Defence & Civil Registered Aircraft

[AirBumps]

Hey guys,

A mate of mine asked me this today and I don't know the answer so I thought I'd throw it out here to see if I can get a response.

He said he was down at the RAAF Museum and was told by the staff there that their CT4 is registered as both a RAAF aircraft (with the military serial number) and is also on the civil register as well (with the VH-??? number). I didn't realize this could be done, nor could I really see the advantage in doing so.

I would have presumed that if its registered as a defense assett it must comply with a whole bunch of defense requirements. That's great and I guess avoids all the CASA bull****. Conversely if its registered as a civil aircraft I presume there might be benefits in that (perhaps less strick maintenance than compared with defence, I don't know..)

But I couldn't see the benefit in it being registered under both? Surely then you've got two different sets of requirements to meet?

Cheers,
AB

[john_tullamarine]

I doubt that there exists a joint registration. Indeed, one of the biggest pains in bringing aircraft in/out of the country is getting the registrations changed and the confirmation requirements can be a nuisance.

Not having been down to the Museum for yonks I may be a tad out of touch with what Dave et al are up to these days.

However, my guess is that the aircraft is on the Australian Register (ie civil VH-) but has authorisation under the Regs to display other markings. This, no doubt, would require ADF concurrence but I can't see anything to preclude it out of hand.

Part 45 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00209/Html/Volume_2) and AC 45-01(2) (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/045/ac45c01.pdf) refer.

[Creampuff]

Some of the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act:4 Application to state aircraft

Except where the expression state aircraft is used, references in Part III or IIIB or section 98 to aircraft or air navigation do not include references to state aircraft or air navigation by state aircraft.state aircraft means:

(a) aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is commanded by a member of that Force in the course of duties as such a member); and

(b) aircraft used in the military, customs or police services of a foreign country.Australian aircraft means:

(a) aircraft registered in Australia; and

(b) aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered aircraft and state aircraft.So it seems that if an aircraft is neither ‘of any part of’ the ADF (in this example) nor ‘commanded by a member of’ the ADF ‘in the course of duties’ as a member of the ADF, it’s not a ‘state aircraft’.

The organisation that does basic flying training for the ADF at Tamworth in aircraft with 'VH' on the tail presumably deals with the issue you raised, somehow. Sometimes those aircraft have an ADF member as PIC, in his/her capacity as an ADF member (= state aircraft) and sometimes have a civvy (contracted instructor) as PIC (= not a state aircraft).

[john_tullamarine]

A State registered ADF asset is a State aircraft regardless of who the pilot may be. ACAUST can (and, where appropriate, does) authorise civil pilots to pilot defence assets.

[Creampuff]

Correct, as far as it goes. By definition, an aircraft does not have to be ‘captained by a member of the ADF’ in order for the aircraft to be a ‘state aircraft’.

What about aircraft in Australia that:
- aren’t captained by a member of the ADF,
- aren’t owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, and
- do have a ‘VH’ painted on the tail?

You might say: well that’s the GA fleet, dummy.

In which case, I’d ask: what is the correct category for aircraft operated by a private company, e.g. at Tamworth, for the purposes of ADF flying training?

To emphasise the point: If a Blackhawk and an ARH are ‘state aircraft’, the outcome isn’t a ‘one’ or a ‘zero’. Why else does Australia have CAO 95.27 (dealing with S-70-A helicopters), CAO 95.28 (dealing with S-70B-2 helicopters) and CAO 95.33 (dealing with ARH)?

[oldpinger]

C'puff,
Bearing in mind all the ADF QFI's had to have CASAliscences and flew under BAE's AOC, that might give a clue. When i left there there was talk of making them state aircraft however.
Short answer- not simple by any means. We just got on with flying!:ok:
I recall the ct4s in East Sale, even though owned by BAE were state aircraft
:confused::confused:

[john_tullamarine]

Unless things have changed a lot over the past few years, if it's got a DGTA registration it's State. If a CASA registration it's Australian. For the period an Australian aircraft (VH-) is flown on MIL OPS by an ADF pilot it is considered to be a State aircraft.

what is the correct category for aircraft operated by a private company, e.g. at Tamworth, for the purposes of ADF flying training

I suggest Australian Register. I could ask a colleague in the management side of the program for clarification if that would help ?

CAO 95.27

Regulatory exemption permission for production testing during assembly programmes - been the story for years .. similarly applied to the F18, Mirage and probably back to the Sabre (although I was only a young chap back then - can still recall watching night OPS at Williamtown with the searchlights tracking the fighters).

I presume that the post assembly testing is done with the helos on the Australian register temporarily ?

CAO 95.28

Likewise.

CAO 95.33

Likewise

BDA civilian employees (QFIs) captaining Kiowa and Black Hawk training sorties at the school to qualify new aircrew.

You mean like in CAO 95.20 ? QED and very likely the way the operation is authorised.

I was lead to believe the RAAF has teed it up through some reg/agreement for the CT4s to be recognised as state aircraft.

If they really wanted to make them State aircraft a revised TC process would do the job the same as the B300s at East Sale and Townsville. These aircraft were, in effect, rubber stamped by DGTA on the basis of the FAA TC process.

Short answer- not simple by any means.

On the contrary, I think fairly simple. However, the fact that nothing has been done suggests that the present arrangement works fine and it isn't worth the effort to change the TC basis to AMTC.

I recall the ct4s in East Sale, even though owned by BAE were state aircraft

VH- tails.

[Arm out the window]

A bit of a complex issue, and I don't know the full ins and outs of it.

In partial answer to the original question, though - the CT4A as flown by
1FTS at Point Cook were state registered with an A19-XX tail number. When retired from RAAF service they were mostly put up for sale and civilian buyers had them put on the VH- register, as I remember. I don't know how much of a hassle that was, but I think they were under the warbird legislation. They went on sale for about 60 grand or so, which wasn't bad I thought!

CT4B as flown at BFTS Tamworth are civilian registered with a civvy maintenance release etc.

As noted above there have been some funny issues with respect to them vs the ones flown down at CFS in Sale, eg the BFTS military instructors needed civvy instructor and instrument ratings where the CFS guys didn't. There have been some changes to that mooted at various times but as far as I know that's still the situation.

The CFS aircraft, however, are from the same pool as Tamworth, so still VH registered machines.

[DBTW]

The current situation is that when military personnel fly the VH registered CT4Bs belonging to BAE Systems, the aircraft are considered to be state registered. IE: ADF QFIs no longer need civil licences and quals to fly CT4Bs with BFTS or CFS.

[Creampuff]

Not sure it’s as simple as you suggest, JT.For the period an Australian aircraft (VH-) is flown on MIL OPS by an ADF pilot it is considered to be a State aircraft.Quite so (although the criterion is command in the course of duties, rather than ‘MIL OPS’, and it’s not ‘considered’ to be a state aircraft: it is, by definition, a state aircraft).

By definition, it makes no difference whether it’s got VH painted on the tail or has ‘DGTA registration’.

The question whether the aircraft is a ‘state aircraft’ is the horse; the applicable rules are the cart. In other words, you have to first work out whether an aircraft is or is not a state aircraft, in order to go on to work out whether the aircraft is DGTA’s responsibility or CASA’s responsibility.Unless things have changed a lot over the past few years ….Now that you mention it, here’s what the definition used to say:state aircraft means:

(a) aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is commanded by a member of that Force in the course of duties as such a member), other than any aircraft that by virtue of registration under the regulations is an Australian aircraft; and

(b) aircraft used in the military, customs or police services of a foreign country.[bolding added]

Note the profound difference between the previous definition and the current definition: Under the previous definition, a VH-registered aircraft was, by definition, never a state aircraft. Under the current definition, an aircraft is always a state aircraft when it is commanded by a member of the ADF in the course of duties as a member, even if the aircraft is VH-registered (or has no registration at all).

So let’s take a very simple hypothetical. A CT-4 with ‘VH’ on the tail is only ever flown by PICs that are ADF trainees or ADF instructors, in the course of their duties as ADF members. Which regulator is responsible for the airworthiness and maintenance management of that aircraft?

[john_tullamarine]

Not sure it’s as simple as you suggest, JT.

.. and, as I am not routinely involved with the certification system these days, you may well be quite correct .. my observations are based on dated involvement and pertinent reading.

you have to first work out whether an aircraft is or is not a state aircraft, in order to go on to work out whether the aircraft is DGTA’s responsibility or CASA’s responsibility.

Not sure I follow the logic here. Perhaps you can amplify a bit ? If the frame is to go on an ADF registration, it belongs to DGTA .. if VH then CASA although DGTA may exercise some control via the AMO authorisations for the maintainers depending on how the support might be set up.

A CT-4 with ‘VH’ on the tail is only ever flown by PICs that are ADF trainees or ADF instructors, in the course of their duties as ADF members. Which regulator is responsible for the airworthiness and maintenance management of that aircraft?

AirFlite, under contract to BAe, maintains the Victa fleet, as far as I am aware ? and operates under the 059 ? so, I guess, responsibility remains with DGTA. However, the Australian registration would require the usual interaction with the CASA system.

Hawker Pacific, on the other hand, maintain the KingAirs principally to the civil requirements (albeit that they are on the State Register) while complying with DGTA requirements (the 053 - but not the 059) along the way.

As far as I am aware, both fleets are under DGTA control.

I presume that the SPA program is largely civil under the Qantas system ?

[Creampuff]

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.

[john_tullamarine]

Mmm... perhaps things have changed since I played in the certification sandpit.

However, I suggest that the registration dictates the principal line of Regulatory control. The only modifier I have seen (in Oz) is where a basically civil aircraft used as a State aircraft is subject to additional DGTA tech airworthiness requirements.

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.

I'd go along with that for operational airworthiness but not tech airworthiness. (For those who have no familiarity with the ADF, the MIL folk tend to separate the civil airworthiness and flying ops sides of things somewhat more clearly than one sees in the civil world).

Perhaps you can cite some documentary support for your position ? Wouldn't be the first time I have been (or last time I will be) wrong but, for my own reasons, I am interested in this discussion and, if I am an outdated dinosaur, then it would be appropriate for me to bring my knowledge base up to date.

the definition determines whether and by whom an aircraft must or may be registered (and regulated generally).

Now, that doesn't sit well with my reading of the rulebook tealeaves. Again, can you cite the relevant bits for my benefit ?

despite being on the VH register, and CASA has no regulatory responsibility for it

Now that is an adventurous statement. I will undertake to discuss that with my civil regulatory colleagues in Canberra as that doesn't fit with my understanding of how things appear to work these days.

Conversely, if an aircraft happens to be entered on the ADF register but then doesn’t satisfy the definition of state aircraft

.. likewise. I shall have to make a couple of calls to Williams to clarify my now confused state of mind. Specifically, can you cite a circumstance where this might apply ? I have no success in endeavouring to do so myself.

Again, can you cite something a bit more concrete in respect of your last two referenced comments ?

[Creampuff]

Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act says:4 Application to state aircraft

Except where the expression state aircraft is used, references in Part III or IIIB or section 98 to aircraft or air navigation do not include references to state aircraft or air navigation by state aircraft.:Let’s pick a few rules from Part III, which is headed Regulation of civil aviation.20AA Flying unregistered aircraft etc.

Flying an unregistered aircraft

(1) A person must not fly an aircraft within Australian territory if:

(a) the aircraft is not registered under the regulations; and

(b) the aircraft is, under this Act or those regulations, required to be registered under those regulations.
….

Flying without a certificate of airworthiness

(3) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if:

(a) there is no certificate of airworthiness under the regulations in force in respect of the aircraft; and

(b) the regulations do not authorise the flight without the certificate.

…
Flying without satisfying safety requirements

(4) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if one or more of the following apply:

(a) there is outstanding a requirement imposed by or under the regulations in relation to the maintenance of the aircraft;

(b) the aircraft will require maintenance before the flight can end;

(c) there is a defect or damage that may endanger the safety of the aircraft or any person or property;

(d) the aircraft is unsafe for flight.Because of section 4, the above rules do not apply in relation to any state aircraft.20AB Flying aircraft without licence etc.

(1) A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:

(a) the person holds a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform that duty; or

(b) the person is authorised by or under the regulations to perform that duty without the civil aviation authorisation concerned.

…

(2) A person must not carry out maintenance on:

(a) an Australian aircraft; or

(b) an aeronautical product in Australian territory; or

(c) an aeronautical product for an Australian aircraft;

if the person is not permitted by or under the regulations to carry out that maintenance.Because of section 4, the above rules do not apply in relation to any state aircraft.

I note that the definition of ‘state aircraft’ and the operation of section 4 are unaffected by registration - VH, ADF, Kalathumpian or none.

My turn for a question: are you able to nominate any CASA airworthiness management or maintenance management regs that are expressed to apply to state aircraft? If the answer is no, on what basis could CASA have any regulatory responsibility in relation to the airworthiness and maintenance management of ADF aircraft that are state aircraft?

I’m aware that regs that apply to state aircraft may be made under the Civil Aviation Act. However, I’m not aware of any airworthiness management or maintenance management regs that are expressed to apply to ADF aircraft that are state aircraft.

I’m also aware that engineers have an almost limitless genius to set up all kinds of arrangements to manage maintenance and continuing airworthiness of ADF aircraft. Whether those arrangements are informed and supported by what the rules actually permit or require, is a related but separate question.

[john_tullamarine]

Will have to have a trawl through the Civil words over the next week .. about time I refreshed my familiarity in any case ... before I wax lyrical. No point making a fool of myself without having done my homework.

My turn for a question

Generally, at the formal level, CASA isn't overly interested in State aircraft, per se. However, on the side, where such State aircraft are civil Types, the interest is fostered for sensible fleet statistical information - I am aware of one or two events in respect of such aircraft where the information led to civil Industry action.

I can't bring to mind any situation where CASA fronts up with a presumption of responsibility for such aircraft.

I’m also aware that engineers have an almost limitless genius to set up all kinds of arrangements

.. which is not bad for the boring old pharts that most experienced engineers tend to end up becoming ...

Will have a ponder over the rule books over the next week or two and come back to your comments above ..

[tail wheel]

JT. Not getting into the technicalities, but during the WWII military DC2, DC3/C47, DC5 aircraft (and probably other types) carried both military and civil registration. It appears the series VH-C?? were reserved for either Government or military.

The DC3 at Higgins Field, Bamaga was USAAF Douglas C-49H (DC-3) VH-CXD, # 44-83228 operated by Australian national Airways (A.N.A.) under charter for military purposes and operated by RAAF aircrew. That DC3 with right hand side double doors, was originally registered as PH-ALT and later PK-ALT when transferred to KNILM.

Quite recently someone posted in PPRuNe Dunnunda an explanation that a number of military aircraft also carry an Australian civil registration. For example, I'm told all the DHC4 Caribou and C130 Hercs also carry VH civil registration in addition to the A4 and A97 military registration.

And what of the King Air 200s and DHC6's the Army originally leased from Hawkers, all carried civil registration. I think the lease Falcon 900s were also civil registered?

I see the Boeing BBJs are both leased and carry A36-001 and A36-002 registration. Do they also have an Australian civil registration?

The registration probably doesn't matter too much as I can't see the local CASA FOI ramping Julia's Boeing BBJ..... :E

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Talking to the guys at a display regarding VH- rego, solely to do with the MR. If the aircraft was maintained to military spec as per A number then more stringent and more expensive. If I remember correctly, cycle times and life times rather than hours and calendar dates on MR.

[john_tullamarine]

during the WWII military

Learn something new every day. However, given the number of civil aircraft compulsorily impressed into military service, and I'm only speculating here, might they have been left on the civvy register during the war period but carried military markings for military purposes ?

And what of the King Air 200s and DHC6's the Army originally leased from Hawkers, all carried civil registration. I think the lease Falcon 900s were also civil registered.

.. but then they were on the Australian Register. The KingAirs in the present contract are on the State Register but maintained as if civil aircraft with a few add-ons to keep the military folk contented.

I see the Boeing BBJs are both leased and carry A36-001 and A36-002 registration

I presume that the arrangement is similar to the KingAirs. Certainly, such tales as I have heard suggest that QDS maintains them the same as the civil fleet ?

Talking to the guys at a display regarding VH- rego, solely to do with the MR.

I doubt that this is the case. For military specific aircraft the military needs to impose a certification etc standard. For civil Types used in military service, it is a whole lot easier, cheaper, and simpler to rubber stamp the civil TC as the AMTC and carry on from there.

Certainly cost may well be a driver in the setup. However, the ADF has examples of State registration being maintained to civil standards without specific reference to the 059 (this would certainly up the ante due to the levels of sign off certification required).

[LeadSled]

Folks,
What Creampuff is saying is that the definitions of state aircraft have changed over the years.
He has posted the definition of a state aircraft from S3, Interpretations, of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, then posted S4, Application of State Aircraft, from the Act.
In a related area, I have often pondered the constitutional situation of the Australian states v. the Commonwealth, if an individual state decided that aircraft owned and/or operated by a state was a state aircraft, and not subject to administration by the Commonwealth, ie the tender attentions of CASA.
Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

JT all well and good. However, this doesn't explain the ability of certain maintainence organisations servicing these military VH regoed display aircraft with only civilian Maintainence facility certification.

EDIT just to add. My information may well only apply to maybe three former RAAF inventory that are operated by the museum. In the broader scheme wrt SeaSprite which were not on the A list as such or the B200s which were in mil ops but VH reg I have not a clue which piece of paper dictates the certified maintainence regime. Leave that to far more experienced and knowledgable peoples.

[john_tullamarine]

So, I presume we are now talking the warbird fraternity, generally ? While I used to have an involvement as an engineer I am a tad out of touch these days.

I'd have to take counsel from a couple of mates still in the regulatory game but, as a first guess, I would imagine that there ought to be no major problem. If the birds are VH- plated then one would expect the maintenance to follow civil requirements, if ADF-plated then the normal 059/053 requirements.

If not then I can't imagine that either OLC or DGTA/DDAAFS would stand by idly and permit the situation to proceed in the best traditions of a rudderless ship ?

.. however, something suggests to me that there is more to your comments than my simplistic view of life ? Perhaps my interest in this thread is about to heighten ?

[LeadSled]

John_T,
I don't know whether you are aware, but quite a few aircraft that are civil types, but operated by the RAAF, are leased aircraft, the legal ownership of the aircraft never passes to the Commonwealth.

As you have undoubtedly check by now, this presents no problem when operating the aircraft as state aircraft.

The ones in which I have had any involvement have been maintained as civil aircraft, with all the usual CASA requirements applying, including all but line maintenance being conducted in a CAR 30 facility, owned by or nominated by the lessor.

This caused civil operators of the of the same type considerable pain, because certain RAAF types knew better than the manufacturer, and wanted certain modification carried out on the aircraft, including the flight control system. The "most convenient" way to do this was to ask former RAAF mates, now working for then, (probably) CAA, or CASA to issue an AD requiring the "modification". Sadly, this required the several of the same type on the "normal" VH- register to comply with the ADs, costing in total more than AUD$1M per aircraft, at the time.

When it came time to sell said "real" civil aircraft, a similar expenditure was required to de-mod the aircraft, so that they once again complied with their certified type design, a necessity for the issue of a C.of A in, say, USA. Undoubtedly, the taxpayer footed the bill for the de-mods, when the ex-RAAF aircraft were sold.

Of course, with executive jets, I continue to be amazed that anyone would put one on the Australian register, if they could possibly avoid it, and thus avoid all the associated pain.

I was always amused by the situation, some years back, when an honourably retired Director of Maintenance at Qantas was on the CAA/CASA board, while employed as head of maintenance for the Packer fleet ---- none of which were registered in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Re. a previous post, at least one state government has taken legal advice re. the constitutional validity of the present (or any) definition of "state aircraft" that limits the powers of one of our states of the Commonwealth of Australia.
This was consequent on CASA making it very difficult to adopt modern equipment, in common use in may countries, for many years, in law enforcement and EMS/SAR operations.
The advice provided by the state Attorney_General was that aircraft owned by or operated by a state could be declared by the state as a state aircraft (as applies in the US --- even the FAA aircraft do not have to, and do not in practice, comply with FAA rules, state police aircraft and similar are not subject to FAA rules) and CASA "rules" would not apply. The program lapsed, because the state pollies decided it wasn't worth the cost of the fight with the Commonwealth. Easier to let a few people die, or crims to get away.

[Frank Arouet]

I presume we are now talking the warbird fraternity, generally ? While I used to have an involvement as an engineer I am a tad out of touch these days.

I'd have to take counsel from a couple of mates still in the regulatory game but, as a first guess, I would imagine that there ought to be no major problem. If the birds are VH- plated then one would expect the maintenance to follow civil requirements, if ADF-plated then the normal 059/053 requirements.

I'm probably wrong again, but I thought the Warbirds mob are registered in the "Restricted or Limited" catagory. Different set of rules again. Otherwise why would they have signs like "NOTE this aircraft was manufactured by the lowest tenderer" or this aircraft is experimental, fly in it at your own risk.

I recall P51D's towing targets for the Army out of Fawcett's and Lear's doing the same thing for the Navy.

Firebombers can be Experimental as can the Grob high altitude job in Uni SA.

Everything operates on "exemptions or Instruments" due to the inability of the regulator to set up a suite of regulations despite 23 years of trying.

[Clearedtoreenter]

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.

Where does that leave an operator legally when a defence person turns up with his ADF supplied credit card for the purpose of hiring a civil aircraft for currency? Surely that's in the course of duties? What are the legal/insurance implications for the civil operator as the civil aircraft will then become a state aircraft?

[Creampuff]

Good questions, the implications of which I doubt were considered in too much detail when the change was made to the definition of state aircraft.

Better get a lawyer, son. Better get a real good one...

[Creampuff]

I do think we need to be very careful not to confuse state aircraft that are maintained as if they were civilian aircraft, for aircraft that are civilian aircraft.

If an aircraft is of any part of the ADF or commanded by an ADF member in that capacity, it is a state aircraft. The ADF has responsibilities and choices about how to deal with the continuing airworthiness and maintenance of a state aircraft that is of any part of the ADF or commanded by an ADF member in that capacity. Putting the aircraft on the VH register does not change any of that, while ever the aircraft is of any part of the ADF or commanded by an ADF member in that capacity: under the current definition, the aircraft continues to be a state aircraft.

In some cases the ADF chooses to maintain its state aircraft as if they were civilian aircraft. There are often commercial imperatives to do this. For example, the aircraft may be leased to the ADF, and the value of the aircraft on the commercial market at the end of the lease would be very low if the aircraft’s maintenance history was not in accordance with, and demonstrably in accordance with, the civilian aviation law. But it’s still a state aircraft, and failure to maintain a state aircraft in accordance with the civil aviation law is not a breach of the civil aviation law.

I’ll use a hypothetical to make clear what I’m trying to say.

Let’s assume ADF members, in their capacity as ADF members, operate 3 type X aircraft that are leased to the ADF.

Fact: Those 3 aircraft are state aircraft, and putting them on the VH-register, the state register or no register at all, won’t change that.

As it turns out, lots of type X variants are operated by civilians as well, and there are a number of maintenance facilities for the type X aircraft operated by civilians.

The ADF enters a contract with Generi-corp, which holds a certificate approval, issued under the civilian aviation law, to carry out maintenance on type X aircraft. The contract includes conditions that require Generi-corp to hold a certificate of approval under the civil aviation law, to ensure that maintenance on the aircraft is carried out only by persons permitted by the civil aviation law to carry out maintenance on type X aircraft, and to carry out, record and certify maintenance in accordance with the civil aviation law.

Important point: Despite those arrangements, the aircraft are still state aircraft, and the contract does not have the effect of transferring, to CASA, regulatory responsibility for the maintenance activities. That’s why the ADF still has to set up AMO and AEO arrangements under the ADF’s rules. It might look like a paperwork formality, but nobody should labour under the misconception that regulatory responsibility has shifted.

To explain why this is so: Let’s assume that in Generi-corp’s maintenance facility there are 7 type X aircraft. One of them is the ADF’s and all the others are non-state. Let’s assume Generic-corp arranges for a person, who is not permitted by the civil aviation law to carry out maintenance on aircraft type X aircraft, to carry out maintenance on all of them.

When that person carries out the maintenance on the non-state aircraft, that person and Generi-corp commit offences against the civil aviation law. However, when that person carries out maintenance on the state aircraft, there is no offence against the civil aviation law. It might be a breach of the contract between the ADF and Generi-corp, but it’s not a breach of the civil aviation law. CASA has no power to, for example, enter the state aircraft to see if the thronomister has been maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance data and, even if CASA does determine that the thronomister hasn’t been maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance data, it’s not a breach of the civil aviation law. Remember: these are state aircraft.

The ADF could decide to ask Generi-corp to modify the aircraft so as to strap rocket launchers to the wings, by reference to a design provided by the ADF, and CASA would have no regulatory responsibility or authority in relation to the modification. The modification might render the aircraft valueless on the commercial market, but that’s a commercial/contractual matter between the ADF and the lessors of the aircraft, not a regulatory matter for CASA. CASA might refuse to certify the airworthiness of the aircraft, but that doesn’t matter until the aircraft ceases to be a state aircraft.

Now it might be that the ADF’s (ostensibly reasonable) assumption is that CASA’s regulatory responsibility for Generi-corp’s activities in relation to the non-state aircraft will have corresponding consequences for the same activities in relation to the state aircraft. The logic is that if CASA is monitoring and securing Generi-corp’s compliance with the civil aviation law in relation to the maintenance of non-state aircraft of type X, as a matter of practicality CASA is monitoring and securing Generi-corp’s compliance with its contract obligations to the ADF. That’s fine, as far as it goes.

But think about these hypothetical circumstances: Due to the limits on CASA’s resources and its priorities elsewhere, CASA ceases to do audits of Generi-corp. Or when CASA does audits of Generi-corp, CASA only looks at the paperwork for the non-state aircraft. Or Generi-corp uses LAMEs to do the maintenance on the non-state aircraft, but unqualified personnel to do the maintenance on the state aircraft.

If the aircraft were ADF state aircraft when they went in to the maintenance facility, were ADF state aircraft while they were in the facility, and were ADF state aircraft when they came out, I find it difficult to understand how regulatory responsibility for the airworthiness and safety of those aircraft shifts from the ADF to CASA.

But the above isn’t the complicated situation. The complicated situation is where aircraft jump from state to non-state, depending on whether the PIC is a member of the ADF in that capacity. That situation arises when, for example, VH-registered aircraft are owned by a private company and not leased to the ADF, but those aircraft are operated for ADF purposes, sometimes with civilians as PICs and sometimes with ADF members as PICs.

Clearedtoenter’s question seems to be another complicated situation.

As far as I can tell, the regulatory authority and responsibility shifts back and forwards as the aircraft shifts from to state to non-state from hour to hour, or day to day, or whatever.

It was a little clearer under the previous definition of state aircraft. I’m far from convinced that all of the consequences of the change in the definition were necessarily understood when the change was made.

[Bedder believeit]

Just as an aside. Until the mid 80's, RAAF aircraft used 3 letter abreviations for ATC R/T. If I recall, the RAAF had all of the letters in "H", "J", "N", "X", "Y" and "Z" blocks reserved for military use, so no civil aircraft used any of those letters. For example, the 34 (VIP) squadron aircraft in Canberra were NLA and NLB (HS747), NLD, NLE and NLF (DA20 Falcon) and NLG and NLH were the two BAC-111's. At no stage were these letters painted anywhere on the aircraft. The planes still had the A- number on the rear side. "H" was used for Canberras and F-111s, "Z" and "Y" for Mirages and Sabres. I can't remember the Herc's and Caribous. I think (make that "guess"!) that as the VH register became more crowded, then the RAAF was (possibly) forced to give up the "Civil" rego's that they were hogging. I couldn't be bothered working out how many total registration marks were taken up by those letters, but it would be quite a few, certainly 25% of the total letter combinations available for the civil register.

[Frank Arouet]

hypothetical circumstances: Due to the limits on CASA’s resources

"squeeze me"? That's a bit "Thompsonish" to consider as a hypothetical example. They are given probably 10% of GDP to carry out functions like regulatory review processess. How many resources do they need?

(probably more typewriters).

[Creampuff]

Ironically, Frank, you’ve identified another reason for regulatory responsibility for ADF state aircraft remaining with the ADF. :ok:

The Defence budget in Australia is about 2 to 3% of GDP, or around 20 to 30 billion dollars. CASA’s budget is equivalent to rounding errors on Defence’s wastage figures…

[jas24zzk]

Just to flick back to the start of this.

I was at Point Chook a few years back for the mid week CT-4 demo. At no time did they say it held both ADF and civil rego.

What they said about that particular aircraft was that it was civilian registered, and that they were maintaining the original Military Maintenance logbook alongside the civilian log book.

Apparantly CASA do not recognise the military logbook (citation needed)

My read on what has been posted, is that it would be illegal for it to display a civilian rego if it was not civilian registered. After that, the OPERATOR can add whatever company identifiers they like.


Phalanx system...ARMED

[Creampuff]

1. It can be ‘civilian registered’ and still be a state aircraft. Please read, again, the previous and current definitions of ‘state aircraft’ that I’ve posted in this thread, to understand why that’s so.

2. Can you point to the rule that prohibits an ADF state aircraft from displaying a VH registration?

3. It’s not a matter of CASA ‘recognising’ anything. The civilian aviation law has a bunch of rules about systems and schedules of maintenance, certification of the completion of maintenance, and approved maintenance data including airworthiness directives. If a pile of paper comprising the maintenance records of a state aircraft doesn’t look anything like what those rules require, and include records a whole lot of ADF-specific modifications, the pile of paper doesn’t satisfy the rules or demonstrate compliance of the aircraft with a civilian Type Certificate and STCs.

[QSK?]

Bedder believeit: I can't remember the Herc's and Caribous

You are quite correct except for civil flight planning and RT purposes the military used "VM" instead of "VH" when annotating flight plans, so the Canberras planned as "VM-HL* or VM-HZ*" when intending to operate in civil airspace but spoke the last 3 letters only for domestic RT; however the whole group was spoken for international RT e.g. a C130 on an international flight from Amberley to Butterworth would call as "Jakarta this is Victor Mike Juliet Lima Juliet".

Hercs and Caribous used the "J" series of callsigns with Hercs invariably flight planning as "VM-JL*" and Caribous as "VM-JM*

[Arm out the window]

On a lighter note for a moment, that reminds me of a story I heard about one of the old and bold RAAF Herc blokes from before my time in the service, which went something like this:

The Herc crew were outside military airspace somewhere, talking to air traffic as you do, and this particular pilot, no doubt more used to using a Stallion 123 type callsign or whatever, came to a bit of a mental blank mid-sentence when it was time to say the letter 'P' in his three letter VM- callsign.

Rather than stop mid-stride and sound silly, he kept going and used the word 'pineapple' as a substitute, which was obviously much more dignified...

Maybe someone remembers this and can confirm or deny.:)

[LeadSled]

Folks,
For most "long haul" operations, the RAF had/has a much more simple system, sound just like an air line callsign, such as "Ascot 123".

The "good book" says that radio call signs VH/VI/VJ/VK/VL/VM were allocated to Australia in the mid-1920s.

The relevant ones, VH for Australian civil aircraft, VL/VM for Australian military aircraft were adopted by ICAN (predecessor to ICAO) in 1928.

Tootle pip!!

[QSK?]

LeadSled:

Yep and, back in the '80s, the RAAF sometimes used the "Ausy" designator on international flights e.g. Ausy 123.

Don't know what they use today though.

[Shagpile]

ASY. So do chartered flights like strategic/adagold

[jas24zzk]

<sigh>

Try reading my post again, and then re-read your response.

[Creampuff]

And your point is?

[gerry111]

During 4 flights over 4 consecutive days in 1977 I was aboard RAAF 11 Sqn's then P3B Orion A9-298, for a FISHEX around most of the Australian coastline. The callsign used was Juliet Charlie Lima (as in VM-JCL) for the whole trip.