LeSving wrote:
but if you actually can fly IFR or not depends on the instruments and equipment installed, and it’s the pilot who has to decide for each trip. An old C-172 with ancient non-op avionics is obviously not OK for IFR.
I wouldn’t say pilot decides. Pilot simply makes sure he is legal. These things typically come with a minimum equipment list. A jet might be certified for single pilot operation (and this requires for example that the cockpit is designed so you can operate the aeroplane from one seat – you can reach switches, circuit breakers, etc.), but a typical equipment requirement is a working autopilot (or some additional manual). Autopilot stops working (or you misplace that manual) and that plane is suddenly multi-pilot. You and the plane might be approved (and current) for CATIII approaches, but again there are equipment requirements. Someone had to certify it/ get it approved first. And then you can do it as long as you meet the conditions (because that is what enables it; it wouldn’t pass the certification without them in place) – be that equipment, training, currency.
So yes, aviation authorities can certify a type or a single aircraft for all sorts of things. However, as home-builts are regulated at national level, each nation can do whatever it wants. Some might not care, some might have strict requirements, some might not allow it, period.
Silvaire wrote:
It is only in some countries like UK that non-certified aircraft don’t receive a Certificate of Airworthiness, as a result of Permit to Fly regimes that don’t exist in other places where all aircraft individually receive permanent airworthiness certificates.
Permits should be temporary. If I stick to the home-built case, you would get a permit to do flight testing. Once the testing is done and the LAA or whoever is responsible in a given country is satisfied, you should get CoA. Just like the big boys. But this is a national question. Not all countries do it this way.
It seems to me that a better general description that also avoids non-regulatory ICAO Annex-Whatever phraseology is simply “non-certified aircraft”.
Annex II in EASA-land simply means that EASA doesn’t regulate it as far as maintenance or crew licensing goes. In other words, they don’t care and leave to individual countries. If a country wants to have a certification regime for such aircraft, I suppose it could. Just like they can and do have national licences just for such aircraft.
I believe there is a distinction between the words certified and certificated in aviation regulation.
I always thought “certificated” is somethings Americans say (or at least FAA). Granted, English is not my first language. It should mean having a certificate. Which in my view means certified.
Martin wrote:
I always thought “certificated” is somethings Americans say (or at least FAA). Granted, English is not my first language. It should mean having a certificate. Which in my view means certified
The language is awkward, but it seems to me FAA uses both the words ‘certified’ and ‘certificated’ for a reason they must have considered in some detail. The distinction does allow non-certified aircraft to be given a certificate of airworthiness: being certificated means the plane has met a standard that allows it to be legally flown within whatever limits may have been applied to protect non-participants. That is not synonymous with government certification for sale to the public, as for a FAA certified aircraft.
Certificated versus certified also provides an analogous distinction for pilot qualifications., e.g. FAA instructors (CFIs) are not actually certified by FAA, they just performed well enough once in a lifetime to get an instructor certificate. Also, private pilots do not get FAA licenses, they get pilot certificates based on a once in a lifetime demonstration of minimum competence.
In either case, I think the intent under US law is for the risk of participation to remain an individual responsibility, not a responsibility shared with government. Also (the other side of the same coin) that in limiting the requirement for actual certification of aeronautical activity, government does not unduly restrict individuals from taking risk.
@Silvaire There is a difference between a design certified as meeting a certain standard (like CS-23) and a particular aircraft certified as airworthy. Just because a design is certified doesn’t mean that a particular example of that design is airworthy. Those are different things. Don’t forget there are type certificates. If I follow this logic, even types/ designs should be certificated because the manufacturer is given a certificate. And we actually do have licences in EASA-land so pilots are not certificated (issued certificates), but licensed.
In my view, if something has a certificate, it was certified. And then perhaps certificated if it’s supposed to mean “given a certificate.” I don’t think I have ever seen “certificated” used in EASA regulations. I don’t think I have ever seen it outside of FARs (PS: and obviously texts related to FARs).
@Silvaire There is a difference between a design certified as meeting a certain standard (like CS-23) and a particular aircraft certified as airworthy. Just because a design is certified doesn’t mean that a particular example of that design is airworthy.
No disagreement there, a government certified design is just that. Neither FAA design certification or having an FAA Certificate of Airworthiness have much to do with an individual aircraft being airworthy. However, FAA is still meaningfully responsible for their certification of the certified type’s design and the FAA type certificate, which is not the case for all aircraft with an FAA Airworthiness Certificate.
An FAA Airworthiness Certificate is issued only once, and not periodically renewed. That protocol was introduced in 1956, after which an annual inspection no longer generated a renewal of FAA Airworthiness Certificates. The actual piece of paper on display in one of my planes was printed in 1956.
Martin wrote:
And we actually do have licences in EASA-land so pilots are not certificated (issued certificates), but licensed.
I understand. In the US, licensing by the Federal government is a highly contentious issue due to the power that is implicit in the authority to license any activity. FAA does not issue licenses, and for that reason holding an FAA pilot certificate cannot require ongoing renewals or any ongoing contact with FAA.
Martin wrote:
In my view, if something has a certificate, it was certified. And then perhaps certificated if it’s supposed to mean “given a certificate.” I don’t think I have ever seen “certificated” used in EASA regulations.
Yes, that’s how FAA and some other aviation authorities are different. In the US, an airworthiness certificate is given to designs that are not government certified, for instance one-off Experimental homebuilts, and in that case the certificate is given before either the design or the individual aircraft has ever flown and without any design review. Accordingly, the Certificate of Airworthiness has nothing to do with FAA aircraft design certification.
Martin wrote:
So yes, aviation authorities can certify a type or a single aircraft for all sorts of things
Well, according to that AIC, this can be done for commercial operations, and is done all the time. For private operations there exist no regulations about it. Yet, private airplanes comes equipped with instruments in all shapes and sizes so to speak (and ages), and airspaces differs with different requirements. So, it is up to the pilot to make sure the equipment in that particular airplane is suitable for the airspace he will fly in. Therefore the CAA will not “certify” a specific private airplane to fly in a specific airspace, or to follow some specific procedures. Either it has the equipment for it, or it doesn’t.
LeSving wrote:
For private operations there exist no regulations about it.
Are you saying that you could just fly in RVSM airspace without any paperwork if you deem your aircraft is capable of it? That doesn’t seem likely.
Silvaire wrote:
I understand. In the US, licensing by the Federal government is a highly contentious issue due to the power that is implicit in the authority to license any activity. FAA does not issue licenses, and for that reason holding an FAA pilot certificate cannot require ongoing renewals or any ongoing contact with FAA.
Point was that we don’t have that situation so I don’t know what language would be used (certified or certificated) if we were issued certificates. You have driving licences, just like we do. Those are issued by states. And so are our pilot licences – EASA doesn’t issue them, individual states do.
Silvaire wrote:
Yes, that’s how FAA and some other aviation authorities are different. In the US, an airworthiness certificate is given to designs that are not government certified, for instance one-off Experimental homebuilts, and in that case the certificate is given before either the design or the individual aircraft has ever flown and without any design review. Accordingly, the Certificate of Airworthiness has nothing to do with FAA aircraft design certification.
I don’t see how that follows from what you’ve quoted. 
As I wrote, certifying airworthiness of a particular aircraft and certifying type are two different things, even without using “certificated”. And since there are type certificates (under FAA as well), I don’t really see the distinction (between certificated and certified).
Martin wrote:
You have driving licences, just like we do. Those are issued by states. And so are our pilot licences – EASA doesn’t issue them, individual states do.
An EASA pilot certificate could be better. The way to do it without unduly centralizing power is to make it a certificate, not a license. A pilot certificate is analogous to a university degree. If you don’t use it for decades, you can just start using it again. I think it’s a pretty good solution in balancing the advantages of central control with the potential disadvantages of centralized power.
I think I explained the conceptual difference between certified and certificated pretty well, twice. There’s no need to provide more examples.
