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.
Last edited by Creampuff; 20th May 2012 at 06:19.