Austers – Type Certificate

Hi Galdri: Yes, you are right these aircraft types are known as non-EASA or Annex II aircraft. This means that their basis of certification is contained within the national rules applicable in the country of registry and the new EASA rules are not applicable. Here in the UK the national regulations are contained in books like: CAP 393 The Air Navigation Order 2009 (ANO); CAP 553 British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR) Section A; CAP 562 Civil Aircraft Airworthiness and Inspection Procedures (CAAIP); and CAP 747 Mandatory Requirements for Airworthiness.

From what you say, in your country your National Aviation Authority allows the use of AC 43-13. Here in the UK that is not directly allowed by the regulations, and the procedures described in the subject books and the posts above are what you have to do in the UK.

For Miles and Percival types, and the range of de Havilland types such as the Tiger Moth and Chipmunk, the UK rules allow them to be issued with an ICAO-compliant Certificate of Airworthiness. This gives them the right of free movement between countries and they may be used for hire and reward. Certain types, which do not have design support of the required form, will be issued with a Permit to Fly (either by the UK CAA [eg warbirds] or through the supervision of the LAA [eg Austers]) and have constraints on their use.

The CAA has issued the following information bulletin – how helpful:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20100413SpecialIss5v4.pdf

L’n’S: The Miles and Percival types operate on a full CofA, not a Permit to Fly. Their continued airworthiness is overseen by a “Type Responsibility Agreement” (TRA) between the CAA and a company (or individual) which may not necessarily hold the full design data set for the aircraft. In the case of the Miles types, the TRA is with Air Stratus Ltd, and for the Percival types it is with Tenencia Ltd.

Full details can be found in CAP 562, CAAIP, Part 1, Leaflet 1-14, and BCAR, Section A5-1, for those who are interested.

I don´t know what the situation is in the UK, but for the rest of us in Europe we have to look at Annex II
http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/ptf/annex_II_01_Jan_2010.pdf

There it is stated all Auster, Miles and Proctor aircraft are Annex II aircraft, which basically means that they are outside the EASA airworthiness rules, and all you need to adhere to in their restoration, repair and maintainance is the FAA AC43-13

They will be on a permit to fly, even if they are not homebuilt, and will not be usable for hire/IFR

This is how I understand things,
Sigurjon

Gooday All

Whell that is interesting. Been involved with Proctors for over 20 years and never knew about Tenencia Ltd.

Interesting how threads evolve, start out talking about Austers (one of which I own but don’t love) and end up with Percival – a subject very near and dear to my heart. I have learnt a lot from this thread and I previously thought that I had a fair understanding.

Wonder what the situation is like in the Land of the Long White Cloud?

cheers

As a mere LAA’er, I humbly bow to your greater wisdom! 😮

L’n’S: The Miles and Percival types operate on a full CofA, not a Permit to Fly. Their continued airworthiness is overseen by a “Type Responsibility Agreement” (TRA) between the CAA and a company (or individual) which may not necessarily hold the full design data set for the aircraft. In the case of the Miles types, the TRA is with Air Stratus Ltd, and for the Percival types it is with Tenencia Ltd.

Full details can be found in CAP 562, CAAIP, Part 1, Leaflet 1-14, and BCAR, Section A5-1, for those who are interested.

Is this a common feature of many UK aeroplanes, the original manufacturer has dissapeared and the aeroplane owners are left with potential problems. In the vintage aeroplane area, I am thinking of Miles as an example.

I am sure that a number of american types must be similarly affected. What is the situation in the US?

cheers

As Joe Petroni mentioned earlier, most ‘orphaned’ light aircraft without manufacturer or third party design support in the UK are catered for via the ‘Permit to Fly’ scheme either granted direct from the CAA on a type by type basis (for such as Miles Messengers, Proctors or similar) or for some approved types this is delegated to the Light Aircraft Association. These usually allow non-commercial, daytime VFR-only use within the UK and Permits are normally accepted as the required airworthiness certificate if permission is applied for in advance for visits to overseas countries.

In the USA, most non-certified light aircraft (and historic heavy metal) are granted airworthiness in the “Experimental” category. There is also the new LSA ‘light sport aircraft’ category available for types under 1320 lbs weight, which allows aircraft to be flown with less stringent Sport Pilot licenses. As far as I understand though, aircraft such as Cubs, although they fit under the weight limit and can be flown by pilots holding Sport Pilot certificates, cannot themselves be relicensed into the new LSA category.

Hope this helps?

I’m going out on a limb here…
But to the best of my knowledge, licenses aren’t done that way in the US.

There are plenty of GA orphans, but as long as the ac passes inspection, it’s good to go.

I believe that’s the case for commercial ac as well…but not many orphans are used for commercial passengers.

For crop spraying and other uses non-passenger commercial uses, it becomes more of a factor of the ac’s license type…”restricted” “experimental”, etc.

For the official word: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/

Is this a common feature of many UK aeroplanes, the original manufacturer has dissapeared and the aeroplane owners are left with potential problems. In the vintage aeroplane area, I am thinking of Miles as an example.

I am sure that a number of american types must be similarly affected. What is the situation in the US?

cheers

Moths are supported by DH Support, so they still qualify for a Certificate of Airworthiness.

So you can still use them for things like pleasure flights.

Gooday All

So, in practical terms’ how is this different from De Havilland types such as the Moth series?

cheers

There is no practical change in the maintenance when on a Permit. It is still carried out to the Light Aircraft Maintenance Schedule. There are operational restrictions, no hire or reward, night flying and if you want to go abroad it requires a bit of pre-planning.

The biggest change for me is a different address to send the cheque too, and there are more of them and bigger than what there used to be. :rolleyes:

I think Australia can pretty much do what they want! There is nothing in the change that has been brought about by the airworthiness of the type -it’s purely a paperwork exercise.

Austers are termed ‘orphan’ aircraft because their original manufacturer no longer exists. There is no Type Certificate as such and responsibility for the continued airworthiness of the fleet has been passed by the UK CAA to the LAA. All UK aircraft have now transferred from a CofA to a Permit to Fly and largely opeerate as they did before. However, the maintenance procedures are now those of the LAA, and not those of BCAR, and there are some operational restrictions applicable now because of the Permit to Fly and not the full CofA.

Check out the LAA’s engineering stuff here:

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/engineering.html

I’m not sure how this will affect things in Australia. CASA normally follows the line of the NAA in the State of Design, but perhaps they have not spotted there have been changes in the status of Austers in the UK. Let sleeping dogs lie?

Hello, I believe the Austers will now have a permit to fly handled by the LAA, not sure how it will be handled in Australia though.

Ken