Interestingly, for the BR23 (CS23/VLA) the chute is optional and therefore not an airworthiness limitation.
@Snoopy you can disregard Chap4 in POH all together if you like. Only Chap2 (Type Certificate limitations and placards) matters
There is no point calling nonsense, you have not showed that CAPS is limitation in EASA Type Certificate? or Airworthiness? it’s only required in FAA Type Certificate limitation, which only apply to N-reg
Let me put in simple words,
Interestingly, for the BR23 (CS23/VLA) the chute is optional and therefore not an airworthiness limitation.
It’s an optional requirement in CS23, you have to demonstrate and test spin exit which Cirrus and Bristell have done diligently in EASA land, it’s mandatory there is no other work around it
Now @aart, don’t go spin your BR23 
Again, what you write is wrong. ICA / Airworthiness Limitations are separate from the POH. Your posts show you lack comprehension of this topic.
One cannot legally fly a Cirrus SR2x without CAPS being serviceable. It is an airworthiness limitation.
Let me politely add that you are doing GA a disservice here. Please educate yourself before repeatedly posting completely wrong information insisting it is accurate. It is not.
I am not doing any disservice here, all I am saying, CAPS is not mentioned in EASA TCDS (mentioned in FAA TCDS as ELOS mandatory equipment for spin protection)
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7512/en
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID192641915020231018140404.0001
Any pilot can read a type certificate, they are free and published by FAA and EASA (they are not published by manufacturer), the Type Certificate Dats Sheet is the only legal certification and airworthiness document (data gets listed in Chap2 of POH)
If CAPS availablity was mandated by FAA in an AD (being state of manufacturer), that it will also get automatically mandated by EASA in an AD
CAMO and PartM may have different opinion on maintenance angle (as they use Cirrus Aircraft program) for say flying with CAPS “on condition” between annual
Snoopy wrote:
One cannot legally fly a Cirrus SR2x without CAPS being serviceable. It is an airworthiness limitation.
Where is the legally binding publication of airworthiness limitations? I would think the TCDS, but is there some other place?
MM chapter 1 is one.
But ask yourself why that does not list eg the wings.
One case that I remember very well is when Hartzell published “FAA approved MM” which stated life limitations not found in the TCDS
When the FAA found out, they issued a statement saying very clearly that the TCDS is the one and only source of limitations, not any “approved” manual
If one takes manufacturer maintenance and calendar life at face value in their maintenance program (say CAMO + Part145) then yes Snoopy is right, CAPS becomes mandatory for maintenance (say annual) as per ICA, MM…
It’s not required as operational equipment or in certification standards (again under EASA or CAA), you are not grounded if CAPS repack expired between two annuals in G-reg or F-reg…same as any optional equipment (e.g. expired light bulb for day vfr)
I won’t be surprised if it’s required in ATO training manuals and Part145/M maintenance manuals: one has to move on with every single recommendation from manufacturer, however, this is a very different matter than claiming it’s legally required in certification, design or operation by EASA (TCDS, NCO…)
Maybe too much nitty-gritty details on certification and maintenance, anyway, I would shut up and hand money !
Then, I will pull CAPS even on losing my airspeed indicator (someone did)
Same for losing autopilot, artificial horizon…‘pull often, pull early’
It’s an expensive insurance, that I would gladly use !
Peter wrote:
MM chapter 1 is one.
Are you positive that this is in itself legally binding and not just copying what is in e.g. the TCDS?
Yes
