Tasmania Australia South Coast

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by rwtalbot

There are many IFR ABE aircraft in Australia that fly IFR without TSO'ed flight instruments and they are still doing so quite legally. There are even type certified aircraft flying IFR without TSO'ed flight instruments.

Richard, I appreciate your comments. However in the final analysis your opinion, and my opinion, may not be that relevant. The only opinion that really matters is the opinion of the Regulator. In order to get that opinion I suggest you contact Mick Poole at CASA yourself. After you have the opinion of the Regulator you might like to report back here with your findings.

In the meantime it would be prudent for all owners who might be affected by this issue to consider the wording of their insurance policy. Many Experimental owners are insured with QBE in Australia owing to the competitive rates they offer to SAAA members. In that respect I refer to QBE's specific clause in their Aviation Aircraft Insurance Policy under the heading of Compliance with Legal Requirements. This clause states:

"The insured shall compy with all legislation and delegated legislation, orders, directions, notices, approvals and all Statutory Requirements which affect safety or the maintenance or operations of the Aircraft".

I would be reasonably confident that all other aviation insurers would have similar clauses.

In the event that an owner had an accident while flying IFR in an aircraft not deemed to be compliant with the legal requirements for IFR flight it is quite conceivable that the insurer might reject the claim. That would place the onus on the owner to take costly legal action against his insurer in an attempt to obtain indemnity.

I advocate caution on this matter to my fellow Experimental flyers. And having done that, I have nothing further to say.

[Finley Atherton]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

Fin says his aircraft is approved for IFR under his Certificate of Airworthiness but I doubt that is the case. Normally the C of A will say something like: "Approved for operations other than day VFR if appropriately equipped". The onus is therefore on the builder to ensure that the aircraft is in fact "appropriately equipped" in accordance with the CARs.

From my Certificate of Airworthiness:
Point 5.
In accordance with CAR (1988) 262AP (6), I hereby authorise the operation of this aircraft under the IFR in IMC.
Point 6.
The aircraft logbook shall contain a statement to the effect that this aircraft meets the requirements of CAO 20.18 Appendix IV and V for IFR Operations.

My aircraft IS authorised for IFR in IMC so the question is, do I meet the requirements of CAO 20.18?
I have the required instruments but are they approved? Project CS 13/01 states that instruments listed in CAO 20.18 must be approved by one of the processes specified in CASR 21.305. CASR 21.305 says, may be approved (e) in any other manner approved by CASA.

My interpretation is that my instruments were approved by CASA as per (e) when my AP contacted CASA and was informed that my panel was approved for IFR with the addition of a TSO altimeter and ASI. I would presume that other IFR Experimental aircraft with non TSO instruments would also be approved under CASR 21.305 (e).

I have contacted the AP that issued my Certificate of Airworthiness and the current situation is that CASA is looking for "a certified 6 pack" but "CASA have not gone around arbitrarily removing IFR permissions from older aircraft with existing IFR permissions that would not meet the CASA 6 pack TSO requirement".

It's all a bit messy but at this stage I am satisfied that I meet the requirements and that my panel is approved as per CASR 21.305 (e) pending further directions from CASA. I suspect that one of the new TSO EFIS that fits into a 3 1/8" hole may end up in my panel one day.

Fin

[rwtalbot]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

The only opinion that really matters is the opinion of the Regulator. In order to get that opinion I suggest you contact Mick Poole at CASA yourself. After you have the opinion of the Regulator you might like to report back here with your findings.

Bob, their opinion or current policy does not matter with respect to approvals previously issued. The only thing that matters is the law. A number of us have written advice from CASA's APs and Mr Poole that directly contradicts what you are saying.

Please stop spreading incorrect information.

[Richard Connell]

Bob, I was happy to leave you and your opinion lie at the beginning. It was your suggestion that we deal with this in a public forum.

Seeing as you have made the outrageous claim that many of us breaking the law, perhaps you could outline for us exactly which laws are being broken.

As you claim it is "completely black and white" this should be a relatively straight forward exercise to quote the specific CAR(CASR) or CAO that is being breached.

Bob, I assume you are not making these claims on behalf of the SAAA as a TC?

Mods, can we move these posts to a new thread please. thanks

[Allan / Cummins Spinners]

Looks likes a great trip to Tassie
Not sure about the walking but the flying is great
A pity the thread was hijacked

[Finley Atherton]

Originally Posted by Allan / Cummins Spinners

Looks likes a great trip to Tassie
Not sure about the walking but the flying is great
A pity the thread was hijacked

Allan,

Thanks for your comments.
Hijacking is always a risk especially when someone gets a "bee in their bonnet" however I could not let the suggestion that myself (and others) are flying around without the required approvals go unanswered.

Fin

[Allan / Cummins Spinners]

Yes I know what you mean, but there are always 57 interpretations on anything that CASA writes
Now back to planning the Tassie trip

[Cam7nut]

Thanks very much for sharing your pics Finley.

A trip to Tassie has changed from "maybe one day" to "must do" when I finish my -7!

Cheers,
Cam

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by rwtalbot

Bob, their opinion or current policy does not matter with respect to approvals previously issued. The only thing that matters is the law. A number of us have written advice from CASA's APs and Mr Poole that directly contradicts what you are saying.

Please stop spreading incorrect information.

Richard, I have copped a lot of abuse on this thread by people who are angry and adamant that they have the right to fly IFR behind non TSOd instruments. However I suspect that none of these people have actually had the good sense to approach CASA for a determination. So I have done it for them.

These are the verbatim questions I today asked Mick Poole who is the CASA Sport Aviation Technical Officer and the man most qualified to answer them:

1. Are AB aircraft with C of As issued prior to CS 13/01 currently permitted to fly IFR if they have flight instruments as specified in CAO 20.18 but they are not TSOd.

2. Are AB aircraft with C of As issued post CS 13/01 currently permitted to fly IFR if they have flight instruments as specified in CAO 20.18 but they are not TSOd.

And this is CASA's verbatim response:

In answer to both of your questions, regardless of when the aircraft were issued with a CoA there has never been a provision for IFR operations with equipment that is not TSO’d or at least approved for IFR operations. I don’t believe there has been any advice from CASA otherwise and if so I would be pleased to see it.

As I have stated previously, this may be a grey area in the minds of some Experimental owners. But in the mind of the Regulator it is not grey at all.

And finally, sorry to Fin for being a party to highjacking his thread. In retrospect the issue of IFR flight most certainly should have had a thread of its own. However I'm sure the thread creep does not in anyway diminish his excellent recounting of a great trip and some fantastic photos. In fact the ongoing posts may have actually encouraged more readers to actually view the thread thus providing Fin with a larger audience for his trip than he otherwise might have enjoyed. I'd like to think that.

[Finley Atherton]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

.......with equipment that is not TSO?d or at least approved for IFR operations.

With the addition of a TSO altimeter and ASI, my panel was approved for IFR operations by the CASA representative.

Fin