Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:19 pm
#1861829
rdfb wrote:Sooty25 wrote:But those that passed NPPL(M) did so with reduced hours and reduced exams, a rating based on slower, shorter range aircraft. So should 600kg aircraft require an additional rating?
Why is the existing rating insufficient? The mere existence of other ratings isn't enough to conclude that this rating is insufficient, since it might be the case that the other ratings have excessive requirements. So if the existing rating is insufficient, it must surely be insufficient on its own terms. So why is it insufficient?
I did my PPL(M) when microlights were at 390kg, was part of the negotiating team that got the UK co-incident with the European 450kg definition, and somewhere along the way got a JAR PPL(SEP) - for which basically the instructor virtually never had to touch the controls.
450kg to 600kg is no great leap in itself, it allows some of the heavier present microlights to be more legal, and it allows some simpler SEP aeroplanes to be classed more sensibly as microlights.
Basically, I think that the microlight syllabus is quite adequate, with the provisos that if you trained on a Thruster you need some more training to fly a Piper Cub or EV97 Eurostar, and vice-versa - but if you trained on a C150 you need more training to fly a Piper Arrow too.
I am a little more concerned about the planned increase in maximum stalling speed from 35kts to 45kt, but as a 3-axis microlight pilot used to flying a Shadow over 20 years ago, a C152 offered no particular challenges in that regard, nor should it now.
The question is more why do we continue to tolerate some of the things, particularly TK, in the EASA-legacy PPL syllabus? The UK microlight syllabus TK is, after all, still somewhat longer than the perfectly good FAA PPL TK.
G
I am Spartacus, and so is my co-pilot.