There is a need to distinguish between major and minor damage when it comes to the validity of Certificates of Airworthiness.
There have been situations where Operators and AMO’s have felt that aircraft suffering minor damage, once repaired could be returned to service based on a valid Certificate of Release to Service (CRS) issued by the AMO.
The SACAA however refuse to allow this, maintaining that where there has been damage to a Class 1 Product, which basically covers any damage to an aircraft or engine, the aircraft Certificate of Airworthiness (CoA) becomes invalid and can only be re-instated by the SACAA if the requirements of regulation 43.02.17 are met.
The industry feels that these requirements don’t adequately distinguish between major and minor damage and negate the role of the AMO to repair minor damage and reinstate the CoA via the CRS.
Regarding this difference of opinion, I want to review exactly what the Civil Aviation Regulations and associated Technical Standards (CAR & CATS) stipulate on the issue of the invalidation and reactivation of a CoA once an aircraft has sustained damage and whether these requirements align with ICAO Standards and International best practice on the subject.
‘The AMO can approve the aircraft’
Regulation 21.08.12 of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) indicates that a CoA is only valid for 12 months, unless it is suspended or cancelled by the SACAA. Sub section 2 thereof stipulates that a CoA can be invalidated if the aircraft is not properly maintained, the CRS is invalidated or the aircraft no longer complies with the design aspects specified in Part 21. There is however no mention in this regulation that damage to a Class 1 Product constitutes a ground for invalidating a CoA.
The main requirements for the Re-instatement of a Certificate of Airworthiness after an accident or incident are contained in regulation 43.02.17. Here it is stipulated that once a Class 1 Product is damaged, such that an aircraft is no longer considered airworthy as defined by the appropriate airworthiness requirements, the certificate of airworthiness of such aircraft becomes invalid until such time as the aircraft is restored to an airworthy condition.
The same regulation requires that the details of the damage and repair must be submitted to the SACAA within 48 hours and the SACAA will in its discretion decide whether or not to re-instate the CoA.
It is noteworthy that the associated CATS, detailing the procedures to be followed after the damage has been sustained, provide that the specified procedures are mandatory, “irrespective of the extent of the damage to a Class 1 product”.
As mentioned, the CAR define a Class 1 Product as a complete aircraft, aircraft engine, RPS or propeller which is type certificated or identical to a type certificated product.
From this information, it can be concluded that Part 21 contains a requirement that a CoA can be invalidated where the aircraft no longer complies with the design aspects of the Part. However, Part 21 does not reference damage to a Class 1 Product as a ground for invalidating a CoA. Part 43 says that a CoA can be invalidated by any damage to a Class 1 product, irrespective of the extent of the damageand makes no direct reference to the design aspects of the aircraft.
Looking at the ICAO Standards, Annex 8 stipulates that all CoAs are to be issued on the basis of satisfactory evidence that an aircraft complies with the design aspects of the appropriate airworthiness requirements. The Annex allows States to set validity periods for CoAs or make the duration thereof indefinite. States are also given a discretion to decide whether the nature of the damage sustained by an aircraft renders it unairworthy “…as defined by the appropriate airworthiness requirements”.
With respect to International Best Practice, the FAA and the EASA adopt a similar approach, which is different to that of the SACAA. Their Part 43 regulations focus on how extensive or major the damage is and whether this requires a “major repair” to the aircraft that affects the approved type design. Part 43 of the FAR contains a long list of what constitutes a “major repair”. For a minor repair, the AMO can directly approve the aircraft for return to service. Where a major repair is involved, the work must be done in accordance with the technical data approved by the Regulator.
In conclusion, Annex 8 stipulates that a CoA must evidence that an aircraft complies with the design aspects of the appropriate airworthiness requirements. Where there is damage to an aircraft, the rationale for invalidating the CoA should be dependent on whether the damage affects the approved type design. Although Annex 8 also permits a State to decide whether the nature of the damage sustained by an aircraft renders it unairworthy, in my view the approach in Parts 21 and 43 of the FAR and JAR is closer to the Annex 8 standard and clearer than that contained in the CAR & CATS.
The requirement of mere damage to a Class 1 Product doesn’t distinguish minor repairs from major repairs. The focus of regulation 43.02.17 should be on how extensive or major the damage is and whether this requires a “major repair” to the aircraft that affects the approved type design.
A list of what constitutes major repairs could be included in the CATS. Although the CAR does contain a definition of “major repair” the definition is vague and makes no reference to the type design of the aircraft. This definition should also be revised.
If these changes are made, regulation 43.02.17 will link up nicely with regulation 21.08.12 (2). It will then be clear that AMOs may release repair work done on minor damage and that the SACAA will only evaluate major damage and approve the repair work based on acceptable data prior to reinstating the CoA. It is recommended that the SACAA give serious consideration to amending regulation 43.02.17.
