On 22/04/2016 9:16 PM, Mike Cleaver wrote:
Further clarification (or maybe not) :-)
There is a problem here, however! While Martin's answer is quite
correct, it is not the answer to Justin's original question. It is one
of the operational approvals I mentioned originally, but Justin's
question was about certification.
So while the CAO covers gliders in general, it does not cover the Polish
gliders that had the requirement for a T&S as part of their type
certificate (the document that must exist before a Certificate of
Airworthiness is issued). That is where the solution must be found - to
vary the type certificate so that a Jantar can be airworthy for flight
in Australia (not in cloud) without having blind flying instruments.
Thanks Mike, pretty much covers it. I've been a bit busy today with too
many irons in the fire, so haven't had a chance to chime back in.
I am (and was) aware of the original CAR/CASR exemptions, and mentioned
it when it was first brought up in our club's audit. I don't recall the
exact response at the time by the RTO/A, but it was very similar to
this. In summary, it was felt that the CAR exemption applied to
operational aspect of flying, but not the original (and ongoing from an
airworthiness perspective) certification.
The analogy used was that the CAR could amend/exempt the flight manual,
but not the type certificate. Since CASA is mandated to accept the NAA
TC/TCDS verbatim, and is not permitted to issue variations on them. Thus
we end up in this apparently grey area legally.
Now, I'm definitely no expert on this area, but I've been chasing down
as much of the paperwork as I can to either prove or disprove this point
about whether this is a correct assumption or not - and would love as
much help on it as people can give. Mike C is probably our best bet on
this due to his long time on the CASA side of the fence and intimate
knowledge of all that stuff.
Now, before everyone jumps up and down on the RTO/A and our
Airworthiness department guys, please understand that I feel they
handled the situation professionally. There was no panic/overreaction
and immediate grounding of the gliders. The RTO/A himself was surprised
by this as much as any of the rest of us. Also the discussions were held
very tightly, only amongst those that know of the initial "eh?" moment -
CADs, our club's AAO, myself, and it seems like one or two other poeple
such as the Cobra owner from earlier in the thread. In fact, I wasn't in
most of those discussions, until the very end when I got an email with
the PU doc attached and a simple statement of "I think this should cover
you". We were audited back in November last year, and this issue is only
hitting the public now - some 6 months later. A far cry from the typical
CASA response we've had in other situations.
If we really do have a paperwork problem (yet to be proven or disproven
either way I personally feel), I'm disappointed that people don't see
the humour in that we've solved it by the application of a bit of sticky
tape and string - vintage, old school gliding at it's best!
Anyway, I'll shut up on this issue now and let smarter minds than me
work out what the hell is going on....
--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Information http://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+ WetMorgoth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
frames or one frame for many lights?" -Subcomandante Marcos
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
