External loads

[C-FDPB]

Reviving an old thread topic under this section. Anyone have any current info on the state of flying external loads? Specifically for the beaver? I've been doing all kinds of reading and haven't found anything current.

Cheers
Dpb

[PilotDAR]

The Beaver and Otter have some external loads specified on their TCDS. As long as you fly the load as approved on the TDCS, that's approved. Otherwise, you should have an STC for the load you propose to carry. Other airplane types will require an STC for the load, if it's not approved by teh TCDS. This rule has been in effect in Canada for years, though only recently received visibility for compliance.

[photofly]

The only rules in the CARs are 702.45 and 703.25 (that I can find) - does that mean private operators and individuals don’t need an STC or approval in the TCDS?

[TrilliumFlt]

The only rules in the CARs are 702.45 and 703.25 (that I can find) - does that mean private operators and individuals don’t need an STC or approval in the TCDS?

An STC maintains the validity of the type certificate without which operating an airplane, be it private or commercial isn't legal. With 100% certainty your insurance, should you be forced to lean on it would be invalid and you'd be "swinging in the breeze".

[photofly]

Right.

Why would you imagine that carrying an external load not in contravention of any regulation would invalidate a type certificate? The type certificate is held by the aircraft manufacturer. It’s hard to imagine why the actions of one pilot would affect type certification for the entire type.

Do you perhaps mean invalidate your certificate of airworthiness? The conditions under which a C of A is valid are laid down in the CARs - nothing there about external loads that I can see.

I’m a great advocate for certainty, but I don’t think lobbing a “your type certificate isn’t valid” without further explanation contributes to it.

[TrilliumFlt]

Right.

Why would you imagine that carrying an external load not in contravention of any regulation would invalidate a type certificate? The type certificate is held by the aircraft manufacturer. It’s hard to imagine why the actions of one pilot would affect type certification for the entire type.

Do you perhaps mean invalidate your certificate of airworthiness? The conditions under which a C of A is valid are laid down in the CARs - nothing there about external loads that I can see.

I’m a great advocate for certainty, but I don’t think lobbing a “your type certificate isn’t valid” without further explanation contributes to it.

If the airplane isn't configured "as per" the manufacturers type certificate or an amendment to it via an STC the C of A for that airplane becomes invalid ergo all is irrelevant thereafter, you are then outside of the CAR's.

I don't imagine you will find any CAR's guidance on how to operate "outside" of the regulation, good luck with that.

[photofly]

If the airplane isn't configured "as per" the manufacturers type certificate or an amendment to it via an STC the C of A for that airplane becomes invalid

According to the regulations, the C of A remains in force as long as the aircraft meets the conditions under which the C of A was issued (507.11). Specifically those are that it 507.02(b) conforms to its type design, and 507.02(c) is safe for flight.

The type design (101.01) is

(a) the drawings and specifications, and a listing of those drawings and specifications that are necessary to define the design features of an aeronautical product in compliance with the standards applicable to the aeronautical product,

(b) the information on dimensions, materials and manufacturing processes that is necessary to define the structural strength of an aeronautical product,

(c) the approved sections of the aircraft flight manual, where required by the applicable standards of airworthiness,

(d) the airworthiness limitations section of the instructions for continued airworthiness specified in the applicable chapters of the Airworthiness Manual; and

(e) any other data necessary to allow, by comparison, the determination of the airworthiness and, where applicable, the environmental characteristics of later aeronautical products of the same type or model; (définition de type)

Each of these has a very specific and narrow interpretation, as has been upheld by the TATC. You can't just throw in extra restrictions because you feel like they're a good idea.

So if you think that carrying an external load invalidates the C of A - when you have an external load, which condition of the issue of the C of A do you believe no longer applies? The obvious place for such a restriction is section 2 (limitations) in the AFM. If that section, which is usually the "approved" part as referred to in (c) above, says "external loads are not approved", then I would agree. If it doesn't list such a restriction then there is no such restriction.

If you think something isn't permitted, you still have to draw a clear bright line directly between that forbidden act, and the rule that it breaks. If you can't establish that line, then it's permitted.



Besides, if carrying an external load was de-facto a matter of type design conformity, there would be no need for CAR 702.45 and 703.25, would there?

[TrilliumFlt]

If the airplane isn't configured "as per" the manufacturers type certificate or an amendment to it via an STC the C of A for that airplane becomes invalid

According to the regulations, the C of A remains in force as long as the aircraft meets the conditions under which the C of A was issued (507.11). Specifically those are that it 507.02(b) conforms to its type design, and 507.02(c) is safe for flight.

The type design (101.01) is

(a) the drawings and specifications, and a listing of those drawings and specifications that are necessary to define the design features of an aeronautical product in compliance with the standards applicable to the aeronautical product,

(b) the information on dimensions, materials and manufacturing processes that is necessary to define the structural strength of an aeronautical product,

(c) the approved sections of the aircraft flight manual, where required by the applicable standards of airworthiness,

(d) the airworthiness limitations section of the instructions for continued airworthiness specified in the applicable chapters of the Airworthiness Manual; and

(e) any other data necessary to allow, by comparison, the determination of the airworthiness and, where applicable, the environmental characteristics of later aeronautical products of the same type or model; (définition de type)

Each of these has a very specific and narrow interpretation, as has been upheld by the TATC. You can't just throw in extra restrictions because you feel like they're a good idea.

So if you think that carrying an external load invalidates the C of A - when you have an external load, which condition of the issue of the C of A do you believe no longer applies? The obvious place for such a restriction is section 2 (limitations) in the AFM. If that section, which is usually the "approved" part as referred to in (c) above, says "external loads are not approved", then I would agree. If it doesn't list such a restriction then there is no such restriction.

If you think something isn't permitted, you still have to draw a clear bright line directly between that forbidden act, and the rule that it breaks. If you can't establish that line, then it's permitted.



Besides, if carrying an external load was de-facto a matter of type design conformity, there would be no need for CAR 702.45 and 703.25, would there?

I'm reasonable convinced that if someone said "white" YOU would say "black" so in that light I'm done with this conversation. I've never developed a fondness for beating my head against a brick wall.

[photofly]

I'm reasonable convinced that if someone said "white" YOU would say "black" so..

I guess if the thing in question actually was black, then yes, I would.

[digits_]

If the airplane isn't configured "as per" the manufacturers type certificate or an amendment to it via an STC the C of A for that airplane becomes invalid

According to the regulations, the C of A remains in force as long as the aircraft meets the conditions under which the C of A was issued (507.11). Specifically those are that it 507.02(b) conforms to its type design, and 507.02(c) is safe for flight.

The type design (101.01) is

(a) the drawings and specifications, and a listing of those drawings and specifications that are necessary to define the design features of an aeronautical product in compliance with the standards applicable to the aeronautical product,

(b) the information on dimensions, materials and manufacturing processes that is necessary to define the structural strength of an aeronautical product,

(c) the approved sections of the aircraft flight manual, where required by the applicable standards of airworthiness,

(d) the airworthiness limitations section of the instructions for continued airworthiness specified in the applicable chapters of the Airworthiness Manual; and

(e) any other data necessary to allow, by comparison, the determination of the airworthiness and, where applicable, the environmental characteristics of later aeronautical products of the same type or model; (définition de type)

Each of these has a very specific and narrow interpretation, as has been upheld by the TATC. You can't just throw in extra restrictions because you feel like they're a good idea.

So if you think that carrying an external load invalidates the C of A - when you have an external load, which condition of the issue of the C of A do you believe no longer applies? The obvious place for such a restriction is section 2 (limitations) in the AFM. If that section, which is usually the "approved" part as referred to in (c) above, says "external loads are not approved", then I would agree. If it doesn't list such a restriction then there is no such restriction.

If you think something isn't permitted, you still have to draw a clear bright line directly between that forbidden act, and the rule that it breaks. If you can't establish that line, then it's permitted.



Besides, if carrying an external load was de-facto a matter of type design conformity, there would be no need for CAR 702.45 and 703.25, would there?

How would one make a w&b for an external load if it's not listed in the standard POH/AFM?

If external loads are allowed by default, could I just coat the whole airplane with an inch of clay? Although I admit I wouldn't know which regulation that would break either.

[TailwheelPilot]

How would one make a w&b for an external load if it's not listed in the standard POH/AFM?

Could one not just measure from the datum or a known station to the CG of the load?

[digits_]

How would one make a w&b for an external load if it's not listed in the standard POH/AFM?

Could one not just measure from the datum or a known station to the CG of the load?

Theoretically yes. But I am not sure if you can legally determine your own stations. I've never had to do that for 'normal' flights.

[photofly]

Theoretically yes. But I am not sure if you can legally determine your own stations. I've never had to do that for 'normal' flights.

Why are you fussing about "legal" or "illegal" ways to determine your W&B when there is no such distinction? Nor is there any need to "do" a W&B. The only legal requirement is not to fly outside the approved envelope, so if you know you're inside it then you don't need to do any calculations at all. You had just better not be wrong, that's all - but how you make sure you're not wrong is up to you.

If you don't want to break out a tape measure there's usually a dimensioned three axis diagram of the aircraft near the front of the AFM, and sometimes there's more data: here's a helpful graphic from a Cessna POH:

Screenshot 2023-04-17 at 9.59.01 AM.png (107.5 KiB) Viewed 1600 times

[fish4life]

You realize external loads were carried for 60+ years with no STC required right?

It’s my understanding it’s just for commercial ops

[photofly]

Reference material from TC (some of this may be out of date, but it's still online):

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/refere ... egulations
https://natacanada.org/joomla30/index.p ... rnal-loads

That latter document includes this text:

Paragraph 605.03(1)(b) of the CARs requires that no person shall operate an aircraft in flight
unless the aircraft is operated in accordance with the conditions set out in the flight authority.
Where the flight authority is a standard certificate of airworthiness issued pursuant to section
507.02 of the CARs, it is issued to an aircraft that conforms to an approved type design and that
is fit and safe for flight. Pursuant to section 507.11 of the CARs, the flight authority remains in
force only so long as the aircraft continues to meet the conditions subject to which the flight
authority was issued. Therefore, a standard certificate of airworthiness would not continue to be
in force where an external load is carried and this capability was not approved as part of the type
design, either in the TC or STC.

As a legal analysis, I think that is deficient to the point of being incorrect, and contradictory to the ruling handed down by the TATC. Specifically, the "therefore" that I hilighted is entirely unsupported by any reasoning or logical justification. (I'm not saying it couldn't be justified - it just isn't.) It's doubly deficient when you combine it with the exemption TC published in the first link: The Minister has no authority to exempt anyone from the requirement to have a valid flight authority in order to conduct a takeoff. If, absent an STC, the C of A is not in force during the carriage of an external load, as the Minister claims in the second document, the Minister cannot magically remedy that deficiency by issuing the first document.

But at least you know what you can expect an inspector to tell you.

And lo, here is a TATC case where TC tried an enforcement action against a pilot for carrying an unapproved external load and lost on appeal
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tatc/doc/1 ... 24895.html

This was from 1997, and an action under the Air Regulations (prior to the CARs) but the argument is instructive.

The minister's argument:

The gist of Transport's argument, utilizing the foregoing "law" is that there was no Certificate of Airworthiness in force. The Certificate was not in force because the aircraft was flown with an external load, which was not authorized in the Type Approval. The evidence given by Transport and the line of reasoning in the law cited goes on to assert that the external load carried constituted a "major modification" as is defined in Chapter 571 of the Airworthiness Manual.

The panel found:

The panel finds that the airworthiness standards that Transport would apply are inapplicable in the circumstances. The external load did not constitute a "major modification" in the context of Chapter 571 of the Airworthiness Manual for reasons previously stated. As the load was not a "major modification" no STA was required. There was no resultant invalidity of the Certificate of Airworthiness for the reasons which Transport Canada ascribe.