Clinton,
I stand by what I said about Polar Air, but pprune is not the place to go into detail, beyond saying that CASA "closed ranks" behind an individual, rather than having a somewhat more dispassionate look at what was going on.
I am aware that registering as VH experimental requires that CASA has to satisfy itself as to airworthiness etc., etc. I am also aware that I have to comply exactly with the kit manufacturers instructions.
Sunfish & Mainframe,
A bit off beam here, by definition, any Experimental Amateur Built is
NOT AIRWORTHY, in the conventional sense, hence the system of limiting operational conditions attached/annexed to the Experimental Certificate, with the intent of ensuring
"the safety of other airspace users and those under the flightpath of the aircraft".
If a builder is building an Experimental Amateur built ( NOT an LSA) from a kit, he or she can make whatever changes they like along the way, the producer of the kit has no power to require or direct otherwise, and is not liable for anything the builder does.
It would be a very rare thing for either a CASA FOI or AWI to get involved in "certification" of such aircraft, and the "airworthiness" is entirely the responsibility of the registered owner/operator.
With very few exceptions, all Experimental and Limited Cat. certificates are issued by industry delegates, CASA persons who might have a suitable delegation are actively discouraged. The person who does issue the certificate is NOT certifying the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Since mid-1996, CASR 21 has produced a completely different set of procedures, compared to the preceding AABA and the highly restrictive processes that Australian builders had suffered for years.
There is no relation between the hell that Gippsland, Seabird and others have suffered at CASA's hands and Experimental Amateur Built aircraft.
Jim Erwin,
Re. PNG,
They have NOT adopted the FARs.
The BALUS program, paid for with Australian aid $$$, put the "new" ( in 1996) NZ rules in place in PNG. Previously, PNG used the Australian rules, but they were considered no longer usable. This was no cut and paste job, two legal experts from NZ CAA were part of the BALUS team.
Doug Roser, former head of CAA, pre. CASA, was the leader of the BALUS program, which covered far more than just rules.
The NZ rules have been adopted, with local variations, by a number of countries, including an increasing number of CIS states, and several small nations in the Caribbean. Fiji has always closely followed NZ.
It has always struck me a curious that Australia paid to install NZ rules in PNG, because Australian rules were considered no longer suitable or usable.
Tootle pip!!