Probably best if discussion of aircraft certification (and categories
related thereto) was conducted by those who know a little more about
it than those who want "Pawnee Glider Tug" for a new category!
Discussion of the E Tug was raised in a regulatory reform committee
that Daryl and I were both at, and this was the first either of us
heard of the particular project, which is being worked on by a very
well respected aeronautical certification engineer. However details
were so scant we did not recognise it as a re-engined Pawnee airframe.
Experimental certificates can be issued for about 11 purposes but
there was a suggestion these might be expanded, or a new category be
created, to allow for some existing aircraft to be used more
flexibly. Problem with Autotug was it was originally issued what was
available 10+ years ago and later given an experimental certificate
for research & development, which is time-limited and should have
been followed-up with an experimental certificate for proof of
compliance, which could then have been followed, if the modifications
were successful, by a supplemental type certificate (owned by Autotug
so that they could sell usage rights for a series of aircraft and
recoup their investment).
This would be the way to go with E-Tug, so that a successful design
can be replicated to operate under a Normal or Restricted category
certificate of airworthiness for glider towing.
There's also discussion here and overseas about a new certification
for old aircraft designs that are no longer supported by a
manufacturer who holds a type certificate, hence nobody to provide
continuing airworthiness guidance so the aircraft continues to meet
its certification standard. The vintage aircraft movement would
benefit here (and anyone who uses an Auster to tow gliders, as an
example) and also allow engines to be used beyond manufacturers'
maintenance instructions or warranted service life / calendar time
since overhaul.
Also clarification is needed on the use of amateur-built aircraft for
tasks like glider towing or parachuting - part of the same
committee's area of overview.
Development of new technology is a worthwhile objective for the GFA -
but let's not limit ourselves to a single design (mis-described at
that). There are also other new technologies like FLARM and offshoots
of ADS-B that also deserve support.
Wombat
At 10:18 23/08/2006, Robert H wrote:
This issue was mentioned very briefly at the recent board meeting
but only in passing and I can't recall what exactly was said but I
believe that the issue is awaiting the new rule changes before the
issue can progress further. The problem with 'auto tugs' has been
the current experimental category requirements that require each
aircraft to be different.
As I understand it, the possible new rule changes would remove this
restriction and thus allow us to 'mass produce' identical tug
conversions. I can't remember what the current status or timeline
for these possible CASA rule changes is however. I am aware that the
GFA is lobbying to have the rules changed to allow 'mass production'
of auto engined tugs.
I suggest that those who want more information on this contact the
GFA secretariat in Melbourne - as I said, I am not certain I am
remembering correctly!
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
