Transport Category

[time builder]

Transport catagory aircraft are either,

Jets with 10 or more seats or a Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) greater than 12,500lb; or

Propeller-driven airplanes with greater than 19 seats or a MTOW greater than 19,000lb.

Where do you find this information?
Sounds believeable, but I'd like to see it written somewhere specifically.

 

[Scapegoat]

Answer to Transport Catagory

After looking thru countless FAR's I found the answer on FAA.GOV under FAQ's. It had it on there and that is what I posted above. I have yet to find it in the book. If you do find it let us know.....SG

 

[transpac]

Really? Where do we find this definition? You mean that a FAR 29 certificated
transport category helicopter is not an AIRCRAFT? As I said, the definition of "Transport Category" Depends of the context in which it is used.

Don't really want to join in further on your disagreement, but you're incorrect about the definition of a Transport Category aircraft. This term has nothing to do with context and everything to do with the certification regulations that are applicable to the approved design. Its pretty simple to determine the category of a particular make and model aircraft as this is listed on its Type Certificate Data Sheet. The B-727 TCDS lists it as a Transport Category aircraft. As far as CAR-4b goes, it and all other CARs were published as FARs sometime after the FAA was established in 1958. FAR 25 has evolved over the years, but the original was pretty much a reprint of CAR-4b.

 

[time builder]

Found it on the web:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/transport/
thanks scapegoat, my other question is what load factors does this imply, or is it more for computing 55%/65% of available wet/dry runway? (not required for normal category)
Also, I saw it refered to part 125, which was pointed out earlier. I thought that section was for aircraft with over 6000 pounds payload, why not just say transport category aircraft and list the definition right there?

 

[bocefus]

Ohhhhhh. So, according to the FAA definition that you provided the link to, an F-86 and a T-33 are both "Transport Aircraft". Both jets, and both gross over 12,500. I get it now.

 

[transpac]

Ohhhhhh. So, according to the FAA definition that you provided the link to, an F-86 and a T-33 are both "Transport Aircraft". Both jets, and both gross over 12,500. I get it now.

A good rule of thumb is to quit digging when you find yourself in a hole.

I think you're just stirring the pot and probably know this, but maybe others don't: Ex-military aircraft of any weight that weren't designed and produced in accordance with a FAA type certificate are not eligible for certification as a Transport, Normal, Utility, Commuter, or Primary Category aircraft. They may be certified in the Experimental or Restricted Category with appropriate limitations imposed.

 

[A Squared]

Umm yeah, what is misleading, is to state that FAR 25 and CAR 4B are equivalents, because they are not.

Oh? Really? CAR4b was the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes prior to December 24, 1964, Part 25 is airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes after to December 24, 1964. If you don't think that CAR4b is the pre-1965 equivalent of Part 25 then you may need to review the definition of equivalent. You may notice that "equivalent" doesn’t mean "identical to"

Ask yourself why 727's were produced and certificated under CAR 4B even when FAR 25 was effective and in place.

Because the 727 was initially certificated prior to 1965 under CAR4b, and 21.101 allows subsequent changes to a type certificate to be made under the airworthiness requirements existing at the time of the original application for type certificate, provided certain conditions are met.

It’s that simple. Do you really not know this stuff?

That being said, some of the changes of the 727-200 and 200f are governed by Part 25 rather than CAR4b.

Why do civil airworthiness authorities continue to release supplemental inspection/maintenance requirements that are only required to comply with the regulation that was in effect at the time of original certification?

Wow, you really are in need of some remedial instruction in aircraft certification. OK. I’ll use an example: Say there’s a problem with the seat back latch in a C-172Q, which requires a maintenance or inspection procedure under an Airworthiness Directive. If such maintenance or inspection procedures were required to comply with the current airworthiness standards, the only way this could possibly be done would be to remove the seats and replace them with newly manufactured ones of a new design, because there is no way that the older style Cessna seats could ever be modified to meet the crash protection requirements of 23.561 and 23.562, which didn’t exist when the 172Q was certificated.

So the FAA could chose to require any supplemental maintenance procedure to bring an aircraft into compliance with the current airworthiness standards, which would be an impossible burden in many situations, or it could chose to require that supplemental maintenance procedures comply with the airworthiness requirements applicable at the time of certification. Personally, I’m glad that they chose the latter, but in either case it doesn’t support the pointless and incorrect semantic argument you’re trying to make.

 

[bocefus]

Hey thanks for the remedial instruction. If CARS and FARS are equivalents. Doncha think it would so much easier if the Fed simply said. "Must comply with FAR 25 OR EQUIVALENT? You just don't get it do you.

 

[A Squared]

If CARS and FARS are equivalents. Doncha think it would so much easier if the Fed simply said. "Must comply with FAR 25 OR EQUIVALENT?

Huhhhhhh?????? Are you really this dense? Ya think it might have to do with the fact that certification is given based on the standards in effect at the time of application for certification? Ya think??

You just don't get it do you.

Yeah, I *do* get it, what I get is that you really don't know much about this at all and you are merely arguing with everything for the sake of being contrary.

 

[time builder]

Nevermind the question I asked earlier about aircraft with over 6000 lbs. payload, I'm getting ahead of myself mixing up Parts 25 and 125.