PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Whats required for "Normal" catergory design under FAR 23?
Old 19th Jul 2011, 05:27
  #6 (permalink)  
john_tullamarine
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,195
Received 110 Likes on 70 Posts
Ultra light category

But is it certificated to FAR 23 ? - most likely, not.

it has for more in common with your light GA aircraft than the typical ultralight

nice to know but irrelevant

currently under a special category airworthiness certificate

which says, explicitly, that it doesn't comply with one or more standard certification requirements

the aircraft is equally, if not more suitable for the photography role than your standard GA aeroplane

again, nice to know, but irrelevant

testimonials for the manufacturer saying that it is suitable

ditto

from our maintenance organisation saying that it is being maintained to the same standard as any other airwork category aircraft they work on

at least that's a tick in the box

CAR 262APA (1988)

(1) A person must not operate a light sport aircraft covered by regulation 21.186 of CASR unless:

(a) the aircraft is being operated for:
(i) private operations; or
(ii) conducting or undergoing flying training; or
(iii) glider towing;

Reg 206, on the other hand -

(1)For the purposes of subsection 27 (9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:

(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV):
(i) aerial surveying;
(ii) aerial spotting;
(iii) agricultural operations;
(iv) aerial photography;
(v) advertising;
(vi) flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate issued under regulation 21.195A of CASR or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(vii) ambulance functions;
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);

is what creates your problem.

but I cannot see how it is reasonable, and I certainly cannot see how it would be a safety issue.

while I might sympathise, it is now a Regulatory/legal matter and you will need to seek legal opinion if you intend to pursue it. Not for me to recommend particular solicitors to start you off but there is a number of such folk about the Australian landscape who could help. My legally non-competent view is that you would be wasting your time.

CASA officers will be unlikely to exercise any delegations in respect of 262APA to help you out so the only realistic avenue is to get the Reg changed and it's the way it is due to the differences in design and certification standards - Catch 22, I'm afraid ...

our aircraft was reclassified as Normal category rather than ULA

forget it .. unless you want to go into the aircraft design and certification business and have LOTS of money. The OEM would have gone this path if it made any commercial sense.
john_tullamarine is offline