Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1861613
Joint statement from BMAA and LAA:



The BMAA and LAA are pleased to report the long awaited revision of the UK microlight definition comes a step closer today, as the proposed revisions to the Air Navigation Order which will enact the changes are put before Parliament. The result of extensive collaborative working between the Associations, CAA and industry representatives, it is hoped that this will lead to the new 600kg Microlight classification being incorporated into law on 19 August 2021.

Geoff Weighell, BMAA and Steve Slater, LAA.
Dave W, davenuk, Cub and 10 others liked this
#1861698
patowalker wrote:This is very good news and shows what can be achieved when the LAA and BMAA sing from the same hymn sheet.

I have a feeling a certain 480kg MTOM Eurostar SL will soon become a microlight. :D


Won't be good news if the @r5e falls out of sub 450kg microlight values.
#1861712
Of course sub-450kg micros will be worth next to nothing. Specially those with two strokes. There's already some good bargains to be had and this will increase rapidly.
The interesting thing will be what the schools do. Will they ditch their 450kg C42s? If they do there really will be some fantastic bargains.
The big prize for the importers will be to capture the training fleet market.
#1861730
Not that I am complaining but what is the safety justification that this upward weight spiral is now considered permissible compared to when it was not x number of years ago? And will this filter through to the next cat up ? For me interesting things could happen once an LAA homebuilt can reach circa 1500kg as fullsize replica warbirds start to become viable e.g. the Clive du Cros spitfire, not that i live in hope. I seem to recall reading its an airframe inertia thing but I wonder whether that's just a convenient cover story and its also the potential to upset business interests in adjoining categories plus a huge dose of conservatism, thus they are expanding the envelope decade by decade at snails pace - great if youve got plenty of building/flying years left in you
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861758
Wabash wrote:Not that I am complaining but what is the safety justification that this upward weight spiral is now considered permissible compared to when it was not x number of years ago?


Maybe the microlight training regime has become more structured and more "complex" as the years have gone by.

Wabash wrote:And will this filter through to the next cat up ?


Which one would you like increased, the 2000kg limit or the 5700kg limit? And any reason why?
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861766
This is all about the UK playing catch-up wih the rest of Europe, where many countries have already adopted the 600kg microlight category. It has only taken 3 years to get this into Parliament, following the opt-out in (EU) 2018/1139. :)

8. A Member State may decide to exempt from this Regulation the design, production, maintenance and operation activities in respect of one or more of the following categories of aircraft:

(a) aeroplanes, other than unmanned aeroplanes, which have no more than two seats, measurable stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in landing configuration not exceeding 45 knots calibrated air speed and a maximum take-off mass (MTOM), as recorded by the Member State, of no more than 600 kg for aeroplanes not intended to be operated on water or 650 kg for aeroplanes intended to be operated on water;

(b) helicopters, other than unmanned helicopters, which have no more than two seats and a MTOM, as recorded by the Member State, of no more than 600 kg for helicopters not intended to be operated on water or 650 kg for helicopters intended to be operated on water;

(c) sailplanes, other than unmanned sailplanes, and powered sailplanes, other than unmanned powered sailplanes, which have no more than two seats and a MTOM, as recorded by the Member State, of no more than 600 kg.
Flyin'Dutch', Dman liked this
#1861785
Wabash wrote:Not that I am complaining but what is the safety justification that this upward weight spiral is now considered permissible compared to when it was not x number of years ago?


It's not a safety thing, it just allows the McDonalds/Greggs society to fly microlights, and allows them to go touring in a class of aeroplane that wasn't really intended for it!
NDB_hold liked this
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861789
Interesting. Looks like the permit-to-fly LSA fleet become microlights - the CAA currently treat them as almost Part 21.

EASA decided to use the flight conditions- apparently the B word makes them no longer applicable - as a way of evading their previous permanent permission which gives the aircraft freedom to go anywhere in Europe. That to me is open to challenge but I suspect it would take a very long time to get them to change their minds.
#1861815
@Sooty25
It's not a safety thing, it just allows the McDonalds/Greggs society to fly microlights, and allows them to go touring in a class of aeroplane that wasn't really intended for it!


It certainly can be a safety thing, especially where being able to carry more fuel is concerned.

Compare and contrast the LAA v BMAA Eurofox. One is an amateur built LAA machine and has a MTOW 560kgs, the other is professionally built BMAA machine and has a MTOW of 450kgs, because it's called a microlight. They are exactly the same machines under and above the skin but silly rules mean one aircraft's crew has to forego Greggs/the fuel pump in order to comply with a rule, even though it is perfectly able to carry the same as the other. Being able to upload more fuel as a result of this change IS a safety thing and will certainly be very welcome from this eater of pies. More touring for me.......in an aircraft I would contend is very much intended to do so.
Nick, seanxair, exfirepro and 2 others liked this
#1861824
@PaulSS the Eurofox is a very nice aeroplane, but it never was designed with the UK Microlight market in mind, it is a classification it has managed to achieve as an afterthought, by compromising duration. Like other overseas models have also achieved.

Whilst I'm not arguing against 600kg, not at all, it favors me. 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? I mean, a Shark UL is in RV territory performance wise, and I'd guess a 915i engined Eurofox will fly the wings off every Super Cub in the country!
#1861827
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?