Normal or Utility Category

[chephy]

A few days ago I was helping ferry an aircraft that's been sold to a group of people who want to do flight trianing on it, a Cessna 172. The Certificate of Airworthiness stated the category as Normal, though the POH, of course, lists loading envelopes for both Normal and Utility category. Spins, that will be required for the training, can only be done in the Utility category. Are they allowed to do them, with proper loading, or does the Normal category assignment on the C of A make it illegal?

[all_ramped_up]

The Type Certificate Data Sheet for the 172 shows they're certificated for Normal and Utility Category so as far as I know, if loading is done properly the C of A is still in force.

[Shiny Side Up]

Be careful with this as its possible for aircraft to be modified and no longer within its original type certification, usually with some sort of STC. Common with STOL kits and other goodies. For example a 172 on floats usually won't have a utility category anymore.

[chephy]

The only STC (for which there is paperwork anyway) is one that allowed the use of mogas. Everything else appears stock; nothing like floats or STOL kits. It has a venturi system for the gyros, but I think that's how it came from the factory. At least, I see no paperwork to the contrary..

One concern I have is that the POH has the "Utility Category" section crossed out in pencil and a notation made "[Aircraft registration] is not in this category". No reason given, no other notes beyond that. The aircraft's owner could give no explanation as to why that's there; apparently an instructor of his crossed it out 20 years ago for reasons that, I'm afraid, will remain unknow. The aircraft's AME didn't seem to think that the aircraft was modified in a way that would result in invalidation of the original type certificate.

Assuming no mods/STCs though, the plane could be flown in the utility category then, even if the C of A doesn't specifically say that, correct?

[PilotDAR]

The big difference between Normal and Utility certification categories is the spinning. In the 172, the Utility category conditions are met with the more restricted C of G, to assure the intended spin recovery characteristics. The aircraft is legally in Normal, or Normal and Utility categories, depending upon how it is loaded. If in Utility, you can intentionally spin it.

As said, some STC's will cause the spinning approval to be withdrawn. This may be because (in the case of a STOL kit) the aircraft will no longer meet the requirement to demonstrate a six turn spin, and the spin recovery technique may be different from what Cessna's flight manual says. I think that the STOL kit manufacturers simply do not think that you bought a STOL kit to then go ans spin the plane.

Do not spin 172's outside the utility loading limits, the benign aircraft you knew before might startle you!

[chephy]

Thanks, PilotDAR. I'm aware of the loading requirements for spinning the 172. I am just wondering it needs to actually say Utility on the C of A before the aircraft can be legally spun.

[photofly]

I don't believe any C172 has "utility" on the C of A. In a sample of 4 of various vintages, all say "normal".

I don't think pencil annotations in the POH are regulatory, either.

[chephy]

I don't believe any C172 has "utility" on the C of A. In a sample of 4 of various vintages, all say "normal".

That was my experience too. Just wanted to be sure.

I don't think pencil annotations in the POH are regulatory, either.

Lol, no, definitely not. I was just a bit surprised to see it there, and that's what led to the search of the regs, the STCs, and this topic.

[PilotDAR]

I am just wondering it needs to actually say Utility on the C of A before the aircraft can be legally spun.

Ah, fair question;

The "Normal" of registry is a different "normal" than that of the certification - just to confuse you. A Normal registry aircraft is not "special purpose". "Agricultural" etc. This is unrelated to the Normal vs Utility of design certification, so, an aircraft eligible in both Normal and Utility, like the 172, may go back and forth form N to U, (even within the flight, if well planned), without any change to anything, unless, as said, a mod on the aircraft removes spinning privilege.

[Shiny Side Up]

I don't believe any C172 has "utility" on the C of A. In a sample of 4 of various vintages, all say "normal".

Prepare to be blown away!



Actually that's usually how most of the newer CoAs look, the old ones (like the one for a '59) say "standard".

[AirFrame]

I don't think pencil annotations in the POH are regulatory, either.

Regulatory, no. But you'd want to be really sure that it was an error before you went ahead and flew the airplane up to the Utility category limits.

[chephy]

The "Normal" of registry is a different "normal" than that of the certification - just to confuse you. A Normal registry aircraft is not "special purpose". "Agricultural" etc. This is unrelated to the Normal vs Utility of design certification, so, an aircraft eligible in both Normal and Utility, like the 172, may go back and forth form N to U, (even within the flight, if well planned), without any change to anything, unless, as said, a mod on the aircraft removes spinning privilege.

Hmm, I thought the C of A had categories like "Normal", "Utility", "Aerobatic", "Commuter". As spelled out here or so.

[chephy]

Prepare to be blown away!

Jeez... So... would it be illegal to spin a 172 that just said "Normal"??

I'd ask Transport, but in my experience they take between about 2 and infinity months to get back to you... and then they usually give an answer that would provide them with the most ass coverage in case they misunderstood their own regs, not the answer that's actually true.

[photofly]

I regularly spin 4 172s, all of which (I checked again today) say "Normal" on the C of A.

I don't think 172's can read.

[digits_]

I regularly spin 4 172s, all of which (I checked again today) say "Normal" on the C of A.

I don't think 172's can read.

No, but TC can. Which would be interesting if you log the the spin exercises in the PTRs and they find out they are done in a "Normal" only airplane.

Ours shows Normal / Utility as well by the way.

[PilotDAR]

Have a look at the Type Certificate Data Sheet, which is the bible of limitations for the aircraft. It is here:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... Rev_83.pdf

Search for "Spins" (plural, with the capital) and you will see up to the 172Q all the references to spins being approved. For the 172R & S, they are also "utility" approved, though the TCDS is silent on spins, so you'd have to read the POH, which I do not have here.

For TC sensitive pilots, if you are doing what the TCDS says you can do with a plane, within any limitations, you are entirely legal.

As for the 172 R & S, TC will be here tomorrow auditing me, so I'll ask them...

[photofly]

I regularly spin 4 172s, all of which (I checked again today) say "Normal" on the C of A.

I don't think 172's can read.

No, but TC can. Which would be interesting if you log the the spin exercises in the PTRs and they find out they are done in a "Normal" only airplane.

Ours shows Normal / Utility as well by the way.

You have to love AvCanada - the only place in the world where people want to pretend there are two sorts of C172's, some of which are approved for spins, and some of which aren't. Next, you'll be trying to sell me a paper STC to upgrade one to the other.

[digits_]

Have a look at the Type Certificate Data Sheet, which is the bible of limitations for the aircraft. It is here:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... Rev_83.pdf

Search for "Spins" (plural, with the capital) and you will see up to the 172Q all the references to spins being approved. For the 172R & S, they are also "utility" approved, though the TCDS is silent on spins, so you'd have to read the POH, which I do not have here.

For TC sensitive pilots, if you are doing what the TCDS says you can do with a plane, within any limitations, you are entirely legal.

As for the 172 R & S, TC will be here tomorrow auditing me, so I'll ask them...

For the models up to Q, doesn't your file show that spins are only allowed in the utility category (which is also stated in the POH for those aircraft) ?
If then, the certificate of registration only allows you to fly the airplane in the normal category, does this not prohibit the airplane to spin ?

I regularly spin 4 172s, all of which (I checked again today) say "Normal" on the C of A.

I don't think 172's can read.

No, but TC can. Which would be interesting if you log the the spin exercises in the PTRs and they find out they are done in a "Normal" only airplane.

Ours shows Normal / Utility as well by the way.

You have to love AvCanada - the only place in the world where people want to pretend there are two sorts of C172's, some of which are approved for spins, and some of which aren't. Next, you'll be trying to sell me a paper STC to upgrade one to the other.

You are starting to sound like a certain ex-avcanada poster. The discussion (or at least the last part) is about the paperwork, not about the ability of the airplane to spin. Every private C172 is capable of doing commercial flights as well, that doesn't make it legal either.

[PilotDAR]

For the models up to Q, doesn't your file show that spins are only allowed in the utility category (which is also stated in the POH for those aircraft) ?

Correct, for all 172's, spins are only permitted when the aircraft is operated as a utility category, as per those weight and C of G limitations, which are in the flight manual. For the 172R & S, the TCDS no longer states the maneuver limitations, because they are now in the flight manual for the aircraft, which is authoritative, unless overridden by a more restrictive flight manual supplement for that specific aircraft - STOL kit being the best example.

So, if you choose to load a 172 through 172Q within the limits of "utility" category, and go an spin it, and someone has heartache with that, you point to the TCDS, and show them that it is permitted by that document, which it the very highest authority for the airplane. That said, the POH I have for some older 172's also provide the same information in Section 2, Limitations, which says that you can spin it conditionally.

If, otherwise, you're similarly flying a 172R or S, you show heartache person that the POH states in Section 2 that spins are conditionally permitted.

If heartache person asks you why you think that you know it all about operating the 172 to its limitations, explain as follows:

You have a C of A to TCDS 3A12. That TCDS states that the aircraft can be spun (up to the 172Q - and for the R&S: " The airplane must be operated according to the appropriate Pilot’s Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual (POH/AFM)") (which permits spins, with the same wording as found for the other 172's on the TCDS).

As a pilot, of course, you read the POH, but if you forgot to, you read the placard in your plain view, which states: " "This airplane must be operated in compliance with the operating limitations stated in the form of placards, markings, and manuals." ("manuals" being the POH, which says that you can spin it). So, you can spin it.

Now, if it's a floatplane, Cessna's TCDS now says that you can no longer spin it, regardless of loading. A STOL kit has a similar effect on spin approval.

If then, the certificate of registration only allows you to fly the airplane in the normal category, does this not prohibit the airplane to spin ?

The C of R simply tells everyone that it is registered, and allowed to fly bearing the national registration letters.

The C of A might say "Normal" or "Standard" (as my 150M does). That does not prohibit you flying the plane within the limitations specified by the TCDS/POH/Placard, as long as something else (like the STOL kit mod) does not otherwise prohibit it.

That all said, if heartache person has at you about spinning a 172 (which is not otherwise prohibited, and it was loaded correctly) and you explain all of the foregoing to them, they will simply give up, and walk away, in awe of your knowledge, and nothing will come of it....

[digits_]

As you pointed out I confused the CoR and CoA in my previous post. I was talking about CoA, not CoR, so thanks for that.

The C of A might say "Normal" or "Standard" (as my 150M does). That does not prohibit you flying the plane within the limitations specified by the TCDS/POH/Placard, as long as something else (like the STOL kit mod) does not otherwise prohibit it.

Regarding the above quote, do you have any regulations to support this ? If I read the link provided by cephy: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... b-2061.htm

I can find this:

523.3 Aeroplane Categories

(a) The normal category is limited to aeroplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 5700 kg (12,566 lbs.) or less, and intended for non-aerobatic operation. Non-aerobatic operation includes:

(1) Any manoeuvre incident to normal flying;

(2) Stalls (except whip stalls); and

(3) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not more than 60°.

(b) The utility category is limited to aeroplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 5700 kg (12,566 lbs.) or less, and intended for limited aerobatic operation. Aeroplanes certificated in the utility category may be used in any of the operations covered under paragraph (a) of this section and in limited aerobatic operations. Limited aerobatic operation includes:

(1) Spins (if approved for the particular type of aeroplane); and

(2) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, or similar manoeuvres, in which the angle of bank is more than 60 degrees but not more than 90 degrees.

(c) The aerobatic category is limited to aeroplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 5700 kg (12,566 lbs.) or less, and intended for use without restrictions, other than those shown to be necessary as a result of required flight tests.

(d) The commuter category is limited to propeller-driven, multi-engine aeroplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 19 or less, and a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 8618 kg (19,000 lbs.) or less. The commuter category operation is limited to any manoeuvre incident to normal flying, stalls (except whip stalls), and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not more than 60 degrees.

(e) Except for commuter category, aeroplanes may be type certificated in more than one category if the requirements of each requested category are met.

I think that from this, you can conclude that only aircraft belonging to the utility or aerobatic category are allowed to do spins. If "utility" is not mentioned on the CoA, it is not considered a utility aircraft according to these rules.

If I made a mistake, please let me know where I am wrong. Again, just talking about the legal aspect here, not about the capabilities of the airplane.

[PilotDAR]

If "utility" is not mentioned on the CoA

Think about "C of A" differently. Certificate of Airworthiness. Certificate says that it is. Airworthy is defined as: "conforming to it's type design, and fit and safe for flight". So, assuming that it is fit and safe for flight, your C of A now certifies that the plane conforms to its type design. It type design being that described by the type certificate, which we have discussed at length.

So, if it has a C of A, it conforms to its type design, which specifically (up to the 172Q, and by reference for the R & S) permits spins under the specified limitations. Therefore, you can spin it as long as the 172 has a C of A at all. (without C of A, of course, you're not flying it, other than by flight permit for certain uses).

Does that close the legal logic loop for you?

[photofly]

Refer to MSI14:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... 4-2681.htm
paragraph 17:

17. Certificate of Airworthiness - form 24-0073
17.1 Following receipt of a properly completed application made in accordance with the applicable sections of CAR 507, a Certificate of Airworthiness shall be issued for an aircraft that complies with all the applicable Airworthiness requirements.

17.2 Form 24-0073 is to be completed as follows:

Block 1
Enter the nationality and registration marks as they are shown on the Certificate of Registration or the mark issuance letter issued by the regional aircraft registration staff to the applicant, i.e., C-F..., C-G... or CF-...
Block 2 & 3
Enter the aircraft manufacturer, model and serial number as shown on the aircraft identification plate, which shall be the same as shown on the Certificate of Registration or the mark issuance letter issued by the regional aircraft registration staff to the applicant.
Block 4
Enter the Type Certificate number that appears on the Type Certificate Data Sheet, and the Type Certificate category.

Example: "A -137, Transport", for a Boeing 767 or "A - 211; Normal" for a Piper 32R. Where an aircraft is approved in more that one category, enter all categories, e.g., " A - 199, Normal and Utility" for a Cessna 172R.

If the aircraft is approved in more than one category and the C of A doesn't list both, it's clearly an error. There's no TC procedure or authorization in the staff instruction for an aircraft category on an C of A to be restricted or differ from that shown in the TCDS.

The C of A doesn't create or mould the category in which the aircraft is certificated, and is not the "approval" to operate in any given category; as PilotDAR states, it echoes the category from the TCDS, which is itself the approval.

[New_PIC]

...
If the aircraft is approved in more than one category and the C of A doesn't list both, it's clearly an error...

Curious: How should someone deal with a faulty C of A? Send for a corrected version?

[photofly]

Why would you care?

[PilotDAR]

How should someone deal with a faulty C of A?

As long as the C of A correctly identifies the airplane, I would have zero concern about someone asking why I was spinning a 172, whose C of A said "normal". Certainly an interesting discussion exercise, but no real concern at all.