Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1845277
Genghis the Engineer wrote:- If you want IFR and night it will have to be certified to light aircraft standards not microlight standards.
G


Apart from a heated pitot, what are the significant differences between light aircraft and microlight standards which would enable night and/or IFR for the former but not the latter? Clearly LA require an equipment uplift to fly when you can't see but what is it about the standards that makes the same infeasible in a microlight?
By Big Dex
#1845283
It mainly comes down to wing loading I believe; they're looking for 60kg psm iirc, which is fairly incompatible with a sub-35kt stall as required for microlights.
User avatar
By G-BLEW
Boss Man  Boss Man
#1845286
GtE wrote:VLA is probably the distinction you are looking for - which is the category that the Europa is in, for example.


I always struggle a bit with this. VLA is a certification specification, and to my mind, should only apply to aircraft certified as VLAs. I know the LAA often refers to that standard, but the Europa isn't a VLA. If you know what I mean.

Ian
Ian Melville liked this
By oldbiggincfi
#1845287
matthew_w100 wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:- If you want IFR and night it will have to be certified to light aircraft standards not microlight standards.
G


Apart from a heated pitot, what are the significant differences between light aircraft and microlight standards which would enable night and/or IFR for the former but not the latter? Clearly LA require an equipment uplift to fly when you can't see but what is it about the standards that makes the same infeasible in a microlight?


My unintended excursion into cloud with our EV97 was very uncomfortable. Flies perfectly well but came unbelievably wet inside . Even with the heater on full could not control the drips .
Alright - silly me :oops:
User avatar
By HedgeSparrow
#1845290
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Quick history lesson.
...
And hence whilst the rest of the world got ultralights, Britain got - and still has - Microlights.
G


Maybe it's time to resurrect the pre-war UK class of Ultralight. :)

I suppose the current SSDR and nanotrikes are the closest to them in ethos nowadays.
User avatar
By akg1486
#1845293
matthew_w100 wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:- If you want IFR and night it will have to be certified to light aircraft standards not microlight standards.
G


Apart from a heated pitot, what are the significant differences between light aircraft and microlight standards which would enable night and/or IFR for the former but not the latter? Clearly LA require an equipment uplift to fly when you can't see but what is it about the standards that makes the same infeasible in a microlight?

Our Pipistrel Virus (registered as an EASA aircraft, not a national microlight) lacks pitot heat and is therefore not certified for IFR. I'm not a certified IR pilot, but if I inadvertedly entered IMC I would much rather be in the Virus than in the non-autopilot equipped but IFR approved PA28 Cadets that we also have.
User avatar
By bilko2
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845300
Thanks for all the advice and issues raised. I'll probably stick with the Robin for the moment.
Though the new tech needs to be watched.
By Shoestring Flyer
#1845302
bilko2 wrote:Thanks for all the advice and issues raised. I'll probably stick with the Robin for the moment.
Though the new tech needs to be watched.


If you have had your Aiglon 40years you know all it's faults and foibles. If it is still corrosion free, and not many Aiglons are, and you can afford the expensive CAA regime then sticking with it is a good decision imho. :thumright:
kanga liked this
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845330
matthew_w100 wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:- If you want IFR and night it will have to be certified to light aircraft standards not microlight standards.
G


Apart from a heated pitot, what are the significant differences between light aircraft and microlight standards which would enable night and/or IFR for the former but not the latter? Clearly LA require an equipment uplift to fly when you can't see but what is it about the standards that makes the same infeasible in a microlight?


Quite a lot.

CS.23 and 14CFR.23 are the two lowest standards that normally apply to aeroplanes approved for IFR now (bearing in mind that there are plenty of aeroplanes around that were approved for IFR 50+ years ago that absolutely would not be now, but have grandfather rights. My old Rollason Condor was one such, and had no pitot heater.

There's not a single agreed standard for bridging from a VFR only aeroplane. FAA provide a route to recertify a VLA aeroplane to part 23; so far as I know that doesn't exist in EASAland. LAA created a bridge for an existing LAA aeroplane to be approved for IFR, and that has included a certified engine, minimum certified instruments , a pitot-heater, and a handling qualities assessment. I evaluated a Glasair for them in that role a couple of years ago and whilst I disagreed on a few aspects* of how they went about it, it was appropriately rigorous, taking me several hours to fly.

G


* Before anybody asks, LAA redefined the Cooper-Harper handling qualities scale in a way that I felt was an unnecessary and inappropriate simplification.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845332
G-BLEW wrote:
GtE wrote:VLA is probably the distinction you are looking for - which is the category that the Europa is in, for example.


I always struggle a bit with this. VLA is a certification specification, and to my mind, should only apply to aircraft certified as VLAs. I know the LAA often refers to that standard, but the Europa isn't a VLA. If you know what I mean.

Ian


Aeroplanes aren't certified as VLAs however - it is simply one of multiple routes to certification in what is basically the SEP class. Part 23, or even good old BCAR Section K are appropriate codes also. A pilot, and the aerodynamics, don't necessarily know what code an aeroplane was certified to - only whether they are licenced to fly it or not - maybe 1 pilot in 20 ever looks at the TCDS after all, nor should they need to.

G
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1845353
oldbiggincfi wrote:My unintended excursion into cloud with our EV97 was very uncomfortable. Flies perfectly well but came unbelievably wet inside . Even with the heater on full could not control the drips .
Alright - silly me :oops:

My Beagle Pup is like that and it IS certified :-)
User avatar
By Mr Bags
#1845361
I don't know if the OP has flown in a modern microlight, but I would certainly have a few flights in different weather/thermic conditions first.

When I transitioned from flying the PA28/C152 to the Icarus C42 microlight, I assumed it would be a quick 30 minute differences and off I go - how wrong I was!

The biggest 'gotchas' for me compared to the heavier aircraft I flew before was the huge difference in inertia (or complete lack of), having to use your feet a lot more in general and especially when landing. With a lighter wing loading, you will really feel those wind and thermic bumps.

Going the microlight route certainly opened up far more landing strip locations than were available in the previous 'spam can' aircraft I flew - the lower costs were also very welcome. For me it was the right move, but I can see that it might not suit everyone.
bilko2, MachFlyer liked this
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845362
Big Dex wrote:It mainly comes down to wing loading I believe; they're looking for 60kg psm iirc, which is fairly incompatible with a sub-35kt stall as required for microlights.


Becoming 45kt max stall speed for 600kg microlights.