BCAR-T Questions

[Gyronaut]

Ok, enough is enough - I now expect some answers.

My Magni M24 is STILL sitting and waiting in JHB, SIX MONTHS after shipment and delivery. (Keep in mind it was paid for in full before shipment) and I still cannot fly it.

Let me begin by stating clearly that it is NOT the Magni factory or the local agent that is causing the holdup, it was delivered as scheduled, there are 2 more that I know of that have been here for absolute ages and are still grounded.

Now here is the first question: On who's authority/decree was the decision taken that factory built Gyro's in SA have to comply to BCAR-T? Can anyone point out the Civil Aviation Regulation / Act / Law please?

Second Question: What is the effective date of this "decree" and why are HUNDREDS of factory built Gyro's flying in SA exempt? Remember I own one that has a valid training ATF without BCAR-T so am I going to be grounded along with the rest of you who don't have the certification?

The third question then follows logically: Do the currently flying models of ELA; MT; Xenon; RAF all comply to BCAR-T?
(I know Sycamore doesn't) - If they don't ... do they now have to??

Can any of the Guru's from CAA/RAASA on this forum please enlighten me or should I go ask Colin Jordaan on Avcom?

Len

[OzGyro]

Hi All

Len I hear your frustration, from what I believe and understand there is NO LAW that states the gyro's must comply. But as we are all led to believe and for some unknown reason the local CAA here just enforces it and we have to just accept the fact. I hope someone far wiser than I can give us all a more detailed explanation.

Cheers
Darren

[FO Gyro]

That must be so frustrating.

[Gyronaut]

Frustrating yes, I agree, like you cannot believe. On top of this I have students waiting for training AND I have around R800 000.00 South African Ront tied up with NO return. Think I can claim interst from the perpetrators of this joke?

Maybe it's time for legal opinion on this farce.

Magni have an impeccable repution world wide and I smell a rat locally. Makes you blink doesn't it?

I think it's time to investigate ...

Watch this space starting next week.

HKGK

As I said, enough is enough. Time to expose.

Len

[THI]

Iets ruik snaaks, gee hulle gas!!!

[Wargames]

I think they made a mistake or did they?? Its a code name. I personaly would have exchanged the T for a D, but maybe the guy couldn't spell that good.

Maybe they want you to send them your "case".

[braam hechter]

Hi Len.

I think i can share your frustrations. As far as i know Butch has been busy and there has been discussions with Nnditsheni Madavha as the certification engineer at the CAA. As far as I know the M24 is still undergoing BCAR-T certifcation? This can be confirmed by the SACAA Certification Engineering section. A Type Acceptance process which is a validation process can only be conducted after another Authority has issued a "Type Certifcate" for the aircraft.

Herewith a piece from the legislation to initiate the process. As part of the process to fulfill the requirements by the Commisioner compliance to a standard needs to be proven. This can be BCAR T, EASA, etc. The manufacturer can decide which design criteria they want to work/design towards.

Airworthiness
24.01.2   (1)  Before a non-type certificated aircraft, other than an aircraft classified in sub-groups (h) to (l) in sub-regulation 24.01.1(2), is considered to be airworthy it shall–
(a) have been issued with –
(i) an Authority to Fly or a Proving Flight Authority, as the case may be, in terms of this Part; and
(ii) a valid certificate of Release to Service;
(b) have been maintained in accordance with the provisions of this Part and of Part 43, as applicable to the type of aircraft; and
(c) have no known condition which could make the aircraft unsafe for flight.
(2) Only those aircraft, of which the type, the local or foreign manufacturing organization, the local assembling organization or agent, or the build standard has been approved by the Commissioner, may be built or imported and flown within the Republic.
(3) The Commissioner may consider a foreign manufacturing organization as being approved by the Commissioner if that facility was approved by an appropriate authority.

(6) Production-built aircraft may not be delivered to the public by a manufacturer or agent unless the aircraft has been registered in the name of the new owner; Provided that this restriction shall not apply in the case of the sale of a plan according to an approved build standard, in which case the provisions of sub-regulation (4)(a) applies.

In working with the CAA i have learnt a valuable lesson, if it is not written it is not said. I would assume that the engineer did write a letter to Butch as the importer, to submit specific documents/data before the type acceptance. (It is the same as a modification application, you apply, substantiation documents etc is requested and through an interactive process the modification is approved, if deemed safe).

You can go to Mr. Jordaan through Avcom but i would suggest you get the information from Butch as to the information required by the CAA. I have worked with other importers and have requested specific, pointed information. They then send me boxes full of documentation with information not relevant or requested, thereby wasting my time.

Has the M24 been type accepted by another Authority anywhere in the world? They can be contacted to assist the SACAA with the information that may be lacking. It does sometimes happen that the manufacturer will only release design information to the authorities and not the agents.

Butch would be able to help you with information, he should be able to forward you the letter as sent by the CAA with the specific requirements.

Greetings and let me know if i can help.

Braam Hechter

[saraf]

The RAF does comply to BCAR-T.

Len Good luck , took us 18 months and allot of money later.

[saraf]

RAF had to comply to BCAR - T , and a couple of other 's like Section 549 to name only one.

I am watching this space.....

[saraf]

O yes Len

By the way , the CAA stopped us form Registering for 18 Months even after we submitted all the information they required. The RAF complied to Bcar T even before they stopped us. At that time we were selling about 20 RAF's a year at R600 000-00 a gyro??? You can make this some in loss of sales for that period, so I am watching this space................

[Gyronaut]

Well done Saraf

Another compliment to RAFSA for having this certification (A well kept secret btw.)

ps... Learjet, you're the marketing guru, shouldn't he have a sticker on the side of his machines that SAYS that?

Braam, thanks for your lucid input. It has become clear that the holdup is not our local CAA (tongue in cheek - yet) but the BCAA in aprroving the type certification, I am told they have had the required documentary proof for ages.

I a nutshell, then, I summarise that the objective is achieval of this standard, or any other standard approved by an appropriate authority. Am I correct that then satisfies your point 3? 3. The Commissioner may consider a foreign manufacturing organization as being approved...

If that is true then according to my information the machine has certification in France, and that the Commissioner may thus consider granting approval since they are an appropriate authority? Perhaps this is a route worth considering then as an interim? I'll chat to the supplier.

I WANNA FLY IT!
c'mon boys, any assistance will be appreciated.

I was planning to do an interest loss calculation at the Mora interest legal rate of 15.5% per annum, and haul out the G5's, but changed my mind thanks to the support and assistance of everyone that I spoke to today and the responses on this forum.

I am quietly confident that it will get sorted quickly and my selfish ambition will be satisfied.

Fly SAFE/SAVE (take your pick, works both ways).


Len

[John Boucher]

I don't see any of JetRanger's questions really being answered as yet!

Would some of the big heads or knowledgeable okes please share with us under what authority the other types are flying in SA out of curiosity!

Would make interesting reading methinks....

[braam hechter]

Good morning John and all the others.

Sorry for not answering to the minutest detail. As SARAF has stated, and Theuns, Butch, myself and others have experienced, it is a busy process. There are two new AIC's out, that I have read. They are,
AIC 60.1 Documentation: Technical information regarding aircraft, components, parts, etc., imported into South Africa, and
AIC 60.2 Procedures for registration and issuance of Flight Authority of Non-Type Certified Aircraft

I tried to attach these files, but they are to big.

Go to http://www.caa.co.za then Aeronautical information (3 rd button on l/h drop down list) then go index of AIC's (top button) then scroll down to AIC 60.1 and AIC 60.2 They can be opened by double clicking on the number. Hopefully this will clarify the current questions.

It may also be worth the time to read Part 11 from the legislation. In the CAA there is the possibility to use an alernative means of compliance. This then goes through a process to the commisioner via ARB's (Review Boards) where the safety case is discussed and the suitability of a system is confirmed. The process is normally discussed with a person wanting to import a product during the application as referenced in my previous posting. If a step is skipped, the required information is not available when required and you are sitting with the cart before the horse.

Greetings
Braam Hechter

[John Boucher]

Thank you Braam...

I am sure this will shed more light on the situation! Will read this the weekend in full and I am sure there will be contradictions, loopholes and depending on the person applying the said legislation!

[John Boucher]

I may sound ignorant here and possibly find my stance as being offensive but I have to say the following.... I really find it extremely strange that the M-24 is accepted and flying in France and Italy as well. These are First World countries with stringent rules and regulations when it comes to type acceptance. Why would we be indifferent by setting a higher standard or requirement in SA. I say this because at one stage I was investigating the possibility of bringing a very dynamic and awesome aircraft into SA but stopped when thoughts of kissing butt and sending inspectors over to inspect the factory at my expense just went against my grain....