airworthiness certificate

Thanks for the explanation, I was curious since the gliders mentioned in
the thread 304, Kestrel and Discus 2, after manufacture certification do
not any further testing in Europe, just the usual annual with ARC
(Airworthiness Review Certificate) which is a document check, and any
mandatory inspection.
Vernon


At 22:25 10 February 2017, Del Jensen wrote:
Vernon,

From AC No: 20-27G:

"14. Phase I Flight Testing.
a. Flight Tests. Section 91.319(b) requires you to show that your
aircraft
=
is controllable at all its normal speeds during all the maneuvers you
might=
expect to execute. You also need to show that your aircraft has no
hazardo=
us operating characteristics or design features.
b. Number of Flight Test Hours. The number of hours depends on your
aircraf=
t=E2=80=99s characteristics. See table 7 below for specific requirements.
T=
he FAA may decide you need additional hours of flight testing beyond
those
=
shown in the table to comply with =C2=A7 91.319(b)." & etc.

This is primarily directed at home built, but many gliders in the US are
ce=
rtified as experimental. I'm not sure why that is so, but I suspect that
i=
f for some reason the feds revoke your standard certification, is is much
e=
asier to make mods under the experimental cert (as opposed to the
standard
=
cert) in order to get your machine back up in the air. Just changing out
y=
our variometer for something new can invalidate your certificate if the
fac=
tory originally stipulated a particular vario.

As to what kind of mods can require you to redo phase I and II, I get the
i=
mpression that it is up to the local FSDO, who acts as the regional
interpr=
eter of the federal regs.

Del

Question: If a glider is imported into the US prior to the FAA issues a standard airworthiness cert to the manufacture for the type, is that glider experimental and will always be experimental or can it be shown that the glider is the same type? Or say if a manufacture makes a glider in say 1975 and then the FAA issues a standard type cert in 1976 to the manufacture for that type glider and then a 1975 glider is imported into the US; could that glider be grandfathered under the standard type even though it was manufactured prior to the standard cert issued?

My Stemme was imported into Mexico when new. The model has a US type
certificate. When I brought it into the USA, I had to have a DAR
perform a conformity check and issue a US Standard Airworthiness
Certificate.

On 2/10/2017 4:57 PM, Casey wrote:
Question: If a glider is imported into the US prior to the FAA issues a standard airworthiness cert to the manufacture for the type, is that glider experimental and will always be experimental or can it be shown that the glider is the same type? Or say if a manufacture makes a glider in say 1975 and then the FAA issues a standard type cert in 1976 to the manufacture for that type glider and then a 1975 glider is imported into the US; could that glider be grandfathered under the standard type even though it was manufactured prior to the standard cert issued?

--
Dan, 5J

At 23:57 10 February 2017, Casey wrote:
Question: If a glider is imported into the US prior to the FAA
issues a
st=
andard airworthiness cert to the manufacture for the type, is that
glider
e=
xperimental and will always be experimental or can it be shown
that the
gli=
der is the same type? Or say if a manufacture makes a glider in
say 1975
a=
nd then the FAA issues a standard type cert in 1976 to the
manufacture for
=
that type glider and then a 1975 glider is imported into the US;
could
that=
glider be grandfathered under the standard type even though it
was
manufac=
tured prior to the standard cert issued?



Casey,

I have had a number of gliders which fit your question. All of them
were early serial numbers in their production run. The JAR 22
reciprocal certification process takes time to make it's way through
all of the bi-lateral red tape, so the first bunch of new design
gliders when imported to the USA are usually given Experimental
Airworthiness Certificates. The understanding is that usually, when
the JAR 22 reciprocal approvals are finalized, the owner can then
get the Airworthiness Certificate changed from Experimental to
Standard if so desired. I made the change on one of the gliders I
had before I sold it, but the others, I just left Experimental. My
present Discus-2b is serial number 50, and was built in 1999. The
reciprocal Standard Airworthiness was not granted until the USA
FAA issued TCDS (Type Certificate Data Sheet) G17CE in 2003.
Under the "Import Requirements" in the TCDS, it specifically lists
the serial numbers of the gliders that are grandfathered to be
eligible for a certificate change from Experimental to Standard,
provided the glider still meets the TCDS (no modifications outside of
those the factory approves) and has had all AD's and TN's complied
with. I have not opted to change my D-2's certificate yet, but my
local FAA MIDO has checked everything, and has advised me that
they can easily do it for me in conjunction with an annual
inspection, should I so desire to have it done.

So, the bottom line is to check the USA FAA TCDS for the glider in
question. If you find that the serial number is listed in the TCDS as
grandfathered, then (unless there have been major non-factory
authorized modifications) it most probably can be changed to a
Standard certificate. If the serial number is not grandfathered,
then my FAA MIDO says that the chances of getting a Standard
certificate issued in place of an Experimental one are not very
good at all....basically slim to none....

See the FAA website for a TCDS search:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu.../rgMakeModel.n
sf/Frameset?OpenPage

RO

On 2/10/2017 4:57 PM, Casey wrote:
Question: If a glider is imported into the US prior to the FAA issues a
standard airworthiness cert to the manufacture for the type, is that glider
experimental and will always be experimental or can it be shown that the
glider is the same type? Or say if a manufacture makes a glider in say 1975
and then the FAA issues a standard type cert in 1976 to the manufacture for
that type glider and then a 1975 glider is imported into the US; could that
glider be grandfathered under the standard type even though it was
manufactured prior to the standard cert issued?

The answer to Q1 is, any glider imported into the U.S. prior to the FAA
jumping through their own paper hoops designed to
ultimately-via-reciprocity-agreement recognizing the country-of-origin's
"approved type certificate" (exact verbiage dependent upon country of origin),
will be granted some form of "Experimental" airworthiness certificate. It
likely will be, "Experimental, Factory-Built, Exhibition and Racing." The
"importation certification" will remain in force until the owner of said
glider takes it upon him/herself to "upgrade" to an ATC (once "reciprocal
recognition" occurs). This is common with (e.g.) gliders of German origin.
Using the ubiquitous ASW-20 as an example, I wouldn't bet my life on there not
being a number of such ships in the U.S. still registered as "Experimental"
despite a "reciprocal-ATC" almost certainly (so I presume) having been granted
decades ago.

FAA "reciprocal-ATC-issuance" does not happen coincident with the country of
origin's issuing their equivalent of an ATC; so far as I'm aware there's
always been a paperwork-related (not U.S.-based, testing-related) delay.

I don't know the answer to Q2, though I would *guess* that any ship capable of
being shown to the FAA's satisfaction as meeting the design criteria
associated with that ship's ATC would be eligible for a "reciprocal-ATC." In
any event, Joe Owner of such a ship is pretty much guaranteed at least a minor
adventure in interfacing with (FSDO/FAA), and, paperwork.

Somewhat tangentially, there may be some RASidents unaware the FAA has
multiple "Experimental" buckets. Five, sez ancient recall. Common in the
general aviation arena is "Experimental, Amateur Built." My HP-14 was in that
category. My C-70 and Zuni were registered "Experimental, Factory Built,
Exhibition and Racing." I can't offhand remember the exact wording, but
there's also an Experimental bucket used by manufacturers (e.g. Cessna) when
they do development work, while the remaining Experimental buckets presently
aren't coming to mind.

Over the decades, the FAA's view on owners moving ATC-registered gliders into
an "Experimental" bucket (for whatever reason) has varied, unsurprisingly
tending (so I've been reliably, though not-recently, told) toward being less
willing. Hearsay suggests they presently won't let Joe Owner make such a
change simply "because J.O. wants to," though if you want to (say) develop
your own self-launching option, a "type-certificate-related mechanism" to do
so still exists.

Bob W.

At 03:34 11 February 2017, Bob Whelan wrote:
On 2/10/2017 4:57 PM, Casey wrote:
Question: If a glider is imported into the US prior to the FAA
issues a
standard airworthiness cert to the manufacture for the type, is
that
glider
experimental and will always be experimental or can it be shown
that the
glider is the same type? Or say if a manufacture makes a glider
in say
1975
and then the FAA issues a standard type cert in 1976 to the
manufacture
for
that type glider and then a 1975 glider is imported into the US;
could
that
glider be grandfathered under the standard type even though it
was
manufactured prior to the standard cert issued?



Using the ubiquitous ASW-20 as an example, I wouldn't bet my
life on there
not
being a number of such ships in the U.S. still registered as
"Experimental"

Bob,

If you look up the FAA TCDS website, you will find that there is no
TCDS for the ASW-20, so all will still be registered as Experimental
in the USA. That paperwork was never done.

I also had the specific discussion with one of our local FAA MIDO
inspectors about getting a Standard certificate issued after an
Experimental one was already in place. His view was that if the
glider was not grandfathered in the TCDS, the FAA would assume
that the importer had been trying to "back door" the established
system by not going through the proper procedures (ie Export C of
A, etc), and therefore the FAA would be extremely reluctant to allow
that aircraft a status change from Experimental to Standard.

If the aircraft happened to come through a "3rd country" (exported
from country of manufacture to another country, before being
exported from the second country to the USA), then it depends on if
the USA FAA has a reciprocal 3rd country licensing agreement with
that specific country. If so, one can get a 3rd country Export C of
A, and then get a USA Standard C of A. If there is no 3rd country
reciprocal agreement, then the options upon USA entry are (like
Dan) to hire a DAR and have a thorough condition inspection done
for a Standard certificate, or just slap an Experimental certificate on
it. Once the experimental certificate goes on though, it will be nigh
on impossible to change it to Standard later.

RO

If there is no 3rd country
reciprocal agreement, then the options upon USA entry are (like
Dan) to hire a DAR and have a thorough condition inspection done
for a Standard certificate, or just slap an Experimental certificate on
it

TYPO... Conformity inspection - which is much more exhaustive than
the annual Experimental Condition inspection.

RO

On 2/11/2017 7:00 AM, Michael Opitz wrote:
At 03:34 11 February 2017, Bob Whelan wrote:
Snip...
Using the ubiquitous ASW-20 as an example, I wouldn't bet my life on there
not being a number of such ships in the U.S. still registered as
"Experimental"

Bob,

If you look up the FAA TCDS website, you will find that there is no
TCDS for the ASW-20, so all will still be registered as Experimental
in the USA. That paperwork was never done.

I also had the specific discussion with one of our local FAA MIDO
inspectors about getting a Standard certificate issued after an
Experimental one was already in place. His view was that if the
glider was not grandfathered in the TCDS, the FAA would assume
that the importer had been trying to "back door" the established
system by not going through the proper procedures (ie Export C of
A, etc), and therefore the FAA would be extremely reluctant to allow
that aircraft a status change from Experimental to Standard.

If the aircraft happened to come through a "3rd country" (exported
from country of manufacture to another country, before being
exported from the second country to the USA), then it depends on if
the USA FAA has a reciprocal 3rd country licensing agreement with
that specific country. If so, one can get a 3rd country Export C of
A, and then get a USA Standard C of A. If there is no 3rd country
reciprocal agreement, then the options upon USA entry are (like
Dan) to hire a DAR and have a thorough condition inspection done
for a Standard certificate, or just slap an Experimental certificate on
it. Once the experimental certificate goes on though, it will be nigh
on impossible to change it to Standard later.

RO

Thanks for correcting and clarifying things, Mike. Obviously, I had no idea
the "dirt common" ASW 20 had never received a U.S. ATC/TCDS. Despite the
largely post-Sacramento-tragedy-associated creation of
Experimental-category-related operating limitations hoops through which owners
must now jump, I remain a fan of the Experimental registration approach to
airworthiness certification.

Kinda-sorta related to this thread's topic, I neglected to mention in my
previous post there are significant category-related operating restriction
differences between the various Experimental categories...point being that
"Experimental registration" is far from a universal catchall. By way of
emphasizing this point, the operating restrictions of (say) an unlimited
category Reno racer are quite different (more restrictive) than those of
today's average "Exhibition, Factory-Built, Exhibition and Racing" sailplane,
which in turn are quite different (more onerous in a paperwork sense, in my
view) than those of my 1981- registered same-category Zuni.

Bob W.

today's average "Exhibition, Factory-Built, Exhibition and Racing"
sailplane,
which in turn are quite different (more onerous in a paperwork sense,
in my
view) than those of my 1981- registered same-category Zuni.

Bob,

I just send out a letter to our local FAA office early every year detailing

which contests I might fly, and where they will be located during the
upcoming season. Then, I list all of the local area sites I might fly out

of and state that training for the upcoming contests may occur at any
of these sites. After the dates of the last contest of the year, the
training will be for contests occurring in the next year's time frame.

I have the master copy of this letter in my PC, and I just change the
contest locations and dates to match on a yearly basis. It doesn't take
up much of my time at all to do this and send it to my local FAA MIDO,
so it has just been convenient to keep the glider in Experimental
registry for now.

RO

On my program letter, I write 'TBD' for activities, and 'US Territories' for areas of operation.