passengers being advised of the fundamental differences in design and certification rules.
The only thing that a passenger needs to know is[list=1][*]This aircraft is safe for the carriage of passenger[*]The aircraft is airworthy[/list=1]
That’s all I get when I hop on a bus, except I don’t have to go through security screening.
If I buy a 20 year old car or house, I don’t get a notification from the government that the car or house has not been assessed to meet current requirements, I believe people are intelligent to know that some difference exists.
What needs to be carefully stated, is that and aircraft that was CFAR41 certified, was done so because the certification process was cheaper. One
cannot draw the conclusion that a CFAR 41 aircraft could not meet FAR 25 requirements.
What would need to be done is more testing, and production of more performance charts. That’s not going to happen as it costs money.
The new CAO 20.7.1b Commuter rules even refers to SFAR 41 which no longer exists in the pantheon of FAA regulation.
Its still about, just not current law. Other historic regulations are also kept.
Neither is there any explanation generally available anywhere in the Australian rules of the basis of their certification decisions
Seen it in the CASA procedures manuals that is given to CASA and industry delegates for CoA issue.
