Experimental Maintenance Requirements

[Oracle1]

I noticed in a recent thread there is mention of CASA implementing new policies with regards maintenance of experimental aircraft. Does anyone have any further info on this? I have plans to build my own aircraft and I would be really annoyed if CASA then turn around and rule I cant maintain it myself

[Jabawocky]

Oracle

PM me with your details, phone number and email, and I will get you on the straight and level.

Whatever you read and what you made of it clearly needs correcting.

:ok:

[Arnold E]

CASA is considering a move on this but it wont affect most owners, it will only be an advantage to LAME's that are builder/owners of experimental aircraft. It means we wont have to fork out for a very expensive course to do what we do every day.:ok:

[Jabawocky]

What are you on about?

PM me.

[T28D]

Beware the actions of AWAL they are trying to wedge themselves in to control Experimental.

[Jabawocky]

hahahhaha

yeah right.....

Tell me more please.

[LeadSled]

Jaba,
I suggest you talk to somebody who was at the AWAL AGM.
I also suggest you have a look at what is proposed as changes for Experimental Amateur Built maintenance, particularly for aircraft built by more than one person.
Tootle pip!!

[VH-XXX]

Don't listen to rumours from the 60's, it's all in here:

http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/maint/download/draft-caap-42zc-2.pdf

[T28D]

Ah yes the dreaded CASA DRAFT CAAP

[OZBUSDRIVER]

What motive? What benefit would AWAL gain with control of experimental maintenance? Noting there are very few owners of warbird experimental registered aeroplanes that do not already have their own facilities.

The logic of the argument defies me.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Further to the last post... If the intent is to gain authority to self maintain a Nanchang/Yak derivative, isn't this the same argument as self maintaining a C152 on RAA rego?

[Ultralights]

no, a c152 would still be 24 or factory built rego under Raaus, and therefor still require an L2 maintainer to do the work.

[VH-XXX]

no, a c152 would still be 24 or factory built rego under Raaus, and therefor still require an L2 maintainer to do the work.

A C150 under RA-Aus registration can be owner maintained if operated privately. If operated for hire or reward it would need to be maintained by a L2 or LAME.

152's are too heavy for RA-Aus registration. Only early model 150's made it in.... just.

[T28D]

OZ The logic of the argument defies me.

Me too but that is on the agenda along with compulsory annual re registration fees to AWAL , my take is they need the money so cast a bigger net.

Time to ditch warbirds in my view and my experimental Aircraft is on the market now.

[baswell]

no, a c152 would still be 24 or factory built rego under Raaus, and therefor still require an L2 maintainer to do the work.
The way I understand it is that 24 aircraft do not required an L2 to maintain. The only aircraft that require L2s are those used for reward.

Obviously, if you ever hope to sell your 24 aircraft to a school after you are done with it - better have it L2 maintained!

The 150s on the RA-Aus register are 19 because they were taken apart far enough and modified (lightened) to the point where the tech manager was willing to class them as owner-built.

[VH-XXX]

We will soon find out Bas if they are able to be legally registered again. Some time in the next 11 months as all rego's are renewed!

It seems that there is still a massive backlog of registrations that RA-Aus haven't processed yet.

[Sunfish]

I already have my MPC and nothing I read in the draft CAAP was inconsistent with what I was taught at the course. I satisfied myself that I could maintain the aircraft before I even bought the kit.

Furthermore, the draft also allows maintenance of a purchased aircraft if it is similar to what you built and you apply for an exemption.

[VH-XXX]

Oh and by the way...

I would be really annoyed if CASA then turn around and rule I cant maintain it myself

is a perfectly valid comment. This could happen. A lot of things could happen and it certainly IS a risk, much to the dismay of everyone involved.

It's a little bit like the RA-Aus woes at present. They effectively can't renew the rego's of aircraft, but nobody saw that coming either.

[Blowie]

From the latest AWAL bulletin:

CASA is determined to limit the Experimental category to the purposes it was originally designed for, that is, aircraft used for R&D, aircraft having handling characteristics determined, and aircraft used only for air racing. We’ve agreed to take on admin of aircraft not covered by those parameters.

[Vag277]

Blowie

Not quite correct. The issue of Experimental certificates is for many more purposes. The CASA/AWAL issue relates to operation of Warbirds for which the Limited categiry was established.

21.191 Experimental certificates

An experimental certificate may be issued for one or more of the following purposes:

(a) research and development: for example testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft;

(b) showing compliance with regulations: for example conducting flight tests and other operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including flights to show compliance for issue of type and supplemental type certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations;

(c) training the applicant’s flight crew;

(d) exhibition: for example exhibiting the aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions;

(e) air racing: for example participating in air races, including (for participants) practising for air races and flying to and from racing events;

(f) market surveys: for example use of aircraft for purposes of conducting market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training only as provided in regulation 21.195;

(g) operating an amateur‑built aircraft: that is an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation;

(h) operating a kit‑built aircraft: that is an aircraft in the primary category that meets the criteria of paragraph 21.024 (1) (a) and that was assembled by a person from a kit manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit, without the supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder under subregulation 21.184 (1);

(i) private operations of prototype aircraft previously certificated under paragraph 21.191 (a), (b) or (d);

(j) operating a light sport aircraft that:

(i) has been assembled from a kit in relation to which the applicant can give the information, statement and documents required by paragraph 21.193 (e); and

(ii) has been assembled in accordance with the kit manufacturer’s instructions for assembling the aircraft; and

(iii) is of the same make and model as a production aircraft covered by regulation 21.186 that has been issued with a special certificate of airworthiness;

(k) operating any other light sport aircraft covered by regulation 21.186 for which a special certificate of airworthiness for light sport aircraft, or another document of similar effect under a law of a Contracting State, has been issued.

[Oracle1]

I stand corrected. It seems the changes are quite sensible and that the 49 51 rule still applies for owner builder maintenance.Allowing a builder to sell their RV8 and buy an RV10 and still be allowed to maintain it is a step in the right direction to protecting the assett value of the Experimental fleet. IFR instruments must be calibrated and signed of by a LAME an eminently sensible rule. If i build my aircraft I can maintain it without having to have an approved workshop and LAME sign off on it providing its VFR. That's all I am concerned about. The short course that has been introduced is apparently just paperwork to educate the builder about compliance and regs. As a level 2 I am still stunned that the 150 was allowed on the register, at 544 kg it isn"t a viable aircraft

[Arnold E]

The short course that has been introduced is apparently just paperwork to educate the builder about compliance and regs.

Not as I understand it. A LAME builder owner cant sign of his own experimental aircraft without the Saaa course. Ridiculous, I know, but that is how I understand it :confused:

[Vag277]

Arnold

See the intro to the CAAP. This process is the basis for authorisation for some one other than a LAME under Reg 42 ZC (4) (e)

3. Background

3.1 Subsection 20AB(2) of the

Civil Aviation Act 1988 prescribes a penalty of 2 years imprisonment for any person performing maintenance on an Australian aircraft or aeronautical product if they are not permitted by Regulations to do so.

3.2 Unless otherwise permitted; supervision and certification of maintenance of aircraft may only be carried out by a LAME holding a Part 66 licence with the appropriate category and subcategory, or a person holding either a CAR 33B Airworthiness Authority, or a CAR 33D Welding Authority.

3.3 Regulation 42ZC (4)(e) of CAR 1988 makes provision for CASA to authorise a person other than a LAME or airworthiness/welding authority holder to do maintenance and it is under this provision that CASA authorises individuals to maintain amateur-built aircraft. The authorisation is provided by means of an Instrument which is published by CASA (currently Instrument number CASA 146/11).

[VH-XXX]

Allowing a builder to sell their RV8 and buy an RV10 and still be allowed to maintain it

I would to know if CASA have actually given approval to many of these requests. The example is from a RV4 upwards but would love to know if they would give one from an 8 to 10.... I could imagine a 2 seat Jabiru to a 4 would be do-able but a 10 would be interesting.

[Arnold E]

some one other than a LAME under Reg 42 ZC (4) (e)

With reference to the LAME, its my understanding that this only applies to A&E Lame's with groups 1&3. but still an Avionics Lame, for instance, cant sign off his own aircraft.

[Jabawocky]

XXX

An 8 to a 6 to a 10, there is nothing in it.

As you know I have my head around all models, from 6 to 12.

CASA are heading down the right track. Some guidance to follow no doubt. This is not my direct area of influence, but suffice to say I have a far better grip of the situation than Leadsled believes. Despite what happened at the recent AWAL agm, and I think he has made a grave error ...... Maybe had a nanna nap at a critical moment.

There is very little secretive even here on pprune. Who do you reckon is closer to the facts on this:ok:



PS, Arnold, I believe you are correct, and for this case it would seem an MPC is the only barrier, you just like an AME are probably as well versed as anyone, but there is always going to be an e ceptional case. Unfortunately as it stands it is you. Sucks, but do not blame SAAA they did not create the problem you have. Better still, get involved and be part of the solution my friend:ok:


Speculate and BS all you like folks :}

[Blowie]

Vag277

Blowie - Not quite correct.

Actually, I quoted verbatim from the AWAL bulletin.

The issue of Experimental certificates is for many more purposes. The CASA/AWAL issue relates to operation of Warbirds for which the Limited categiry was established.

Not quite Vag277. The experimental purpose called exhibition was established to allow the operation of those aircraft. Limited was established to allow opportunities to earn an income from historic, warbird, and replica aircraft, but using a reg instead of an exemption as the yanks do.

[Jack Ranga]

It may actually be easier going from an 8 to a 10 :}

Leadsled should use his knowledge for good not evil (and bull****) :ugh:

[Arnold E]

but do not blame SAAA they did not create the problem you have.

Not blaming Saaa Jabba, but am working on a solution.:)

[Creampuff]

Oh dear ….. Looks like the sadly-familiar and often-fatal mixture of dwindling dollars, petty politics and an over-supply of bush lawyers.

[T28D]

Creamy, a very accurate summation of the situation. Writs :ugh:at 10paces

[T28D]

Censorship by Pprune moderator , what next, I thought this was an open forum, so will rumours will be next for our moderator to expunge.

Jeff Muller of Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL) has contacted AviationAdvertiser regarding our recent article. Mr Muller suggests that 99% of the article contains errors of fact and that it is not representative of the issues at hand. In fairness to all readers we have therefore returned the article to the drafts folder and accepted the offer from AWAL representatives Jeff Muller and Steve Crocker to provide a comprehensive briefing.
We trust that this will result in a transparent analysis that will benefit our readers and others interested in warbird and other aviation across Australia, so that our readers will have a well informed view of the whole situation.
We thank the large number of readers who have expressed interest, but Mr Muller understands that this process will take a couple of days, because of an illness and also the need to clear any statement with his board.
We pride ourselves on getting the facts right because our founding principles are the provisiof well-informed comment and news.
We’ll notify readers for whom we have addresses by e-mail when AWAL’s statement is published. AWAL understands that his publication may lead to further dialogue

[Jack Ranga]

Why can't everybody just be friends? :ugh::cool:

[Creampuff]

Censorship by PPRuNe moderator , what next, I thought this was an open forum, so will rumours will be next for our moderator to expunge.You haven’t been paying very close attention. Defamatory material is frequently removed from PPRuNe posts, and rightly so. If you want to defame someone, do it at your risk, alone, rather than exposing the publishers of PPRuNe to liability as well.

And BTW, who ‘censored’ the article by removing it from the Aviation Advertiser site, and why?Mr Muller suggests that 99% of the article contains errors of fact and that it is not representative of the issues at hand. In fairness to all readers we have therefore returned the article to the drafts folder and accepted the offer from AWAL representatives Jeff Muller and Steve Crocker to provide a comprehensive briefing.Errrrm …. surely the folks at the Aviation Advertiser confirmed the facts before publishing the original article. After all, the Aviation Advertiser “pride ourselves on getting the facts right”.

They wouldn’t have made the mistake of parroting half a story told by serial bush lawyer pests. Surely not….

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

The post was edited not so much because of it's content, which may or may not be true, it's not for us mods to decide; but because

a) Pprune was threatened with legal action by a representative of AWAL if it stayed up there

b) Pprune rules, PPRuNe Forums - FAQ: PPRuNe Rules (http://www.pprune.org/faq.php?faq=pprune_rules#faq_pprune_rules_rules) which you agreed to when you joined, state, among other things;
"•No links to other aviation websites"



You are very welcome to start your own forum with your own rules to discuss this matter!