Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
Just spotted after a Facebook discussion, in the 2021 ANO amendment that raises the microlight definition from 450kg to 600kg...

11.—(1) In Schedule 8, Part 2, Chapter 2 (aircraft and instructor ratings and certificates), after the heading “Microlight class rating”, paragraph (3) is amended as follows.

(2) In the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “If the aeroplane” omit “has”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (a), at the beginning insert “has”.

(4) In sub-paragraph (b), at the beginning insert “has”.

(5) At the end of sub-paragraph (b), omit “or”.

(6) In sub-paragraph (c), for “more than one engine” substitute “has a maximum take-off mass of more than 475kg (or more than 495kg if the aeroplane is an amphibian or floatplane) and the holder’s previous training and experience has only been in a microlight aeroplane with a maximum take-off mass of 475kg or less (or 495kg or less if the aeroplane is an amphibian or floatplane);”.

(7) After sub-paragraph (c), insert—

“(d)has a maximum take-off mass of 600kg or less (or 650kg or less if the aeroplane is an amphibian or floatplane) and the holder’s previous training and experience has only been in aeroplanes with a maximum take-off mass of more than 600kg (or more than 650kg if the aeroplane is an amphibian or floatplane);
(e)is fitted with—
(i)a tricycle undercarriage;
(ii)a tailwheel;
(iii)a supercharger or turbo-charger;
(iv)a variable pitch propeller;
(v)one or more Electronic Flight Information Systems;
(vi)an autopilot system;
(vii)more than one engine; or
(viii)an electric engine,
and the holder does not have training or experience in aeroplanes with such fitted features; or

(f)has a maximum continuous cruising speed in excess of 140 knots indicated airspeed and the holder does not have experience in aeroplanes capable of that speed,”.

Not sure that's entirely welcome - suddenly mandating a raft of SEP style differences training requirements in an aircraft class that has managed fine without them to date. On the other hand, I'm struggling with the precise legalese - is this all microlights, or just the new heavier ones?

Full link here: ... WMjdgQNh2s

The reference to that on the BMAA is under a link in the Instructor and Examiner page which redirects to an error page. The direct link given by @Cookie is needed to read the document.

Once again we lose hard-won freedoms at the altar of calling heavier aircraft 'microlights'. Why were we not tlod back at the consultation stage?

An explanation (and apology) is needed fro Deddington Towers.
Red wrote:I dont know why anyone is surprised.

Why shouldn't we be? These extra sign-offs were (to the best of my knowledge and belief) not mentioned to us either in the consultation about 600kg microlights nor in the published information about the associated changes.

The differences training between sub450kg and supra450kg in either direction; yes, we were told about that.

But for the rest, only a hardened cynic would be unsurprised. We were told the new 600kg class would be a liberalisation for the new 450-600kg classification, not a tightening of regulation for the 70-450kg existing fleet.

I look forward to being told where we, the ordinary microlight flying oiks, were warned of these changes.

This has been in the offing for a while, I believe I posted something in the 600kg announcement posts to that effect.

Cannot remember where I read it originally but it looked like thee whole EASA differences stuff, stuffed into microlights.

Interestingly the French have rejected the 600kg class (they can fly EASA LSA if they want - was the response) on the basis that the 600kg class would imposed further restrictions on the current ULM arrangements.

Its not the end of the world, but qualifying the current microlight instructor cohort will be a complete pain.
Mz Hedy, to be clear I had no crystal ball on exactly what extra regulation would come with 600kg, but it seemed obvious to me that there would be some and that it would affect those not even partaking in the heavier aircraft, which is why I was against it happening and have previously said as much

But for the rest, only a hardened cynic would be unsurprised

Yep :D
lobstaboy liked this
Cookie wrote:


So, from the linked document

is fitted with-
i. a tricycle undercarriage;
ii. a tailwheel;
iii. a supercharger or turbo-charger
iv. a variable pitch propeller;
v. Electronic Flight Information Systems
vi. an autopilot system
vii. more than one engine; or
viii. an electric engine

and the holder does not have experience in aeroplanes with those features, before
exercising the privileges of the rating the holder must complete appropriate differences

So, existing logged time "grandfathers" existing pilots without further endorsment?
Electronic Flight Information Systems

This is the one rule on differences training that I find totally loopy on both microlights and SEP. The various EFIS are so very different depending on the manufacturer, and people use carry on Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) without the need for such training, then why have it as a differences training requirement?

I flew EV97 Eurostars with Dynon EFIS fitted. Checked out by a Microlight FI, and apparently that will allow me to now fly any other EFIS type. Bonkers, and the difficulty in learning it was a total non-event for the basics to fly it safely anyway.
Exactly Matt, which kind of makes me question the validity of some of this. There is no common sense to it! If I fly a “Group A” Kitfox, do I really need differences training to fly a microlight version? (I’ve flown both and the answer should be “No!”)
The point is the legalities.

Does somebody used to flying a Eurostar with steam instruments really need differences training before flying a Dynon equipped one? Does somebody getting into an aeroplane with a digital VP prop really get any benefit from some time in an Arrow? If somebody can get checked out in a tailwheel Thruster by a PPL with 1000hrs on type, would they really benefit from doing that instead with an FI with 30 hrs on type? Does a sign-off for turbochargers done on a Lycoming Cessna have any relevance to flying a fast kitplane with a digitally controlled turbo on a Rotax?

The microlight world has existed pretty well for years on trust and best judgment. This is a big step in the direction of removing that trust in pilots to judge and act sensibly, and instead towards tick-box rule compliance. I don't believe this added much to SEP safety, so there's no reason it'll do to microlight safety either - just cost.

I'm one of the instructors who could get a lot of work from this requirement, and I still see it as heavy handed and inappropriate.

lobstaboy, G-JWTP liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8