This is my third attempt to get a reply into the system! When an aircraft manufacturer ceases to exist as a legal entity (e.g. goes bankrupt or is not able to support its products) the normal situation is that the country of origin's airworthiness authority must support the type certificates that it issued unless a buyer for the product line is forthcoming.
Many aircraft are now supported by someone other than the original manufacturer - Boeing now owns McDonnell-Douglas, Embraer in Brazil owns some of the former Piper singles and light twins. Having acquired the type certificates, it is hard for them to divest themselves of this responsibility. The UK CAA last year decided not to support the Auster aircraft types and some others which have not had an original manufacturer for decades. They now have allowed them to be operated on a "Permit to Fly" with operating restrictions, similar to an Experimental certificate. [Incidentally there is no such thing as an Experimental Category - each experimental aircraft is a one-off, like a prototype, and they are all required to be operated an maintained on an individual basis. No certified parts, no standard repairs, no "type" operating limitations. They are all individuals for certification purposes, each and every airframe. There ARE gliders in Australia with Experimental certificates, but this is not available here or in the US for standard production aircraft that are no longer supported by a manufacturer. Other than for proof of design, or exhibition and display, experimental certificates are not available for such aircraft - gliders included. One possible way out with our system is that Light Sport aircraft may be issued an experimental certificate if they are no longer supported by a manufacturer - with limitation on what they can be used for (no training, for instance). I own (part of) an older glider that Herr Weber has supported since its original maker went out of business, and I will be happy to pay him to continue to provide the support so I do not have to pay CASA or EASA rates for this service. Should any other organisation choose to support these types, I may have a choice, but until then I prefer to have a type-certified and supported product. I just hope the service offered is value for money! Wombat ----- Original Message ----- From: Al Borowski <[email protected]> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] DG Flugzeugbau strategy Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:10:32 +1000 > > > >D McD wrote > > I do. > > > > If a company is no longer interested in supporting their > > ancient products, they should publish the complete > > drawings and technical data under a copyright license > which permits owners to manufacture their own spare parts. > > > > But it'd allow legitimate owners of aircraft to continue > > to maintain them forever, knowing that any spares they > > built themselves would be equivalent to original, > certified components. > > And Al B replied: > > Wouldn't a glider need to be in an Experimental category > for this to work? I can picture someone welding up a part > to match DG's blueprints, and it probably being as good as > the real thing. I can't however, see CASA taking their > word for it. > > Do we have an Experimental category for gliders in > Australia? > Wombat also says that CASA would not accept them as the equivalent of the original certified article without a lot of money changing hands for proof of compliance testing - without this they are "bogus parts". _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
