It's all about documentation and certification, many manufacturers make these claims but very few have the certification paperwork to back up the claims.
Funnily enough, I do know that!!
The aircraft is an LSA and therefore it is approved upon a statement of compliance from the manufacturer.
And that!!
Very few LSA aircraft manufacturers have ever been audited by a national CAA to the FAA standard.
Obviously, because of the two points above!!
How do I know this ? because I went through a two-week FAA audit to validate the FAA form 8130 – 15 which is the US certification statement from the manufacturer.
Bully for you!!
Knowing what goes into these audits I doubt anyone in Australia has seen anything close to this level of interrogation and validation.
But nobody claimed they had, which is, in any case, not relevant.
But, in fact, there are quite a number of Australian companies who do business via the FAA and EASA, manufacturing business,(OEM, PMA and STC) and know all about compliance and audit standards. Indeed, in one very small and specialized area I carry a bit of FAA paper to sign off audits as required in that little corner.
Now, despite the claims above, (which are made by a person who is passionate about a particular manufacturer) if the aircraft has exceeded all of these requirements then it would be appropriate to have it certified in a higher category as well as LSA because it would increase sales.
"which are made by a person who is passionate about a particular manufacturer", ------- actually no, if I turned up down there I would probably be marched of the premises ----- but I do know a lot about the engineering design that is the basis of the structural durability, including accountability for gust loading, and also the flight test schedule and who completed it .
As for your "higher category" comment, you really know little about aircraft manufacturing, and the market in Australia, otherwise you would not make such a statement.
It really does annoy me that some people make all of these claims about some aircraft, a classic was XYZ aircraft who for years said "ours is the safest aircraft in the sky because despite all the crashes we have never had a fatality"..... say what ?
Consider yourself annoyed
Nothing can replace full certification, an LSA manufacturer can get away with whatever it wants until it comes time for an audit and then they have to validate their statement of compliance. If they can't validate their statement of compliance then the aircraft get taken down to a lesser category like amateur built.
You don't seem to know much about CASR 21, either, or the history and intent of the LSA Category, and the intent of the "consensus standard" . That being the case, you will probably be scared rigid by the new FAR Part 23, which is similarly intended to remove the current blocks to innovation and modernization of small aircraft design, at less than astronomically high and commercially untenable costs. Established by the same consensus standard process.
Most of the LSA manufacturers do a great job, they are responsible and passionate about what they are doing but there are some (I am referring outside of Australia in this case) that don't have a clue and I just selling what they can, while they can
You are entitled to your opinions, just as you are entitled to be wrong.
Tootle pip!!