CONSULTATION-PAPER NO.

14/2003-08-11

DRAFT PROPOSALS OF THE EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY

concerning certification specifications, including airworthiness codes and

acceptable means of compliance for the approval of products

Certification Specifications for Very Light Aeroplanes (CS-VLA)

1
 GENERAL EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1

I General

Background

1. As part of the legislative process leading to Agency establishment, the Regulation (EC)
no. 1592/2002 (the “Basic Regulation”) requires the Commission to adopt a
comprehensive framework of rules for the implementation of the essential airworthiness
and environmental protection requirements. These implementing rules have been
developed by the Agency as draft Opinions. These implementing rules have been
published for consultation of all interested parties as Consultation paper nr. 1 (with regard
to Part M, Part 145, Part 147 and Part 66) and Consultation paper nr. 2 (with regard to
Part 21). After consultation the Agency will submit these implementing rules as Opinion
to the Commission for adoption in accordance with the applicable procedures.2 Adoption
of these implementing rules are foreseen by 28 September 2003.

2. Pursuant to the Basic Regulation the Agency shall, where appropriate issue
certification specifications, including airworthiness codes and acceptable means of
compliance, as well as guidance material for the application of the Basic Regulation and
its implementing rules.

Certification specifications (CS) are the Agency’s suggestions on best practices to be

used to demonstrate compliance with the Basic Regulation and its implementing rules.
These include, in particular:

- airworthiness codes, which are standard technical interpretations of the airworthiness

essential requirements contained in Annex 1 to the Basic Regulation; and

- acceptable means of compliance, which are non-exclusive means of demonstrating

compliance with airworthiness codes or implementing rules.

Guidance material is information material issued by the Agency to assist in the

understanding of the Basic Regulation, its implementing rules and CS.

3. For the development of these certification specifications the Agency gratefully relied
on the voluntary contributions of so-called ‘Core Groups’. These are groups of experts
who, dwelling on their expertise and technical knowledge, facilitated the drafting of
implementing rules and of the associated material in the light of existing international,
JAA and industry practices. (see further below on the content and general structure of
certifications specifications)

General structure and format applicable to all Certification Specifications

1
This consultation paper includes a general explanatory memorandum. The explanatory notes
specific to CS-E, CS-P and CS-APU can be found in the Attachments 1, 2 and 3 respectively;
2
Implementing rules have been developed for Part 21, Part M, Part 145, Part 147 and Part 66 ;

2
4. The text of the proposed certifications specifications presents a pragmatic approach.
Where needed, it has been adapted to ensure consistency with Community law and
European Union policies. It should be noted that these adaptations were brought to a
minimum to facilitate a timely consultation and adoption of the necessary regulatory
framework while taking into account the limited resources available.

Where the format is concerned, it is expected that the Agency will develop its own
“drafting convention” on the structure and format of the CS and related AMC. Such
format should include drafting techniques as well as the lay out (one or two column
presentation, page numbering, etc) of CS and related material.

Except for CS-TSO, all certification specification consists of two “Books”. Book 1 is
referred to as ‘airworthiness code’ and contains the certification specifications as such.
Book 2 contains acceptable means of compliance related to those specifications. If
needed, Book 2 may contain guidance material as well.

Units of Measurement
All units of measurement have been converted into S.I. units, to be in compliance with
EC Directive 80/181/EEC, and ICAO Annex 5. An important principle was to achieve
equivalent accuracy; to end up with approximately the same level of scientific accuracy
in the figures: e.g. the figure of 4 inch actually means 4 ± 0.5 inch, so this was transposed
into the figure of 10 cm, which actually means 10 ± 0.5 cm, rather than 102 mm, which
would be a more accurate transposition, but with an accuracy 25 times higher than the
original. Further work needs to be done by the Agency to complete this conversion
exercise, which would require the involvement of experts in this field.

In the meantime an initial conversion list has been established. Furthermore, where the
converted SI unit has been introduced, the old imperial unit has been retained between
brackets for ease of reference. This should take away some of the concerns.

II Consultation

5. The Agency herewith submits for consultation of all interested parties the attached
draft proposal for certification specifications, including airworthiness codes and
acceptable means of compliance for Very Light Aeroplanes (CS-VLA). Further in this
explanatory memorandum (see attachment 1) a number of discussion-items are
highlighted, in particular on the location of engine and propeller requirements. Your
comments on these matters are welcomed as well.

To achieve optimal consultation, the Agency will rely on existing official channels and
consultation practice currently applied by the JAA to disseminate the draft-proposals to
its widest audience and to collect the related comments.

3
Consultation period
6. All interested parties are invited to submit comments on these proposals. The
consultation period for the proposed certification specifications is 6 weeks from the date
of publication on the JAA website. However, for those certification specifications that do
not originate from an existing JAR or proposed amendments thereto the consultation
period will be 3 months.

All comments on this draft CS-VLA must be received ultimately by 23 September 2003.

Please use for your comments the correct Comment Form, which can be downloaded
from the JAA website. To facilitate the registration and disposition of comments you are
requested to clearly indicate to which documents (explanatory memorandum, CS, and the
related provisions) you are commenting.

The comments may be forwarded to:

By E-mail to: consultation.ir-cs@jaa.nl (Please refer in the subject to “Consultation-

paper no. 14/2003-08-11”).

By correspondence or by fax to:

Mrs. Inge van Opzeeland
NPA Administrator
Joint Aviation Authorities
P.O. Box 3000
2130 KA Hoofddorp
Netherlands

Fax: +31 23 562 1714

Comment response document

7. The review of comments will be made by a group composed of focal points of the Core
Groups that have prepared the related adaptations to JAA material and of the legal
advisers involved in the preparation of these proposals.

All comments received will be responded to and incorporated in a so-called Comment

response document (CRD). The CRD will be made widely available, ultimately when
these proposals have been adopted by the Agency.

4
 Attachment 1
Explanatory memorandum

Certification Specifications for Airworthiness of Very Light Aeroplanes (CS-VLA)

1. This CS-VLA is based on JAR-VLA original issue dated 26 April 1990 and on
Amendment VLA/91/1, dated 22 October 1991 and Amendment VLA/92/1, dated 1
January 1992.

2. CS-VLA versus Essential Requirements. During the transposition work of JAR-22, it

appeared that some of the Essential Requirements (ER) for products (Annex 1 to the
EASA Regulation) may not be totally reflected in the JAR-22 requirements. (See
Attachment 2) That means that aircraft certified in accordance with JAR/CS-22 may not
fully comply with the ER. This is probably equally applicable to JAR/CS-VLA and
JAR/CS-VLR, and may even be applicable to JAR/CS-23 and JAR/CS-27.
It was not seen as a part of the transposition activity to bring the CS in line with the ER
(this would imply substantial changes), and the legal consequences cannot be assessed
but the issue is brought to the attention of the EASA. There may be a need to amend the
ER urgently. Your comments are welcome on this matter.

Where needed, the Agency will submit at a later stage the necessary proposals.

3. Location of Specimen Flight Manual. Because of the nature of the former Appendix H
to JAR-VLA, which is described in VLA.1581(a) as an “acceptable format”, this
Appendix has now moved to Book 2 of CS-VLA as AMC VLA.1581.

Discussion: Location of CS-22, -VLR engine/propeller requirements (See also the

consultation documents on the draft proposals for CS-E and CS- P) and its
implications for CS-VLA

4. The requirements for certifying the engine and propeller of a powered sailplane are
part of CS(JAR)-22 (Subparts H and J). Your views are sought on the question where to
locate these engine and propeller requirements: should they remain in CS-22 or should
they be moved to CS-E and CS–P.

Following the discussion between the relevant Core groups (CG-9, CG-10 and CG-11) it
was concluded that consensus on this issue could not be achieved. Therefore only the
various positions are reflected.

5. The position of the CG-10 is to move the engine and propeller requirements from CS-
22 and CS-VLR to the CS-E and CS-P.
• The EASA Regulation stipulates that all products must have a type certificate :
there is no longer a possibility for certifying the engine as a part of the aircraft.

5
 Consequently, an engine to be fitted into a sailplane must have its own type
certificate.
• Therefore, EASA will define engine certification specifications for that engine. It
is logical to place them in the book called “EASA certification specifications for
engines”.
• As noted above, JAR-22 sub-part H is not limited to sailplanes : it is also used for
VLA.
• It is known that some engines are first certified under JAR-22 sub-part H and then
certified under JAR-E without change to the design. To put all engine
requirements in a single book would facilitate consistency of requirements while
still allowing differences in level of safety and reliability to be consistent with
aircraft needs.
• Conclusion :move all engines requirements into a single book “EASA
certification specifications for engines” to be consistent with principles of EASA
Regulation, to be consistent with anticipated working methods for certification of
engine and aircraft within EASA, to maximise the consistency of technical
requirements for engines as far as possible.

6. The position of the Recreational Aviation Steering Group, supported by the sailplane
community is that the engine and propeller requirements should remain in CS-22 and CS-
VLR, based on the following arguments
• At present, Airworthiness Requirements for engines and propellers of powered
sailplanes are placed in JAR-22. The common procedure for certification of
powered sailplane engines is a Type Certification of these products. So there is no
need, especially in regard to procedural aspects, to place Subpart H and J in
another code.
• Powered sailplane engines have already been Type certificated to Subpart H using
JAA procedures. The Thielert TAE 110-01 Engine is an example for this. It was
not found to be necessary to have the requirements in another code to be able to
follow this procedure.
• The requirements for powered sailplane engines are in very close relation to the
philosophy of the powered sailplane itself. Requirements for reliability are not as
strict as for engines for motorplanes. A powered sailplane without a running
engine is a sailplane. This philosophy is endangered, if the requirements are taken
away from JAR-22 resp. CS-22, even if - as a start - the requirements are
transformed one to one. Still, mismanagement (e.g. fuel!) is the main reason for
engine failure, not the reliability itself, even for powered sailplanes. (It seems that
reliability is good enough that the fathers of JAR-VLA and JAR-VLR chose JAR-
22 Subpart H to be adequate as requirements for the engines of their products.)
RASG are concerned that the requirements for engines and propellers of powered
sailplanes will, in the future, be greatly influenced by commercial transport
aspects, if Subparts H and J are removed from JAR-22 and incorporated in JAR-E
and JAR-P. This concern is even valid being assured to take part in the
consultation process and the right for giving comments.
• The future of engines for powered sailplanes will include electric engines. There
is a very promising development going on, using a retractable electric engine.

6
 Drafting of requirements for this will have to be made very close to the
development of the airframe and the power supply. In an environment that is
focussed on Transport Category Airplanes, rulemaking for the "Toys" will not
have a very high priority. This is understandable and - it is useful! The
consequence of that should be that - if we want to save a place for some small
flowers in the "garden of aviation" - taking care for these products should be left
where it was handled adequately for several decades. Another reason to leave
everything together.
• Retaining Parts H and J within JAR 22 is considered vital in maintaining a
balanced and informed view of the requirement for self launching and sustaining
sailplanes.
• The basis of the glider reliability philosophy is fundamental to the realistic
approach take until now on this matter, which could easily be overlooked in a
wider forum.
• The principle of having the code for engines separated to the aircraft code for 22
and VLA as it is for the other certified aircraft seems logical for a
"harmonisation" of the rules. Nevertheless, if a change has to be made, it cannot
be considered as a priority because it should only consist in an administrative
change. The technical requirements are satisfactory and provide a satisfactory
level of safety: they must not be changed (Of course a normal NPA process could
be prepared in the future). Considering, the amount of work that we have in front
of us, considering the fact that the JAR-22 as it is provides a satisfactory level of
safety, an administrative change in this field should not be decided today.
Consideration to study this could be written in the long term programme of EASA.
• It is mentioned that the merging of the requirements would allow better
consistency etc. However, when dealing with motorglider-engines the philosophy
of the product with regard to complexity, reliability etc. is of decisive importance.
In this respect special care must be taken that one will not end with a changed
philosophy which is inadequate for the product as a whole. This could be
achieved, e.g. by putting the different sets of requirements into separate chapters
and by adding paragraphs or notes which emphasize the need for this separation.
• In retrospect it was very useful, to have the powered sailplanes included in a
special airworthiness requirement together with the sailplanes. Sailplanes are
different from other airplanes in that they are designed to high load factors and to
land in unprepared fields. The latter requirement also applies to powered
sailplanes and especially the W/b2 =< 3 (weight to span2 ) ensures the “soar-
ability” of all sailplanes. In compensation for this safety issue there is relief in
reduced requirements compared to other aircraft. This intended relief includes
JAR-22 engine and propeller requirements.

7. The CG-9 and CG-11 support the RASG position. The arguments for this are the
following:
• The current solution has a good “in service experience”; until now it has satisfied
both the industry and the authorities. In addition the codes are accepted by many
other authorities such as FAA.

7
 • Consistency of the engine/propeller requirements with the safety level of the -22,
-VLA, -VLR type of aircraft is judged more important than consistency with other
engine requirements
• Although initially no changes to the technical contents is made there is a risk that
future changes may be inspired more by the requirements for engines of a higher
safety level, than by the aircraft type in which they will be installed.

Failing consensus on this issue, the engine/propeller requirements have been included in
all relevant CS documents. A decision on the final location of these requirement will be
made by the Agency based on the above arguments, and comments made during this
consultation. Therefore you are invited to comment specifically on this issue.

8
 Attachment 2

Review of the current JAR-22 against the EASA essential requirements

for airworthiness (Annex I of the EASA Regulation)-implications for
CS-VLA
Following an advice from one of the JAA member authorities, the Core Group for Airworthiness
of Aircraft and Parts and Appliances accepted the following statement.

Most of the Annex I requirements are addressed in the Airworthiness Requirements JAR-22.
However the following paragraphs are related to commercially operated aircraft rather than to
“sports-aircraft” and would therefore create problems in case they were strictly applied:

1.a.4.
The referenced fail safe philosophy (... accidental and discrete source damage must not reduce the
structural integrity ...) has not been introduced in JAR-22.

Example:
Elevator control systems are not redundant in JAR-22 aircraft; there is no independent elevator
trim. The philosophy is that the elevator control system of a sailplane can be designed so simple
and safe that a failure does not have to be taken into account. Another example: The design of a
wing with two spars of which each one can carry the safe loads is not required by
JAR-22.

1.b.
These high integrity standards of the propulsion system - up to now -have not been required for
motorgliders.

Example:
The propulsion system of a motorglider has to meet less stringent reliability requirements than
that of a JAR-23 or JAR-25 airplane. This is based on the philosophy of a ,,sailplane with
auxiliary propulsion” which has to be able to land safely even outside airfields.

1.c.3.
JAR-22 does not refer to failure condition probabilities. A requirement to take failure rates into
account would increase the compliance efforts for JAR-22 aircraft significantly and would change
the JAR-22 philosophy fundamentally.

1.c.5.
The referenced hazards from reasonably probable threats (e.g. terrorism) are not as relevant for
JAR-22 aircraft as for transport category aircraft. For JAR-22 aircraft it would be extremely
difficult to show compliance with this requirement.

2.c.
The whole paragraph 2.c has obviously been written for commercial air transportation. An
unlimited application to sports-aircraft would not contribute significantly to safety of these
aircraft but would increase the compliance efforts drastically.