Defence & Civil Registered Aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence & Civil Registered Aircraft
Hey guys,
A mate of mine asked me this today and I don't know the answer so I thought I'd throw it out here to see if I can get a response.
He said he was down at the RAAF Museum and was told by the staff there that their CT4 is registered as both a RAAF aircraft (with the military serial number) and is also on the civil register as well (with the VH-??? number). I didn't realize this could be done, nor could I really see the advantage in doing so.
I would have presumed that if its registered as a defense assett it must comply with a whole bunch of defense requirements. That's great and I guess avoids all the CASA bull****. Conversely if its registered as a civil aircraft I presume there might be benefits in that (perhaps less strick maintenance than compared with defence, I don't know..)
But I couldn't see the benefit in it being registered under both? Surely then you've got two different sets of requirements to meet?
Cheers,
AB
A mate of mine asked me this today and I don't know the answer so I thought I'd throw it out here to see if I can get a response.
He said he was down at the RAAF Museum and was told by the staff there that their CT4 is registered as both a RAAF aircraft (with the military serial number) and is also on the civil register as well (with the VH-??? number). I didn't realize this could be done, nor could I really see the advantage in doing so.
I would have presumed that if its registered as a defense assett it must comply with a whole bunch of defense requirements. That's great and I guess avoids all the CASA bull****. Conversely if its registered as a civil aircraft I presume there might be benefits in that (perhaps less strick maintenance than compared with defence, I don't know..)
But I couldn't see the benefit in it being registered under both? Surely then you've got two different sets of requirements to meet?
Cheers,
AB
Moderator
I doubt that there exists a joint registration. Indeed, one of the biggest pains in bringing aircraft in/out of the country is getting the registrations changed and the confirmation requirements can be a nuisance.
Not having been down to the Museum for yonks I may be a tad out of touch with what Dave et al are up to these days.
However, my guess is that the aircraft is on the Australian Register (ie civil VH-) but has authorisation under the Regs to display other markings. This, no doubt, would require ADF concurrence but I can't see anything to preclude it out of hand.
Part 45 and AC 45-01(2) refer.
Not having been down to the Museum for yonks I may be a tad out of touch with what Dave et al are up to these days.
However, my guess is that the aircraft is on the Australian Register (ie civil VH-) but has authorisation under the Regs to display other markings. This, no doubt, would require ADF concurrence but I can't see anything to preclude it out of hand.
Part 45 and AC 45-01(2) refer.
Some of the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act:
So it seems that if an aircraft is neither ‘of any part of’ the ADF (in this example) nor ‘commanded by a member of’ the ADF ‘in the course of duties’ as a member of the ADF, it’s not a ‘state aircraft’.
The organisation that does basic flying training for the ADF at Tamworth in aircraft with 'VH' on the tail presumably deals with the issue you raised, somehow. Sometimes those aircraft have an ADF member as PIC, in his/her capacity as an ADF member (= state aircraft) and sometimes have a civvy (contracted instructor) as PIC (= not a state aircraft).
4 Application to state aircraft
Except where the expression state aircraft is used, references in Part III or IIIB or section 98 to aircraft or air navigation do not include references to state aircraft or air navigation by state aircraft.
Except where the expression state aircraft is used, references in Part III or IIIB or section 98 to aircraft or air navigation do not include references to state aircraft or air navigation by state aircraft.
state aircraft means:
(a) aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is commanded by a member of that Force in the course of duties as such a member); and
(b) aircraft used in the military, customs or police services of a foreign country.
(a) aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is commanded by a member of that Force in the course of duties as such a member); and
(b) aircraft used in the military, customs or police services of a foreign country.
Australian aircraft means:
(a) aircraft registered in Australia; and
(b) aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered aircraft and state aircraft.
(a) aircraft registered in Australia; and
(b) aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered aircraft and state aircraft.
The organisation that does basic flying training for the ADF at Tamworth in aircraft with 'VH' on the tail presumably deals with the issue you raised, somehow. Sometimes those aircraft have an ADF member as PIC, in his/her capacity as an ADF member (= state aircraft) and sometimes have a civvy (contracted instructor) as PIC (= not a state aircraft).
Last edited by Creampuff; 19th May 2012 at 08:13.
Moderator
A State registered ADF asset is a State aircraft regardless of who the pilot may be. ACAUST can (and, where appropriate, does) authorise civil pilots to pilot defence assets.
Correct, as far as it goes. By definition, an aircraft does not have to be ‘captained by a member of the ADF’ in order for the aircraft to be a ‘state aircraft’.
What about aircraft in Australia that:
- aren’t captained by a member of the ADF,
- aren’t owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, and
- do have a ‘VH’ painted on the tail?
You might say: well that’s the GA fleet, dummy.
In which case, I’d ask: what is the correct category for aircraft operated by a private company, e.g. at Tamworth, for the purposes of ADF flying training?
To emphasise the point: If a Blackhawk and an ARH are ‘state aircraft’, the outcome isn’t a ‘one’ or a ‘zero’. Why else does Australia have CAO 95.27 (dealing with S-70-A helicopters), CAO 95.28 (dealing with S-70B-2 helicopters) and CAO 95.33 (dealing with ARH)?
What about aircraft in Australia that:
- aren’t captained by a member of the ADF,
- aren’t owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, and
- do have a ‘VH’ painted on the tail?
You might say: well that’s the GA fleet, dummy.
In which case, I’d ask: what is the correct category for aircraft operated by a private company, e.g. at Tamworth, for the purposes of ADF flying training?
To emphasise the point: If a Blackhawk and an ARH are ‘state aircraft’, the outcome isn’t a ‘one’ or a ‘zero’. Why else does Australia have CAO 95.27 (dealing with S-70-A helicopters), CAO 95.28 (dealing with S-70B-2 helicopters) and CAO 95.33 (dealing with ARH)?
Last edited by Creampuff; 19th May 2012 at 12:46.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'puff,
Bearing in mind all the ADF QFI's had to have CASAliscences and flew under BAE's AOC, that might give a clue. When i left there there was talk of making them state aircraft however.
Short answer- not simple by any means. We just got on with flying!
I recall the ct4s in East Sale, even though owned by BAE were state aircraft
Bearing in mind all the ADF QFI's had to have CASAliscences and flew under BAE's AOC, that might give a clue. When i left there there was talk of making them state aircraft however.
Short answer- not simple by any means. We just got on with flying!
I recall the ct4s in East Sale, even though owned by BAE were state aircraft
Moderator
Unless things have changed a lot over the past few years, if it's got a DGTA registration it's State. If a CASA registration it's Australian. For the period an Australian aircraft (VH-) is flown on MIL OPS by an ADF pilot it is considered to be a State aircraft.
what is the correct category for aircraft operated by a private company, e.g. at Tamworth, for the purposes of ADF flying training
I suggest Australian Register. I could ask a colleague in the management side of the program for clarification if that would help ?
CAO 95.27
Regulatory exemption permission for production testing during assembly programmes - been the story for years .. similarly applied to the F18, Mirage and probably back to the Sabre (although I was only a young chap back then - can still recall watching night OPS at Williamtown with the searchlights tracking the fighters).
I presume that the post assembly testing is done with the helos on the Australian register temporarily ?
CAO 95.28
Likewise.
CAO 95.33
Likewise
BDA civilian employees (QFIs) captaining Kiowa and Black Hawk training sorties at the school to qualify new aircrew.
You mean like in CAO 95.20 ? QED and very likely the way the operation is authorised.
I was lead to believe the RAAF has teed it up through some reg/agreement for the CT4s to be recognised as state aircraft.
If they really wanted to make them State aircraft a revised TC process would do the job the same as the B300s at East Sale and Townsville. These aircraft were, in effect, rubber stamped by DGTA on the basis of the FAA TC process.
Short answer- not simple by any means.
On the contrary, I think fairly simple. However, the fact that nothing has been done suggests that the present arrangement works fine and it isn't worth the effort to change the TC basis to AMTC.
I recall the ct4s in East Sale, even though owned by BAE were state aircraft
VH- tails.
what is the correct category for aircraft operated by a private company, e.g. at Tamworth, for the purposes of ADF flying training
I suggest Australian Register. I could ask a colleague in the management side of the program for clarification if that would help ?
CAO 95.27
Regulatory exemption permission for production testing during assembly programmes - been the story for years .. similarly applied to the F18, Mirage and probably back to the Sabre (although I was only a young chap back then - can still recall watching night OPS at Williamtown with the searchlights tracking the fighters).
I presume that the post assembly testing is done with the helos on the Australian register temporarily ?
CAO 95.28
Likewise.
CAO 95.33
Likewise
BDA civilian employees (QFIs) captaining Kiowa and Black Hawk training sorties at the school to qualify new aircrew.
You mean like in CAO 95.20 ? QED and very likely the way the operation is authorised.
I was lead to believe the RAAF has teed it up through some reg/agreement for the CT4s to be recognised as state aircraft.
If they really wanted to make them State aircraft a revised TC process would do the job the same as the B300s at East Sale and Townsville. These aircraft were, in effect, rubber stamped by DGTA on the basis of the FAA TC process.
Short answer- not simple by any means.
On the contrary, I think fairly simple. However, the fact that nothing has been done suggests that the present arrangement works fine and it isn't worth the effort to change the TC basis to AMTC.
I recall the ct4s in East Sale, even though owned by BAE were state aircraft
VH- tails.
A bit of a complex issue, and I don't know the full ins and outs of it.
In partial answer to the original question, though - the CT4A as flown by
1FTS at Point Cook were state registered with an A19-XX tail number. When retired from RAAF service they were mostly put up for sale and civilian buyers had them put on the VH- register, as I remember. I don't know how much of a hassle that was, but I think they were under the warbird legislation. They went on sale for about 60 grand or so, which wasn't bad I thought!
CT4B as flown at BFTS Tamworth are civilian registered with a civvy maintenance release etc.
As noted above there have been some funny issues with respect to them vs the ones flown down at CFS in Sale, eg the BFTS military instructors needed civvy instructor and instrument ratings where the CFS guys didn't. There have been some changes to that mooted at various times but as far as I know that's still the situation.
The CFS aircraft, however, are from the same pool as Tamworth, so still VH registered machines.
In partial answer to the original question, though - the CT4A as flown by
1FTS at Point Cook were state registered with an A19-XX tail number. When retired from RAAF service they were mostly put up for sale and civilian buyers had them put on the VH- register, as I remember. I don't know how much of a hassle that was, but I think they were under the warbird legislation. They went on sale for about 60 grand or so, which wasn't bad I thought!
CT4B as flown at BFTS Tamworth are civilian registered with a civvy maintenance release etc.
As noted above there have been some funny issues with respect to them vs the ones flown down at CFS in Sale, eg the BFTS military instructors needed civvy instructor and instrument ratings where the CFS guys didn't. There have been some changes to that mooted at various times but as far as I know that's still the situation.
The CFS aircraft, however, are from the same pool as Tamworth, so still VH registered machines.
Last edited by Arm out the window; 19th May 2012 at 22:09.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current situation is that when military personnel fly the VH registered CT4Bs belonging to BAE Systems, the aircraft are considered to be state registered. IE: ADF QFIs no longer need civil licences and quals to fly CT4Bs with BFTS or CFS.
Not sure it’s as simple as you suggest, JT.
Quite so (although the criterion is command in the course of duties, rather than ‘MIL OPS’, and it’s not ‘considered’ to be a state aircraft: it is, by definition, a state aircraft).
By definition, it makes no difference whether it’s got VH painted on the tail or has ‘DGTA registration’.
The question whether the aircraft is a ‘state aircraft’ is the horse; the applicable rules are the cart. In other words, you have to first work out whether an aircraft is or is not a state aircraft, in order to go on to work out whether the aircraft is DGTA’s responsibility or CASA’s responsibility.
Now that you mention it, here’s what the definition used to say:
[bolding added]
Note the profound difference between the previous definition and the current definition: Under the previous definition, a VH-registered aircraft was, by definition, never a state aircraft. Under the current definition, an aircraft is always a state aircraft when it is commanded by a member of the ADF in the course of duties as a member, even if the aircraft is VH-registered (or has no registration at all).
So let’s take a very simple hypothetical. A CT-4 with ‘VH’ on the tail is only ever flown by PICs that are ADF trainees or ADF instructors, in the course of their duties as ADF members. Which regulator is responsible for the airworthiness and maintenance management of that aircraft?
For the period an Australian aircraft (VH-) is flown on MIL OPS by an ADF pilot it is considered to be a State aircraft.
By definition, it makes no difference whether it’s got VH painted on the tail or has ‘DGTA registration’.
The question whether the aircraft is a ‘state aircraft’ is the horse; the applicable rules are the cart. In other words, you have to first work out whether an aircraft is or is not a state aircraft, in order to go on to work out whether the aircraft is DGTA’s responsibility or CASA’s responsibility.
Unless things have changed a lot over the past few years ….
state aircraft means:
(a) aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is commanded by a member of that Force in the course of duties as such a member), other than any aircraft that by virtue of registration under the regulations is an Australian aircraft; and
(b) aircraft used in the military, customs or police services of a foreign country.
(a) aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is commanded by a member of that Force in the course of duties as such a member), other than any aircraft that by virtue of registration under the regulations is an Australian aircraft; and
(b) aircraft used in the military, customs or police services of a foreign country.
Note the profound difference between the previous definition and the current definition: Under the previous definition, a VH-registered aircraft was, by definition, never a state aircraft. Under the current definition, an aircraft is always a state aircraft when it is commanded by a member of the ADF in the course of duties as a member, even if the aircraft is VH-registered (or has no registration at all).
So let’s take a very simple hypothetical. A CT-4 with ‘VH’ on the tail is only ever flown by PICs that are ADF trainees or ADF instructors, in the course of their duties as ADF members. Which regulator is responsible for the airworthiness and maintenance management of that aircraft?
Last edited by Creampuff; 19th May 2012 at 22:57.
Moderator
Not sure it’s as simple as you suggest, JT.
.. and, as I am not routinely involved with the certification system these days, you may well be quite correct .. my observations are based on dated involvement and pertinent reading.
you have to first work out whether an aircraft is or is not a state aircraft, in order to go on to work out whether the aircraft is DGTA’s responsibility or CASA’s responsibility.
Not sure I follow the logic here. Perhaps you can amplify a bit ? If the frame is to go on an ADF registration, it belongs to DGTA .. if VH then CASA although DGTA may exercise some control via the AMO authorisations for the maintainers depending on how the support might be set up.
A CT-4 with ‘VH’ on the tail is only ever flown by PICs that are ADF trainees or ADF instructors, in the course of their duties as ADF members. Which regulator is responsible for the airworthiness and maintenance management of that aircraft?
AirFlite, under contract to BAe, maintains the Victa fleet, as far as I am aware ? and operates under the 059 ? so, I guess, responsibility remains with DGTA. However, the Australian registration would require the usual interaction with the CASA system.
Hawker Pacific, on the other hand, maintain the KingAirs principally to the civil requirements (albeit that they are on the State Register) while complying with DGTA requirements (the 053 - but not the 059) along the way.
As far as I am aware, both fleets are under DGTA control.
I presume that the SPA program is largely civil under the Qantas system ?
.. and, as I am not routinely involved with the certification system these days, you may well be quite correct .. my observations are based on dated involvement and pertinent reading.
you have to first work out whether an aircraft is or is not a state aircraft, in order to go on to work out whether the aircraft is DGTA’s responsibility or CASA’s responsibility.
Not sure I follow the logic here. Perhaps you can amplify a bit ? If the frame is to go on an ADF registration, it belongs to DGTA .. if VH then CASA although DGTA may exercise some control via the AMO authorisations for the maintainers depending on how the support might be set up.
A CT-4 with ‘VH’ on the tail is only ever flown by PICs that are ADF trainees or ADF instructors, in the course of their duties as ADF members. Which regulator is responsible for the airworthiness and maintenance management of that aircraft?
AirFlite, under contract to BAe, maintains the Victa fleet, as far as I am aware ? and operates under the 059 ? so, I guess, responsibility remains with DGTA. However, the Australian registration would require the usual interaction with the CASA system.
Hawker Pacific, on the other hand, maintain the KingAirs principally to the civil requirements (albeit that they are on the State Register) while complying with DGTA requirements (the 053 - but not the 059) along the way.
As far as I am aware, both fleets are under DGTA control.
I presume that the SPA program is largely civil under the Qantas system ?
Not sure if I can explain it any more clearly (or less confusingly??)
When you say: “If the frame is to go on an ADF registration, it belongs to DGTA”, my response is: You’ve got the cart before the horse.
The rules that apply or don’t apply to an aircraft, including the rules under which it may or must be registered, depend on whether an aircraft is a state aircraft. Whether an aircraft is a state aircraft is determined by the definition.
The definition does not take into consideration whether and by whom an aircraft is to be registered. It’s the other way around: the definition determines whether and by whom an aircraft must or may be registered (and regulated generally).
If an aircraft doesn’t satisfy the definition of state aircraft, a consequence is that a whole bunch of civvy rules apply. If an aircraft does satisfy the definition of state aircraft, a consequence is that a whole bunch of civvy rules don’t apply.
For example, if an aircraft happens to be entered on the VH register but is flown by PICs that are ADF trainees or ADF instructors, in the course of their duties as ADF members, the aircraft is a state aircraft, despite being on the VH register, and CASA has no regulatory responsibility for it. DGTA may discharge his regulatory responsibilities in relation to, for example, maintenance of the aircraft, by setting up AMO and MSN arrangements that look very much like civvies with civvy qualifications doing work by reference to civvy tech data, but all of that remains DGTA’s, not CASA’s, responsibility.
Conversely, if an aircraft happens to be entered on the ADF register but then doesn’t satisfy the definition of state aircraft, a consequence is that a whole bunch of civvy rules apply, despite the aircraft being on the ADF register, and the aircraft is CASA’s, not DGTA’s, regulatory responsibility.
When you say: “If the frame is to go on an ADF registration, it belongs to DGTA”, my response is: You’ve got the cart before the horse.
The rules that apply or don’t apply to an aircraft, including the rules under which it may or must be registered, depend on whether an aircraft is a state aircraft. Whether an aircraft is a state aircraft is determined by the definition.
The definition does not take into consideration whether and by whom an aircraft is to be registered. It’s the other way around: the definition determines whether and by whom an aircraft must or may be registered (and regulated generally).
If an aircraft doesn’t satisfy the definition of state aircraft, a consequence is that a whole bunch of civvy rules apply. If an aircraft does satisfy the definition of state aircraft, a consequence is that a whole bunch of civvy rules don’t apply.
For example, if an aircraft happens to be entered on the VH register but is flown by PICs that are ADF trainees or ADF instructors, in the course of their duties as ADF members, the aircraft is a state aircraft, despite being on the VH register, and CASA has no regulatory responsibility for it. DGTA may discharge his regulatory responsibilities in relation to, for example, maintenance of the aircraft, by setting up AMO and MSN arrangements that look very much like civvies with civvy qualifications doing work by reference to civvy tech data, but all of that remains DGTA’s, not CASA’s, responsibility.
Conversely, if an aircraft happens to be entered on the ADF register but then doesn’t satisfy the definition of state aircraft, a consequence is that a whole bunch of civvy rules apply, despite the aircraft being on the ADF register, and the aircraft is CASA’s, not DGTA’s, regulatory responsibility.
Last edited by Creampuff; 20th May 2012 at 06:19.
Moderator
Mmm... perhaps things have changed since I played in the certification sandpit.
However, I suggest that the registration dictates the principal line of Regulatory control. The only modifier I have seen (in Oz) is where a basically civil aircraft used as a State aircraft is subject to additional DGTA tech airworthiness requirements.
If an aircraft doesn’t satisfy the definition of state aircraft, a consequence is that a whole bunch of civvy rules apply. If an aircraft does satisfy the definition of state aircraft, a consequence is that a whole bunch of civvy rules don’t apply.
I'd go along with that for operational airworthiness but not tech airworthiness. (For those who have no familiarity with the ADF, the MIL folk tend to separate the civil airworthiness and flying ops sides of things somewhat more clearly than one sees in the civil world).
Perhaps you can cite some documentary support for your position ? Wouldn't be the first time I have been (or last time I will be) wrong but, for my own reasons, I am interested in this discussion and, if I am an outdated dinosaur, then it would be appropriate for me to bring my knowledge base up to date.
the definition determines whether and by whom an aircraft must or may be registered (and regulated generally).
Now, that doesn't sit well with my reading of the rulebook tealeaves. Again, can you cite the relevant bits for my benefit ?
despite being on the VH register, and CASA has no regulatory responsibility for it
Now that is an adventurous statement. I will undertake to discuss that with my civil regulatory colleagues in Canberra as that doesn't fit with my understanding of how things appear to work these days.
Conversely, if an aircraft happens to be entered on the ADF register but then doesn’t satisfy the definition of state aircraft
.. likewise. I shall have to make a couple of calls to Williams to clarify my now confused state of mind. Specifically, can you cite a circumstance where this might apply ? I have no success in endeavouring to do so myself.
Again, can you cite something a bit more concrete in respect of your last two referenced comments ?
However, I suggest that the registration dictates the principal line of Regulatory control. The only modifier I have seen (in Oz) is where a basically civil aircraft used as a State aircraft is subject to additional DGTA tech airworthiness requirements.
If an aircraft doesn’t satisfy the definition of state aircraft, a consequence is that a whole bunch of civvy rules apply. If an aircraft does satisfy the definition of state aircraft, a consequence is that a whole bunch of civvy rules don’t apply.
I'd go along with that for operational airworthiness but not tech airworthiness. (For those who have no familiarity with the ADF, the MIL folk tend to separate the civil airworthiness and flying ops sides of things somewhat more clearly than one sees in the civil world).
Perhaps you can cite some documentary support for your position ? Wouldn't be the first time I have been (or last time I will be) wrong but, for my own reasons, I am interested in this discussion and, if I am an outdated dinosaur, then it would be appropriate for me to bring my knowledge base up to date.
the definition determines whether and by whom an aircraft must or may be registered (and regulated generally).
Now, that doesn't sit well with my reading of the rulebook tealeaves. Again, can you cite the relevant bits for my benefit ?
despite being on the VH register, and CASA has no regulatory responsibility for it
Now that is an adventurous statement. I will undertake to discuss that with my civil regulatory colleagues in Canberra as that doesn't fit with my understanding of how things appear to work these days.
Conversely, if an aircraft happens to be entered on the ADF register but then doesn’t satisfy the definition of state aircraft
.. likewise. I shall have to make a couple of calls to Williams to clarify my now confused state of mind. Specifically, can you cite a circumstance where this might apply ? I have no success in endeavouring to do so myself.
Again, can you cite something a bit more concrete in respect of your last two referenced comments ?
Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act says:
:Let’s pick a few rules from Part III, which is headed Regulation of civil aviation.
Because of section 4, the above rules do not apply in relation to any state aircraft.
Because of section 4, the above rules do not apply in relation to any state aircraft.
I note that the definition of ‘state aircraft’ and the operation of section 4 are unaffected by registration - VH, ADF, Kalathumpian or none.
My turn for a question: are you able to nominate any CASA airworthiness management or maintenance management regs that are expressed to apply to state aircraft? If the answer is no, on what basis could CASA have any regulatory responsibility in relation to the airworthiness and maintenance management of ADF aircraft that are state aircraft?
I’m aware that regs that apply to state aircraft may be made under the Civil Aviation Act. However, I’m not aware of any airworthiness management or maintenance management regs that are expressed to apply to ADF aircraft that are state aircraft.
I’m also aware that engineers have an almost limitless genius to set up all kinds of arrangements to manage maintenance and continuing airworthiness of ADF aircraft. Whether those arrangements are informed and supported by what the rules actually permit or require, is a related but separate question.
4 Application to state aircraft
Except where the expression state aircraft is used, references in Part III or IIIB or section 98 to aircraft or air navigation do not include references to state aircraft or air navigation by state aircraft.
Except where the expression state aircraft is used, references in Part III or IIIB or section 98 to aircraft or air navigation do not include references to state aircraft or air navigation by state aircraft.
20AA Flying unregistered aircraft etc.
Flying an unregistered aircraft
(1) A person must not fly an aircraft within Australian territory if:
(a) the aircraft is not registered under the regulations; and
(b) the aircraft is, under this Act or those regulations, required to be registered under those regulations.
….
Flying without a certificate of airworthiness
(3) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if:
(a) there is no certificate of airworthiness under the regulations in force in respect of the aircraft; and
(b) the regulations do not authorise the flight without the certificate.
…
Flying without satisfying safety requirements
(4) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if one or more of the following apply:
(a) there is outstanding a requirement imposed by or under the regulations in relation to the maintenance of the aircraft;
(b) the aircraft will require maintenance before the flight can end;
(c) there is a defect or damage that may endanger the safety of the aircraft or any person or property;
(d) the aircraft is unsafe for flight.
Flying an unregistered aircraft
(1) A person must not fly an aircraft within Australian territory if:
(a) the aircraft is not registered under the regulations; and
(b) the aircraft is, under this Act or those regulations, required to be registered under those regulations.
….
Flying without a certificate of airworthiness
(3) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if:
(a) there is no certificate of airworthiness under the regulations in force in respect of the aircraft; and
(b) the regulations do not authorise the flight without the certificate.
…
Flying without satisfying safety requirements
(4) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if one or more of the following apply:
(a) there is outstanding a requirement imposed by or under the regulations in relation to the maintenance of the aircraft;
(b) the aircraft will require maintenance before the flight can end;
(c) there is a defect or damage that may endanger the safety of the aircraft or any person or property;
(d) the aircraft is unsafe for flight.
20AB Flying aircraft without licence etc.
(1) A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:
(a) the person holds a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform that duty; or
(b) the person is authorised by or under the regulations to perform that duty without the civil aviation authorisation concerned.
…
(2) A person must not carry out maintenance on:
(a) an Australian aircraft; or
(b) an aeronautical product in Australian territory; or
(c) an aeronautical product for an Australian aircraft;
if the person is not permitted by or under the regulations to carry out that maintenance.
(1) A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:
(a) the person holds a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform that duty; or
(b) the person is authorised by or under the regulations to perform that duty without the civil aviation authorisation concerned.
…
(2) A person must not carry out maintenance on:
(a) an Australian aircraft; or
(b) an aeronautical product in Australian territory; or
(c) an aeronautical product for an Australian aircraft;
if the person is not permitted by or under the regulations to carry out that maintenance.
I note that the definition of ‘state aircraft’ and the operation of section 4 are unaffected by registration - VH, ADF, Kalathumpian or none.
My turn for a question: are you able to nominate any CASA airworthiness management or maintenance management regs that are expressed to apply to state aircraft? If the answer is no, on what basis could CASA have any regulatory responsibility in relation to the airworthiness and maintenance management of ADF aircraft that are state aircraft?
I’m aware that regs that apply to state aircraft may be made under the Civil Aviation Act. However, I’m not aware of any airworthiness management or maintenance management regs that are expressed to apply to ADF aircraft that are state aircraft.
I’m also aware that engineers have an almost limitless genius to set up all kinds of arrangements to manage maintenance and continuing airworthiness of ADF aircraft. Whether those arrangements are informed and supported by what the rules actually permit or require, is a related but separate question.
Last edited by Creampuff; 20th May 2012 at 07:50.
Moderator
Will have to have a trawl through the Civil words over the next week .. about time I refreshed my familiarity in any case ... before I wax lyrical. No point making a fool of myself without having done my homework.
My turn for a question
Generally, at the formal level, CASA isn't overly interested in State aircraft, per se. However, on the side, where such State aircraft are civil Types, the interest is fostered for sensible fleet statistical information - I am aware of one or two events in respect of such aircraft where the information led to civil Industry action.
I can't bring to mind any situation where CASA fronts up with a presumption of responsibility for such aircraft.
I’m also aware that engineers have an almost limitless genius to set up all kinds of arrangements
.. which is not bad for the boring old pharts that most experienced engineers tend to end up becoming ...
Will have a ponder over the rule books over the next week or two and come back to your comments above ..
My turn for a question
Generally, at the formal level, CASA isn't overly interested in State aircraft, per se. However, on the side, where such State aircraft are civil Types, the interest is fostered for sensible fleet statistical information - I am aware of one or two events in respect of such aircraft where the information led to civil Industry action.
I can't bring to mind any situation where CASA fronts up with a presumption of responsibility for such aircraft.
I’m also aware that engineers have an almost limitless genius to set up all kinds of arrangements
.. which is not bad for the boring old pharts that most experienced engineers tend to end up becoming ...
Will have a ponder over the rule books over the next week or two and come back to your comments above ..
Moderator
JT. Not getting into the technicalities, but during the WWII military DC2, DC3/C47, DC5 aircraft (and probably other types) carried both military and civil registration. It appears the series VH-C?? were reserved for either Government or military.
The DC3 at Higgins Field, Bamaga was USAAF Douglas C-49H (DC-3) VH-CXD, # 44-83228 operated by Australian national Airways (A.N.A.) under charter for military purposes and operated by RAAF aircrew. That DC3 with right hand side double doors, was originally registered as PH-ALT and later PK-ALT when transferred to KNILM.
Quite recently someone posted in PPRuNe Dunnunda an explanation that a number of military aircraft also carry an Australian civil registration. For example, I'm told all the DHC4 Caribou and C130 Hercs also carry VH civil registration in addition to the A4 and A97 military registration.
And what of the King Air 200s and DHC6's the Army originally leased from Hawkers, all carried civil registration. I think the lease Falcon 900s were also civil registered?
I see the Boeing BBJs are both leased and carry A36-001 and A36-002 registration. Do they also have an Australian civil registration?
The registration probably doesn't matter too much as I can't see the local CASA FOI ramping Julia's Boeing BBJ.....
The DC3 at Higgins Field, Bamaga was USAAF Douglas C-49H (DC-3) VH-CXD, # 44-83228 operated by Australian national Airways (A.N.A.) under charter for military purposes and operated by RAAF aircrew. That DC3 with right hand side double doors, was originally registered as PH-ALT and later PK-ALT when transferred to KNILM.
Quite recently someone posted in PPRuNe Dunnunda an explanation that a number of military aircraft also carry an Australian civil registration. For example, I'm told all the DHC4 Caribou and C130 Hercs also carry VH civil registration in addition to the A4 and A97 military registration.
And what of the King Air 200s and DHC6's the Army originally leased from Hawkers, all carried civil registration. I think the lease Falcon 900s were also civil registered?
I see the Boeing BBJs are both leased and carry A36-001 and A36-002 registration. Do they also have an Australian civil registration?
The registration probably doesn't matter too much as I can't see the local CASA FOI ramping Julia's Boeing BBJ.....
Talking to the guys at a display regarding VH- rego, solely to do with the MR. If the aircraft was maintained to military spec as per A number then more stringent and more expensive. If I remember correctly, cycle times and life times rather than hours and calendar dates on MR.
Moderator
during the WWII military
Learn something new every day. However, given the number of civil aircraft compulsorily impressed into military service, and I'm only speculating here, might they have been left on the civvy register during the war period but carried military markings for military purposes ?
And what of the King Air 200s and DHC6's the Army originally leased from Hawkers, all carried civil registration. I think the lease Falcon 900s were also civil registered.
.. but then they were on the Australian Register. The KingAirs in the present contract are on the State Register but maintained as if civil aircraft with a few add-ons to keep the military folk contented.
I see the Boeing BBJs are both leased and carry A36-001 and A36-002 registration
I presume that the arrangement is similar to the KingAirs. Certainly, such tales as I have heard suggest that QDS maintains them the same as the civil fleet ?
Talking to the guys at a display regarding VH- rego, solely to do with the MR.
I doubt that this is the case. For military specific aircraft the military needs to impose a certification etc standard. For civil Types used in military service, it is a whole lot easier, cheaper, and simpler to rubber stamp the civil TC as the AMTC and carry on from there.
Certainly cost may well be a driver in the setup. However, the ADF has examples of State registration being maintained to civil standards without specific reference to the 059 (this would certainly up the ante due to the levels of sign off certification required).
Learn something new every day. However, given the number of civil aircraft compulsorily impressed into military service, and I'm only speculating here, might they have been left on the civvy register during the war period but carried military markings for military purposes ?
And what of the King Air 200s and DHC6's the Army originally leased from Hawkers, all carried civil registration. I think the lease Falcon 900s were also civil registered.
.. but then they were on the Australian Register. The KingAirs in the present contract are on the State Register but maintained as if civil aircraft with a few add-ons to keep the military folk contented.
I see the Boeing BBJs are both leased and carry A36-001 and A36-002 registration
I presume that the arrangement is similar to the KingAirs. Certainly, such tales as I have heard suggest that QDS maintains them the same as the civil fleet ?
Talking to the guys at a display regarding VH- rego, solely to do with the MR.
I doubt that this is the case. For military specific aircraft the military needs to impose a certification etc standard. For civil Types used in military service, it is a whole lot easier, cheaper, and simpler to rubber stamp the civil TC as the AMTC and carry on from there.
Certainly cost may well be a driver in the setup. However, the ADF has examples of State registration being maintained to civil standards without specific reference to the 059 (this would certainly up the ante due to the levels of sign off certification required).
Folks,
What Creampuff is saying is that the definitions of state aircraft have changed over the years.
He has posted the definition of a state aircraft from S3, Interpretations, of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, then posted S4, Application of State Aircraft, from the Act.
In a related area, I have often pondered the constitutional situation of the Australian states v. the Commonwealth, if an individual state decided that aircraft owned and/or operated by a state was a state aircraft, and not subject to administration by the Commonwealth, ie the tender attentions of CASA.
Tootle pip!!
What Creampuff is saying is that the definitions of state aircraft have changed over the years.
He has posted the definition of a state aircraft from S3, Interpretations, of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, then posted S4, Application of State Aircraft, from the Act.
In a related area, I have often pondered the constitutional situation of the Australian states v. the Commonwealth, if an individual state decided that aircraft owned and/or operated by a state was a state aircraft, and not subject to administration by the Commonwealth, ie the tender attentions of CASA.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 20th May 2012 at 21:39.
JT all well and good. However, this doesn't explain the ability of certain maintainence organisations servicing these military VH regoed display aircraft with only civilian Maintainence facility certification.
EDIT just to add. My information may well only apply to maybe three former RAAF inventory that are operated by the museum. In the broader scheme wrt SeaSprite which were not on the A list as such or the B200s which were in mil ops but VH reg I have not a clue which piece of paper dictates the certified maintainence regime. Leave that to far more experienced and knowledgable peoples.
EDIT just to add. My information may well only apply to maybe three former RAAF inventory that are operated by the museum. In the broader scheme wrt SeaSprite which were not on the A list as such or the B200s which were in mil ops but VH reg I have not a clue which piece of paper dictates the certified maintainence regime. Leave that to far more experienced and knowledgable peoples.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 20th May 2012 at 22:39.