications he did an A1 job with a high standard of work, used all manufacturer supplied replacment parts with the correct release note and tracability.

The s--t hit the fan with CASA when he went to register the aircraft and apply for a new certificate of airworthiness to be issued.

The problem was, he was not "authorised" as someone that could carry out the mainteance under CAR 42 ZC Mainteance on an Australian Aircraft in Australian teritory.

The definition of an Australian Aircraft is described in para 3 ( Interpretation) of the Civil Aviation Act.

3 Interpretation

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

Australian aircraft means:
(a) aircraft registered in Australia; and
(b) aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered aircraft and state aircraft.

[baron_beeza]

This person purchased a damaged and unregistered certified aircraft type which he subsequently rebuilt in his garage. despite having no formal qualifications he did an A1 job with a high standard of work, used all manufacturer supplied replacment parts with the correct release note and tracability.

That is unbelievable, surely he must have realised that you can't do that.
It seems like a major waste of time, money and effort.

[VH-XXX]

The smart option would have been for him to find a LAME to sign it out for a few bucks.

Plenty of people are doing that out there, some long term Tiger Moth restorations come to mind.



Come-on Sunfish, divulge. You've been keeping us on edge for months.

[blackhand]

This person purchased a damaged and unregistered certified aircraft type which he subsequently rebuilt in his garage. despite having no formal qualifications he did an A1 job with a high standard of work, used all manufacturer supplied replacment parts with the correct release note and tracability.

This has the hallmarks of an urban myth.

VH-XXX please withdraw that post, not many people building those types
Cheers

BH

[baron_beeza]

This has the hallmarks of an urban myth.

I reckon...

I would liken that to someone buying an aircraft and teaching his son to fly.
Only to be told when trying to book him in for a PPL flight test.....

Ooops

[osmosis]

In recent days I discussed this very issue with a woman whose husband was searching for a property some years ago with a very large shed to restore his vintage a/c. They found the property, not far from me at the time, moved the bits in and rolled the restored a/c out. She's quite proud of the fact she helped. I have a passing interest in this; but passing interest only and wondered HTF he (and she) managed to get away with it. The a/c has long since been sold and flown interstate. Is it easier to do restorations than builds? As an afterthought, I remember my afore-mentioned Thorpe builder being frustrated he was not authorised to perform simple airframe maintenance on an a/c he had built literally from sheetmetal.

[VH-XXX]

VH-XXX please withdraw that post, not many people building those types

I'm not sure what you mean there.

Last guy I helped to load a written off Tiger onto a trailer was nor a LAME or AME and he was restoring it himself to fly it.

BB - came across a guy like that recently, he was driving a tow truck and picking up a car from the airport when we got chatting and turned out that he owned a couple of unregistered Tigers up in the hills an was telling me how he was teaching his daughter to fly.

[Sunfish]

XXX:

BB - came across a guy like that recently, he was driving a tow truck and picking up a car from the airport when we got chatting and turned out that he owned a couple of unregistered Tigers up in the hills an was telling me how he was teaching his daughter to fly.

This problem - "scoff laws" emerges in all sorts of places when it becomes too difficult to comply with the law and regulations.


Osmosis:

As an afterthought, I remember my afore-mentioned Thorpe builder being frustrated he was not authorised to perform simple airframe maintenance on an a/c he had built literally from sheetmetal.

Do an SAAA maintainers course and you can maintain an aircraft you built yourself. If you buy an already built experimental aircraft you will have to have a LAME maintain it.

[blackhand]

came across a guy like that recently, he was driving a tow truck and picking up a car from the airport when we got chatting and turned out that he owned a couple of unregistered Tigers up in the hills an was telling me how he was teaching his daughter to fly.
And the banjos played softly in the background.

Appears that you feel the LAMEs role in aircraft maintenance is not required.
That's fine.

Cheers
BH

[VH-XXX]

Osmosis - the Thorpe builder may have built under the old ABAA and therefore he may not have actually been entitled to maintain the aircraft, even though he built it.

Have I got that correct old-timers that were around under the ABAA regime? :hmm:


BH - not my comments. He checked out; said all the right things and knew a lot about Tigers so I could only assume he was legit. I think he actually did have a Banjo on the dash of his F150 tow-truck!

[aroa]

The guy that rebuilt the aircraft, altho unqualified, was quite entitiled to do so
His mistake was NOT to go to a LAME to get it thoroughly inspected, written up and an MR signed off.... then go for a CoA. Anything wrong with that ????

Many thousands of unqualified folk have rebuilt old aeroplanes
I am familiar with 42 ZC 1... thats wot the CASA wallies quoted for myself, when I happened to be assessing the security of split pins in the hinges of an aeroplane WITH NO MR.!
I could have done the same thing even WITH an MR See Sched 8. Pilot Maintainence. And as an indication of how fcuked up they were, the charge changed later to PIC doing "maintenance" PIC of an aeroplane with NO MR and not legally flyable?????
But I think the lazy CASA officers just got to 1st reg, page one... that'll do for a bust. Pity the rest of it (their accusation) was all made up. Gotta make the crime fit the penalty, you know. :\ :mad:

Like many other regs its poorly written and NOT specfic, because from a legal perspective there are TWO types of aeroplanes. But the reg just says "aircraft", but it does NOT say at which legal status they mean.
ONE... An aeroplane that has a current MR is deemed to be airworthy and IS legally flyable.
TWO..An aeroplane that has NO MR is NOT a "legally flyable entity"... altho it may well be airworthy.
CASA has never advised the industry, LAMEs, Chief Engineers or individuals to the contrary,ie that individuals unqualified and unsupervised cannot work on an aeroplane that HAS NO MR.
If CASA put a stop to that then workshops, sheds around the country with vintage and warbird rebuilds, and GA maint, would all come to a halt.
And if they think that doesnt happen, then they they arent really looking... because I can show you maintenance workshops where that goes on every day.!
So which is it. Does your C-172 or whatever, with NO MR into which you put TLC, fixes and etc...have about as much interest to CASA as an empty beer can, PRIOR to then have a LAME do an annual and sign off an MR. You tell him what you have done, he checks the aircraft over and deems it to be airworthy, and once signed off ..tis now a "legally flyable entity"
Legal or...??? :sad:
Please advise.

[baron_beeza]

I work in many hangars and get to hear aspects of this topic, from the various regulators, the customers, and the mechanics.
I agree with much of what you have to say.
Perhaps much of it is just in the wording of the regs.

An aircraft in a hangar is expected to have an open work pack with defects cleared etc as the job progresses. We would be hung out to dry if we could not even produce the latest amended publications for example.... I say that in the context that I have never yet been asked on the present airworthiness status of the aircraft.
I think it is taken as read that once a defect is opened, be it for planned maintenance or whatever, the aircraft is no longer airworthy. The rules still apply.

Going back to the other parallel, could we not say that teaching your son to fly is fine provided you can get an instructor to sign off on the various lessons, stalling, circuits, crosswinds etc.

I would have thought the instructor would have wanted to have been about for at least a bit of that.

From my memory of the regs there is normally one for persons who can perform maintenance.
We then have all the definitions of maintenance etc.

Most countries say anyone can perform maintenance, the catch being it will have a clause stipulating it is under the direct supervision of a LAME.
That is the bit we generally get to hear debated. Just how close is close ?

It will be much the same as the pilot again. Anyone can fly an aircraft. You don't need to have a SPL, a medical or anything.

The difference here is of course the regs are very clear on solo flight.
Close supervision being a little more clearly defined.

It is a very good question though. If we just think of certified aircraft alone here... and I mean of the GA variety, - there must be a substantial number sitting in workshops, garages and even the backs of hangars. Most may never fly again, many obviously will. Some may be on the register, some not.
At what point would the regulator get interested in that case ?

I think it can be seen it is a call the LAME releasing the aircraft back to service has to make. I always give the CAA or CASA a courtesy call if work commences that is likely to end up in the re-registration and/or Airworthiness Certificate.
Same applies with the import of a un-airworthy machine, - I believe they should be at least informed of it's presence and location.

So, the LAME is supervising the work.... he should be at least informed you would think. He in turn will then pass on details to the regulators if he thinks re-registration is about to be requested.

[Sunfish]

This is getting surreal.

[VH-XXX]

Sunfish, everyone is waiting to hear what you are going to build.

Once you tell us, the conversation will take a different direction, who knows where...

[blackhand]

That is the bit we generally get to hear debated. Just how close is close ?

There is no debate.
Refer definitions CASR dictionary.

Clause 30 Meaning of supervising
A person (the supervisor) is supervising the carrying out of maintenance done by another person if the supervisor:
(a) is physically present at the place that the maintenance is being carried out; and
(b) is observing the maintenance being carried out to the extent necessary to enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is being carried out properly; and
(c) is available to give advice to, and answer questions about the maintenance from, the person carrying it out.

[baron_beeza]

As we probably realise the rules are all inter-tangled. It is difficult to read just one part in isolation.
We also need the definitions of 'maintenance' and also 'aircraft' for much of it to make sense.

CASA have produced a guide that was relevant at the time. At least it does have references to some of the regulations.

http://www.plasticpilot.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/CASAMaintenanceGuideForEngineers.pdf

More recently they have released a guide to Pilot Maintenance.

Once again it is only a guide, in this case a CAAP.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/airworth/42zc_1.pdf

I don't know if either approach the topic of 'when is an aircraft an aircraft' though.

I am looking after four aircraft that are currently withdrawn from use and in storage. Each one has an opened work pack and entries are being done at each step.

The Australian regs and publications are far from easy to navigate about.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 42ZC Maintenance on Australian aircraft in Australian territory (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s42zc.html)

I doubt any of the above will be at the latest amendment state or indeed current.

[Andy_RR]

There is no debate.
Refer definitions CASR dictionary.

Clause 30 Meaning of supervising
A person (the supervisor) is supervising the carrying out of maintenance done by another person if the supervisor:
(a) is physically present at the place that the maintenance is being carried out; and
(b) is observing the maintenance being carried out to the extent necessary to enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is being carried out properly; and
(c) is available to give advice to, and answer questions about the maintenance from, the person carrying it out.

All of which can be satisfied by having a friendly LAME on the end of a phone, who comes over to the workshop from time to time to see how things are getting along.

Note that a) doesn't specify that the LAME must be physically at the place the maintenance is being carried out AT AND ALL THE TIME the maintenance is being carried out.

b) allows the LAME to form his own opinion, so no debate there then

c) can be satisfied with Alexander Bell's wonderful technology.

[baron_beeza]

All of which can be satisfied by having a friendly LAME on the end of a phone, who comes over to the workshop from time to time to see how things are getting along.

I don't see that Andy. I admit it may have some grey edges but I have never heard of a phone call cutting it.

I realise it is a prudent approach and I certainly encourage my customers to ring me, no matter what. Be it a leaking brake or flat oleo or whatever.

Pilot maintenance is often poorly done, more in regards to the paperwork... but it has to be done.

I personally know of two LAME's that have lost their licences, and their businesses, through incorrectly supervised work. Basically substandard work that they covered for.
I think we can appreciate it is one hell of a risk for little reward.
Whenever I get asked to do a dodgy signature I happily agree.. no problems at all with that.

Once the 2 million dollars is in my bank just bring the books around. Strangely enough I am not a millionaire just yet.

[aroa]

Fom p5 2/06/2008

"maintenance" means any task required to ensure, or that could affect, the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, or aeronautical product, including any one or combination of overhaul, repair, inspection, replacement of an aeronautical product,modification or defect rectification.

Got yr head and tongue around all that in one 'sentence'.

AWIs have a problem with its interpretation, and they claim to be "experts":\
Alas..!
Re split pins.... see Sched 8 (4)

And as for the word "supervising" dont get me started on that !

Remember, when CASA orifficers are having a 'brain snap' their words miraculously become your words.! So not only did they see something that never happened, they heard things that weren't said as well.
So much for Sec 3. :eek:

[Andy_RR]

I don't see that Andy. I admit it may have some grey edges but I have never heard of a phone call cutting it.


I'm not saying it's a good idea, or that CASA will agree to it, but if you use the strict interpretation of their regulations, that's what you'd have to conclude. If they meant something different, they should have said so.

It's not the first loophole I've seen in the regulations. The guys writing that stuff wouldn't get a job coding flight computers or anything else... :*

[Sunfish]

Didn't know the definition was as open as it is. The kit may be sold unopened. I may take up golf.

I can maintain an aircraft according to the SAAA maintainers course, but how the aircraft got to be built to a maintainable condition seems to be unknown.

What happens for example if I bought a certified engine and then bolted it to an uncertified airframe, then proceeded to hook up an oil cooler to a certified engine, not being a LAME? Is the engine still certified?

Does everything depend on the interpretation of my friendly local CASA man?

I mean it. The box may be sold unopened unless I can be shown a clear and unambiguous route to registration and certification.

Seems like we have the blind leading the blind. All I seem to hear is that everything is prohibited, but there are exemptions...............

[thunderbird five]

You claim to have done the SAAA course, yet you still know nothing about Experimental :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Sell it.

[djpil]

The kit ...Aaaah! So, you are building an Experimental homebuilt then? We're not talking about TCs and PCs then? You won't be bothered by CASA very much at all - take a read of AC 21.4(2) AMATEUR-BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT — CERTIFICATION (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c04.pdf) Maybe I'm wrong there too - don't have a lot to go on with just the word "kit".

[VH-XXX]

Oh Dear Sunfish, look at this can of worms.

The standard route is to buy a kit, purchase the SAAA information kit (in
either order), build the kit to any standard whatsoever, get it registered and fly away! YOU set the standar because YOU and only YOU are ultimately responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft that YOU have built.


It is literally no more complex than that!

Been there, done that as have so many others already!!!

Don't throw around the word "certification" and experimental, the two are not related.

You could fit a certified engine however there is zero need to do so and it would be a waste of money as it is not a requirement for flight.

[redelect]

68% done but cheep a

[baron_beeza]

Once a certified engine is fitted to an experimental it is no longer certified.

Some authorities request the data plate be stamped.

Naturally the engine can be maintained along certified lines but I am sure not all the normal rules and procedures would be applicable.

I have never been brave enough to go near an experimental, if only because I am not prepared to learn another set of regulations.

Much of what we discussed earlier was for certified machines. CASA are not directly involved in the maintenance of some other types.

[BronteExperimental]

Sunfish,

Im not sure what your true motivation is...

Hundreds of people in AUS have gone down the ABE route with minimal fuss.

You know where to get the information you require, and its probably not here.

If you are genuinely struggling, PM me and ill point you in the right direction.

Cheers

BE

[thunderbird five]

Is it getting to the stage that we can't believe Sunny?
Says he has a kit but won't say what.
He said his fond farewells, but didn't leave.
Then it was all too hard and he was going to build a boat.
Now he's going golfing?
What's next?

Me thinks we're all suckers for subscribing to any of it:{

[Sunfish]

1. Boat built.

2. Have received invitation to golf day at Royal Melbourne.

3. I'll tell you what I'm building when I start it.

4. Joined SAAA and did the weekend maintainers course but haven't joined a chapter yet nor bought the builders kit because I'm in process of moving house.

[VH-XXX]

Last time he was discussing at this level of seriousness it was heading down the path of Zodiac or Savannah style. High wing, boxy and slowish. We shall see!