View Full Version : JS1 Registration in the USA
rianmonnahan
October 6th 16, 10:28 AM
Hi All,
I see that all of the JS1s currently under N- registration are flying under a Special Airworthiness Certificate.
I'm wondering if it is at all possible to obtain a Standdard Airworthiness Certificate for the JS1 on the basis of its South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) type certificate.
Any information would be much appreciated. The FAA has ignored my request for information to date.
Tony[_5_]
October 6th 16, 11:34 AM
Contact Leo Benetti-Longhini, the US Agent. He will be able to answer all of your questions.
http://www.jonkersailplanes.co.za/agents.htm
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:28:24 AM UTC-4, rianmonnahan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I see that all of the JS1s currently under N- registration are flying under a Special Airworthiness Certificate.
>
> I'm wondering if it is at all possible to obtain a Standdard Airworthiness Certificate for the JS1 on the basis of its South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) type certificate.
>
> Any information would be much appreciated. The FAA has ignored my request for information to date.
What advantage do you feel a Standard Airworthiness Certificate would provide you in the US?
Tom (TK)
October 6th 16, 02:41 PM
With the last revision to 8130-2 (H) the experimental rules are great! Here are the limitations for my Antares 20E and they would be the same limits for the JS1:
(BTW #46 is my favorite)
1. This aircraft does not meet the airworthiness requirements specified in Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Operations in civil airspace outside of the United States will require the written permission of the applicable civil aviation authorities (CAA). That written 184, 185, permission must be carried aboard the aircraft together with the AIR-113 U.S. airworthiness certificate and, upon request, be made available to an FAA inspector or the CAA in the country of operation. Operations may be further restricted by the foreign CAA. This may include not allowing use of an airport, requiring specific routing, and restricting flight over specific areas. The operator must comply with any additional limitation prescribed by the CAA when operating in its airspace.
2.No person may operate this aircraft for any other purpose specified on the face of FAA Form 8130-7. These operating limitations do not provide any relief from any applicable law or regulation. This aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable regulations and the additional limitations prescribed herein. Note that a clearance from air traffic control (ATC) is not authorization for a pilot to deviate from any rule, regulation, operating limitation, or minimum altitude, or to conduct unsafe operation of the aircraft. If ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule, regulation, or operating limitation, or in the pilot’s opinion, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, it is the pilot’s responsibility to request an amended clearance. These operating limitations are a part of FAA Form 8130-7 and are to be carried in the aircraft at all times and to be available to the pilot in command of the aircraft.
3.This special airworthiness certificate and attached operating limitations are not in effect during public aircraft operations (PAO). Concurrent public/civil operations are not permitted; the aircraft cannot be operated as a civil aircraft and as a public aircraft at the same time. This airworthiness certificate is not in effect during flights related to providing military services (that is, air combat maneuvering, air-to-air gunnery, target towing, electronic countermeasures simulation, cruise missile simulation, and air refueling). These activities are inherent military training activities, not civil activities. The FAA makes the distinction between the authorized flights for experimental purposes, as described in the program letter, and PAO. Before operating this aircraft under this special airworthiness certificate following a PAO, the aircraft must be returned via an approved method to the condition and configuration at the time of airworthiness certification. This action must be documented in the aircraft records. The aircraft records and entries must clearly differentiate between a civil experimental flight per this certificate and any other flights.
6.Application to amend these operating limitations must be made to the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) or Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO).
7.The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold (Glider) category and (Private) class certificate or privilege. The pilot in command must hold all required ratings or authorizations and endorsements required by part 61.
10. When filing a flight plan, the experimental nature of this aircraft must be listed in the remarks section.
12. This aircraft must not be used for towing, including, but not limited to glider towing, banner towing, target towing, or towing electronic receivers or emitters. This aircraft must not be used for intentional parachute jumping.
13.If aircraft, engine, or propeller operating limitations are exceeded outside of planned test conditions, an appropriate entry will be made in the aircraft records.
14.No person may operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D, manufacturer or other FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation. The inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance not records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the [insert either: scope and detail of part 43, appendix D; or manufacturer’s inspection procedures] and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.” The entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate), and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.
18.Only FAA-certificated repair stations, FAA-certificated mechanics with appropriate ratings, or a manufacturer as authorized by § 43.3 may perform inspections required by these operating limitations.
19.The aircraft may not be operated unless the replacement for life-limited articles specified in the applicable technical publications pertaining to the aircraft and its articles are complied with in one of the following manners:
(a) Type-Certificated Products: Replacement of life-limited parts required by § 91.409(e) applies to experimental aircraft when the required replacement times are specified in the U.S. aircraft specifications or type certificate data sheets.
(b) Non-Type-Certificated Products: All articles installed in non-type-certificated products operated under an airworthiness certificate issued for an experimental purpose, in which the manufacturer has specified limits, must include in their program an equivalent level of safety for those articles. These limits must be evaluated for their current operating environment and addressed in the approved inspection program. All articles installed in non-type-certificated products in which the manufacturer has specified limits, must include in their program an equivalent level of safety for those articles. The article must be inspected to ensure the equivalent level of safety still renders the product in a serviceable condition for safe operation.
20.For aircraft originally incorporating fatigue life recording systems, the owner/operator must maintain and use the system as prescribed by the aircraft manufacturer and comply with the manufacturer’s fatigue life limits.
21.The geographically responsible FSDO where the aircraft is based must be notified, and its response received in writing, before flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as defined by § 21.93. The FSDO may require demonstrated compliance with § 91.319(b).
27.The owner/operator must submit an annual program letter to the geographically responsible FSDO where the aircraft is based. A copy of the current program letter and any amendments must be carried on board the aircraft any time that the aircraft is being operated. The program letter must include the following information:
• The aircraft’s home base,
• The name of the person responsible for the operation and maintenance of the aircraft,
• A list of events at which the aircraft will be [exhibited/raced] (the list may be amended as necessary),
• The estimated time or number of flights, and
• The areas over which the aircraft will be flown.
29.When an aircraft’s home base is changed or there is a transfer of ownership, the owner/operator will, within 30 days—
• Submit a new program letter to the geographically responsible FSDO.
• If an accepted or approved inspection program is specified in these operating limitations, submit a copy to the geographically responsible FSDO.
32.Operation is restricted to airports that are within airspace class C, D, E, or G, except in the case of a declared emergency or authorized operations under an airshow waiver.
PHASE I
34.No person may operate this aircraft for other than the purpose of meeting the requirements of § 91.319(b). The pilot in command must comply with § 91.305 at all times. This aircraft is to be operated under VMC, day only. This aircraft must be operated for at least (5) hours with at least (5) takeoffs and landings in this geographical area: [The area must be described by radius, coordinates, navigational aids, and/or landmarks. The size of the area must be that required to safely conduct the anticipated maneuvers and tests.] This aircraft may only operate from [identify name of airport(s)].
35. N/A (single seat)
37.Upon completion of phase I flight testing, the following or similar statement must be recorded in the aircraft records: “I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features, and is safe for operation. The flight test was completed under the following conditions: maximum operating weight, maximum demonstrated airspeed, minimum demonstrated airspeed, and center of gravity range.”
39.During phase I test flight operations, aerobatic maneuvers intended to be performed during phase II must be satisfactorily accomplished and recorded in the aircraft records. Aerobatic flight testing is not complete until sufficient flight experience has been gained to establish that the aircraft is satisfactorily controllable during the aerobatic maneuver tested. Upon completion of flight testing, the owner/operator must make the following or similar entry in the aircraft records: “I certify that the following aerobatic maneuvers have been test flown, and that the aircraft is controllable throughout the maneuvers’ normal range of speeds. The flight-tested aerobatic maneuvers and speeds are _________ at _________, _________ at _________, __________ at _________, and __________ at _________.” During phase II operations, aerobatic maneuvers that were not documented per this limitation may not be performed. The owner may place the aircraft back into phase I for the sole purpose of adding additional aerobatic maneuvers to the aircraft authorized maneuvers.
40. If the aircraft will have removable externally mounted equipment, it must be test flown in all configurations. An entry must be made in the aircraft records indicating the configurations flight tested, unless the original manufacturer’s flight test data for that equipment is included in the aircraft limitations. If relying on the manufacturer’s data, the aircraft and load must conform to the manufacturer’s design and be maintained to manufacturer’s instructions. Otherwise, the aircraft owner/operator must conduct test flights in all configurations and make an entry in the aircraft records indicating the configurations flight tested..
PHASE II
41.Day VFR flight operations are authorized. Night flight operations are authorized if the instruments specified in § 91.205(c) are installed, operational, and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 91.
42.The pilot in command must not perform any maneuvers that have not been flight tested or operate the aircraft outside the weight, airspeeds, and center of gravity limits tested.
46.Flight over a densely populated area or in a congested airway is authorized for the purpose of takeoff or landing; or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to make a safe emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property on the ground.
50.This aircraft is prohibited from flight with any externally mounted equipment unless the equipment is mounted in a manner that will prevent in-flight jettison. The aircraft must be configured as documented in the aircraft’s flight test records or as allowed in the original manufacturer’s aircraft limitations. If relying on the manufacturer’s data, the aircraft must conform to the manufacturer’s design and be maintained to manufacturer’s instructions.
53.The following placard must be displayed in the cockpit, in full view of the pilot: “NOTE: No person may exceed the designer’s or builder’s recommended limitations as follows: maximum gross weight (1452 lbs); CG limits (290mm FWD limit / 398mm AFT limit); airplane tow speed (100 knots); maximum airspeed in smooth air (151 knots); and maximum airspeed in rough air (105 knots).”
Bruce Hoult
October 6th 16, 03:12 PM
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 2:41:45 AM UTC+13, Tom (TK) wrote:
> With the last revision to 8130-2 (H) the experimental rules are great! Here are the limitations for my Antares 20E and they would be the same limits for the JS1:
>
> (BTW #46 is my favorite)
>
> 1. This aircraft does not meet the airworthiness requirements specified in Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Operations in civil airspace outside of the United States will require the written permission of the applicable civil aviation authorities (CAA). That written 184, 185, permission must be carried aboard the aircraft together with the AIR-113 U.S. airworthiness certificate and, upon request, be made available to an FAA inspector or the CAA in the country of operation. Operations may be further restricted by the foreign CAA. This may include not allowing use of an airport, requiring specific routing, and restricting flight over specific areas. The operator must comply with any additional limitation prescribed by the CAA when operating in its airspace.
>
> 2.No person may operate this aircraft for any other purpose specified on the face of FAA Form 8130-7. These operating limitations do not provide any relief from any applicable law or regulation. This aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable regulations and the additional limitations prescribed herein. Note that a clearance from air traffic control (ATC) is not authorization for a pilot to deviate from any rule, regulation, operating limitation, or minimum altitude, or to conduct unsafe operation of the aircraft. If ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule, regulation, or operating limitation, or in the pilot’s opinion, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, it is the pilot’s responsibility to request an amended clearance. These operating limitations are a part of FAA Form 8130-7 and are to be carried in the aircraft at all times and to be available to the pilot in command of the aircraft.
>
> 3.This special airworthiness certificate and attached operating limitations are not in effect during public aircraft operations (PAO). Concurrent public/civil operations are not permitted; the aircraft cannot be operated as a civil aircraft and as a public aircraft at the same time. This airworthiness certificate is not in effect during flights related to providing military services (that is, air combat maneuvering, air-to-air gunnery, target towing, electronic countermeasures simulation, cruise missile simulation, and air refueling). These activities are inherent military training activities, not civil activities. The FAA makes the distinction between the authorized flights for experimental purposes, as described in the program letter, and PAO. Before operating this aircraft under this special airworthiness certificate following a PAO, the aircraft must be returned via an approved method to the condition and configuration at the time of airworthiness certification. This action must be documented in the aircraft records. The aircraft records and entries must clearly differentiate between a civil experimental flight per this certificate and any other flights.
>
> 6.Application to amend these operating limitations must be made to the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) or Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO).
>
> 7.The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold (Glider) category and (Private) class certificate or privilege. The pilot in command must hold all required ratings or authorizations and endorsements required by part 61.
> 10. When filing a flight plan, the experimental nature of this aircraft must be listed in the remarks section.
> 12. This aircraft must not be used for towing, including, but not limited to glider towing, banner towing, target towing, or towing electronic receivers or emitters. This aircraft must not be used for intentional parachute jumping.
>
> 13.If aircraft, engine, or propeller operating limitations are exceeded outside of planned test conditions, an appropriate entry will be made in the aircraft records.
>
> 14.No person may operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D, manufacturer or other FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation. The inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance not records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the [insert either: scope and detail of part 43, appendix D; or manufacturer’s inspection procedures] and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.” The entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate), and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 2:28:24 AM UTC-7, rianmonnahan wrote:
> I see that all of the JS1s currently under N- registration are flying under a Special Airworthiness Certificate.
>
> I'm wondering if it is at all possible to obtain a Standdard Airworthiness Certificate for the JS1 on the basis of its South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) type certificate.
I think that seeking US type certification is something that Jonkers would have to do; it isn't something that an individual operator would normally pursue. According to this doc (.pdf link), we do indeed have airworthiness reciprocity with South Africa, so that's not a problem:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/baa_basa_listing/media/SA-BAA.pdf
Thanks, Bob K.
Tom (TK)
October 6th 16, 07:33 PM
With 8130-2H there are no longer operating area limits in Phase II. Phase I has limits as designated on a map that you submit but that is only for the initial testing/flying period.
rianmonnahan
October 6th 16, 08:10 PM
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 2:27:41 PM UTC+2, wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:28:24 AM UTC-4, rianmonnahan wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I see that all of the JS1s currently under N- registration are flying under a Special Airworthiness Certificate.
> >
> > I'm wondering if it is at all possible to obtain a Standdard Airworthiness Certificate for the JS1 on the basis of its South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) type certificate.
> >
> > Any information would be much appreciated. The FAA has ignored my request for information to date.
>
> What advantage do you feel a Standard Airworthiness Certificate would provide you in the US?
Hi,
In the US, none. I plan to fly the aircraft in Europe. If you have only a Special CoA, then you have to ask permission every time you want to fly or cross a border. No fun!
Rian
rianmonnahan
October 6th 16, 08:14 PM
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 3:41:45 PM UTC+2, Tom (TK) wrote:
> With the last revision to 8130-2 (H) the experimental rules are great! Here are the limitations for my Antares 20E and they would be the same limits for the JS1:
>
> (BTW #46 is my favorite)
>
> 1. This aircraft does not meet the airworthiness requirements specified in Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Operations in civil airspace outside of the United States will require the written permission of the applicable civil aviation authorities (CAA). That written 184, 185, permission must be carried aboard the aircraft together with the AIR-113 U.S. airworthiness certificate and, upon request, be made available to an FAA inspector or the CAA in the country of operation. Operations may be further restricted by the foreign CAA. This may include not allowing use of an airport, requiring specific routing, and restricting flight over specific areas. The operator must comply with any additional limitation prescribed by the CAA when operating in its airspace.
>
> 2.No person may operate this aircraft for any other purpose specified on the face of FAA Form 8130-7. These operating limitations do not provide any relief from any applicable law or regulation. This aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable regulations and the additional limitations prescribed herein. Note that a clearance from air traffic control (ATC) is not authorization for a pilot to deviate from any rule, regulation, operating limitation, or minimum altitude, or to conduct unsafe operation of the aircraft. If ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule, regulation, or operating limitation, or in the pilot’s opinion, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, it is the pilot’s responsibility to request an amended clearance. These operating limitations are a part of FAA Form 8130-7 and are to be carried in the aircraft at all times and to be available to the pilot in command of the aircraft.
>
> 3.This special airworthiness certificate and attached operating limitations are not in effect during public aircraft operations (PAO). Concurrent public/civil operations are not permitted; the aircraft cannot be operated as a civil aircraft and as a public aircraft at the same time. This airworthiness certificate is not in effect during flights related to providing military services (that is, air combat maneuvering, air-to-air gunnery, target towing, electronic countermeasures simulation, cruise missile simulation, and air refueling). These activities are inherent military training activities, not civil activities. The FAA makes the distinction between the authorized flights for experimental purposes, as described in the program letter, and PAO. Before operating this aircraft under this special airworthiness certificate following a PAO, the aircraft must be returned via an approved method to the condition and configuration at the time of airworthiness certification. This action must be documented in the aircraft records. The aircraft records and entries must clearly differentiate between a civil experimental flight per this certificate and any other flights.
>
> 6.Application to amend these operating limitations must be made to the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) or Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO).
>
> 7.The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold (Glider) category and (Private) class certificate or privilege. The pilot in command must hold all required ratings or authorizations and endorsements required by part 61.
> 10. When filing a flight plan, the experimental nature of this aircraft must be listed in the remarks section.
> 12. This aircraft must not be used for towing, including, but not limited to glider towing, banner towing, target towing, or towing electronic receivers or emitters. This aircraft must not be used for intentional parachute jumping.
>
> 13.If aircraft, engine, or propeller operating limitations are exceeded outside of planned test conditions, an appropriate entry will be made in the aircraft records.
>
> 14.No person may operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D, manufacturer or other FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation. The inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance not records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the [insert either: scope and detail of part 43, appendix D; or manufacturer’s inspection procedures] and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.” The entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate), and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.
rianmonnahan
October 6th 16, 08:23 PM
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 7:42:14 PM UTC+2, wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 2:28:24 AM UTC-7, rianmonnahan wrote:
>
> > I see that all of the JS1s currently under N- registration are flying under a Special Airworthiness Certificate.
> >
> > I'm wondering if it is at all possible to obtain a Standdard Airworthiness Certificate for the JS1 on the basis of its South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) type certificate.
>
> I think that seeking US type certification is something that Jonkers would have to do; it isn't something that an individual operator would normally pursue. According to this doc (.pdf link), we do indeed have airworthiness reciprocity with South Africa, so that's not a problem:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/baa_basa_listing/media/SA-BAA.pdf
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
Bob,
Many thanks. This is very good news.
Rian
> Many thanks. This is very good news.
Unfortunately, it's not as good as you might hope. Though the US does have AW reciprocity with South America, there are still a lot of other regulatory hoops to jump through.
My suggestion would be to buy the glider through an agent in the European country where you intend to fly, and let them deal with the paperwork.
Thanks, Bob K.
As far as FAA acceptance of foreign Airworthiness Certification, I can offer a bit of personal experience. When we were trying to find a solution to the Pegase 3,000 hour life-limit AD imposed by the FAA, we brought up the fact that it is certificated by EASA in Europe and also the DGAC in France, both of which are covered by the "Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements" included in the FAA's "Mission Statement:"
(http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/baa_basa_listing/)
The AD's author quite explicitly stated, "We don't pay much attention to things like that." He has no idea how close he came.....
krasw
October 7th 16, 08:11 AM
perjantai 7. lokakuuta 2016 0.18.13 UTC+3 kirjoitti:
>
> My suggestion would be to buy the glider through an agent in the European country where you intend to fly, and let them deal with the paperwork.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
JS1 can be registered to EU? According to JS webpage: "Jonker Sailplanes is currently working with the SACAA to progress towards EASA Type Validation (a validation of the SACAA Type Certification, so avoiding unnecessarily duplication of the certification ground and flight testing). With EASA Type Validation it is expected that all signatories to the EASA-FAA bilateral will accept the Type Certification, including the USA and Australia."
Now this text has been there, unaltered, for at least 5 years now.
The EU agent/partner, M&D, announces that on their behalf everything is ready for cert. at the end of 2015, a year ago.
This has to be one of the longest certification processes in aviation history.
rianmonnahan
October 7th 16, 01:56 PM
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 11:18:13 PM UTC+2, wrote:
> > Many thanks. This is very good news.
>
>
> Unfortunately, it's not as good as you might hope. Though the US does have AW reciprocity with South America, there are still a lot of other regulatory hoops to jump through.
>
> My suggestion would be to buy the glider through an agent in the European country where you intend to fly, and let them deal with the paperwork.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
Thanks for the advice, Bob, but I am not ready to take a 200,000 USD leap of faith.
I do appreciate your comments on "hoops." It's never as simple as it seems even when it's in black and white.
The problem in Europe is you simply cannot register an aircraft that is not type certified by EASA and for some reason -- perhaps political, perhaps technical -- this is taking a long time.
There are JS1s flying in Europe under South African colors and this is perfectly legal under ICAO rules. It does entail some other issues like ownership and licensing of the crew.
There are also so called JS1 M&D Singles flying in Europe under a German Permit to Fly pending EASA certification. The JS1 M&D Single is a JS1. They have just changed the name for certification purposes and this has knock on effects.
The first is that no JS1 will likely ever be retroactively certified in Europe. I can imagine what current owners think about that. The second is the JS1 M&D does not have a SACAA TC. So, you can buy one and fly it legally in any of the 191 signatory states of the Chicago Treaty but you will never be able to register it in Europe. Or you can by the other and hope EASA will certify it before delivery.
The reason for my initial query is to find a way around the regulations, have my cake and eat it too. I am a US citizen, so I can register a glider under N-. I've now eliminated the ownership issues. I don't have to set up a partnership with a South African entity. Unfortunately, I need a Standard CoA to benefit from the provisions of the ICAO treaty on overflight. Signatory countries can and usually do require that pilots aircraft with special CoAs get special permission to overfly their territory.
Agreed! It's the long way around and in the end the simplest thing to do is just wait for certification and enjoy my ASW-27 to the fullest in the mean time.
I thought I'd give you all the details since you were very helpful in providing the link to the US-SA bilateral.
Regards,
Rian
rianmonnahan
October 7th 16, 01:57 PM
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 5:00:54 AM UTC+2, wrote:
> As far as FAA acceptance of foreign Airworthiness Certification, I can offer a bit of personal experience. When we were trying to find a solution to the Pegase 3,000 hour life-limit AD imposed by the FAA, we brought up the fact that it is certificated by EASA in Europe and also the DGAC in France, both of which are covered by the "Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements" included in the FAA's "Mission Statement:"
>
> (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/baa_basa_listing/)
>
> The AD's author quite explicitly stated, "We don't pay much attention to things like that." He has no idea how close he came.....
Your message was cut off. I'd be interested in hearing the rest.
Rian-
The message wasn't cut off. I just chose to not state what the AD author came close to. Hint: It involved violence.
Bob Kuykendall
October 7th 16, 04:34 PM
Ah, I see now.
My next suggestion would be to just buy an ASG-29 and be done with it. Unless you are one of the best pilots, the difference between its performance and the performance of all but the longest-winged JS-1s will be unnoticeable.
Thanks, Bob K.
"This has to be one of the longest certification processes in aviation history."
Nah, they're just slow to update their website.
Due to political issues, EASA was rather reluctant to permit certification of a foreign manufacturers sailplane that was going head to head with 'their own'. So the solution was for a European firm to apply so they couldn't say no. The CS22 testing had to be repeated :(
Fast forward to present day and JS produces the parts and M&D assembles them. Only those gliders produced in this way can be certified. There'll be no backdating / retrospective certification.
CJ
rianmonnahan
October 7th 16, 07:53 PM
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 6:53:19 PM UTC+2, wrote:
> "This has to be one of the longest certification processes in aviation history."
>
> Nah, they're just slow to update their website.
>
> Due to political issues, EASA was rather reluctant to permit certification of a foreign manufacturers sailplane that was going head to head with 'their own'. So the solution was for a European firm to apply so they couldn't say no. The CS22 testing had to be repeated :(
>
> Fast forward to present day and JS produces the parts and M&D assembles them. Only those gliders produced in this way can be certified. There'll be no backdating / retrospective certification.
>
> CJ
Yeah... this sounds like a plausible version of the events surrounding JS's certification efforts.
Even the Jonkers point to a political issue:
Cf. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/soaring-innovation-2015-07-24
rianmonnahan
October 7th 16, 07:55 PM
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 5:34:37 PM UTC+2, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Ah, I see now.
>
> My next suggestion would be to just buy an ASG-29 and be done with it. Unless you are one of the best pilots, the difference between its performance and the performance of all but the longest-winged JS-1s will be unnoticeable.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
Agreed but I want the long wings. I have an ASG-29-15 ;) right now.
krasw
October 7th 16, 08:43 PM
On Friday, 7 October 2016 21:53:57 UTC+3, rianmonnahan wrote:
>
> Yeah... this sounds like a plausible version of the events surrounding JS's certification efforts.
>
> Even the Jonkers point to a political issue:
>
> Cf. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/soaring-innovation-2015-07-24
It appears Jonkers thought instead of going for full EASA cert from the beginning, it would be easier and cheaper to change legislation to accept bilatelar cert between SA and EASA. Obviously this was a huge mistake by JS which cost them 5 years.
Now if EASA stalls normal certification process, it should be sued on the spot. I do know that it is not unheard of (case Robinson R66), to great shame of EASA, and it is simply unacceptable. But blanket statement that no foreign aircraft could not achieve certification is just childish. Cessna, Piper, Cirrus plus dozens of other manufacturers have absolutely no problems achieving EASA certification to their products.
Craig Funston
October 7th 16, 11:38 PM
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:55:36 AM UTC-7, rianmonnahan wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 5:34:37 PM UTC+2, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> > Ah, I see now.
> >
> > My next suggestion would be to just buy an ASG-29 and be done with it. Unless you are one of the best pilots, the difference between its performance and the performance of all but the longest-winged JS-1s will be unnoticeable.
> >
> > Thanks, Bob K.
>
> Agreed but I want the long wings. I have an ASG-29-15 ;) right now.
Contact Uys Jonker and ask him. They're great folks and I'm sure he or a factory rep will happily answer all your questions. Leo is the rep here in the US. I'm sure he'd also be happy to answer any questions. I don't know the full story, but I know of at least one JS1C in Germany that I'm reasonably sure has D- registration. Relying on the motley bunch here on RAS isn't the most reliable option.
Cheers,
Craig
JS
October 8th 16, 03:53 AM
If you're in the United States, then Leo should be the primary point of contact.
When wondering why International acceptance is taking so long, bear in mind that the JS1 was the first aircraft of any kind to go into serial manufacture in South Africa.
M+D is the European partner, and applying for EASA certification.
http://www.jonkersailplanes.de/js1/js1-in-europa/
Jim
"The AD's author quite explicitly stated, "We don't pay much attention to things like that." He has no idea how close he came..... "
I know someone who has spent the last two years being jerked around by the powers that be in his country over his glider. At one point the government official told him that his new (EASA certified and in current production) was now, and forever will be a "lawn ornament"
Bruce Hoult
October 8th 16, 11:18 AM
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 3:53:16 PM UTC+13, JS wrote:
> If you're in the United States, then Leo should be the primary point of contact.
> When wondering why International acceptance is taking so long, bear in mind that the JS1 was the first aircraft of any kind to go into serial manufacture in South Africa.
> M+D is the European partner, and applying for EASA certification.
> http://www.jonkersailplanes.de/js1/js1-in-europa/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Oryx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denel_Rooivalk
??
Both developed from Aerospatiale Puma, but heavily modified and definitely made in South Africa.
rianmonnahan
October 8th 16, 08:22 PM
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 12:38:49 AM UTC+2, Craig Funston wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:55:36 AM UTC-7, rianmonnahan wrote:
> > On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 5:34:37 PM UTC+2, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> > > Ah, I see now.
> > >
> > > My next suggestion would be to just buy an ASG-29 and be done with it.. Unless you are one of the best pilots, the difference between its performance and the performance of all but the longest-winged JS-1s will be unnoticeable.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Bob K.
> >
> > Agreed but I want the long wings. I have an ASG-29-15 ;) right now.
>
> Contact Uys Jonker and ask him. They're great folks and I'm sure he or a factory rep will happily answer all your questions. Leo is the rep here in the US. I'm sure he'd also be happy to answer any questions. I don't know the full story, but I know of at least one JS1C in Germany that I'm reasonably sure has D- registration. Relying on the motley bunch here on RAS isn't the most reliable option.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
Hi,
I've written Leo, I've written the FAA. I'm still waiting for a definitive answer which I suspect will be NET. The issue is obtaining a Standard CoA for a US registered JS1-C.
And I agree, I've had nothing but good contacts with the people at Jonkers and M&D. They are nice people and the product is fantastic.
I would not put my hand to the fire but I think the only gliders flying with D- registration are JS1 M&D Singles under a German Permit to Fly. There are plenty of JS1s flying with ZS registration in Europe.
Cheers
rianmonnahan
October 8th 16, 08:23 PM
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 8:22:21 AM UTC+2, wrote:
> "The AD's author quite explicitly stated, "We don't pay much attention to things like that." He has no idea how close he came..... "
>
> I know someone who has spent the last two years being jerked around by the powers that be in his country over his glider. At one point the government official told him that his new (EASA certified and in current production) was now, and forever will be a "lawn ornament"
This is exactly what I want to avoid.
JS
October 9th 16, 02:04 AM
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 3:18:26 AM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 3:53:16 PM UTC+13, JS wrote:
> > If you're in the United States, then Leo should be the primary point of contact.
> > When wondering why International acceptance is taking so long, bear in mind that the JS1 was the first aircraft of any kind to go into serial manufacture in South Africa.
> > M+D is the European partner, and applying for EASA certification.
> > http://www.jonkersailplanes.de/js1/js1-in-europa/
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Oryx
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denel_Rooivalk
>
> ??
>
> Both developed from Aerospatiale Puma, but heavily modified and definitely made in South Africa.
OK you got me on military manufacturing. Should have been GA aircraft.
There are likely some microlights too.
Have either helicopter received CAA certification? How long did it take?
Jim
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.