Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
User avatar
By Cookie
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1874070
Mz Hedy wrote: The fun bit is that purchasers of Ben Ashman's delightful-looking SSDR retractable sub-70 trikes will require formal sign off if they have a pilot's licence but not if they don't (a licence being optional to fly sub-70kg)....and even sub-70 nanotrikes which don't need a licence,


@Mz Hedy

SSDR may be exempt from some airworthiness requirements but there is still a legal requirement to hold a valid pilot licence, whereas for Self-Propelled Hang Gliders (SPHG) there is no requirement for a licence. Therefore, whether a licence is needed or not will depend how the aircraft has been registered.

Clearly, if you are not exercising the privileges of a pilot licence as in SPHG, then there would be no requirement to comply with the differences training requirements associated with the Microlight Class Rating.

Cookie
Mz Hedy liked this
#1876638
Just back from a break and received an email from new BMAA CEO.

In short, the application of the new differences training requirement to pilots of all microlights (not just the new heavies) is not a surprise and is what they expected from the start. It is (as pointed out elsewhere) included in an instructors briefing document dated last March.

Previously, microlight pilots had the right to choose how and from whom they got whatever differences training they considered appropriate. A dozen years ago, mandatory differenes training was introduced for 3 axis <-> flexwing , multi-engine, and floatplane conversions. Now that list has been considerably extended.

I feel the mainstream of microlight pilots have been let down by the BMAA and have lost a significant privilege in the process.

I know I'm in a minority of old fogeys living in the past, but it doesn't help. :(
#1876642
Mz Hedy wrote:...the application of the new differences training requirement to pilots of all microlights (not just the new heavies) is not a surprise and is what they expected from the start...

...
I feel the mainstream of microlight pilots have been let down by the BMAA and have lost a significant privilege in the process.

I know I'm in a minority of old fogeys living in the past, but it doesn't help. :(


Thanks for this @Mz Hedy
It may well be what they expected from the start (although to be honest it feels otherwise to me), but if that is the case it was not made clear to the members until the deal was done.
I'd hazard that had it been known widely there would have been even more negative views expressed than was the case.
I'll join you in the old fogeys club.
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876643
lobstaboy wrote:
Mz Hedy wrote:...the application of the new differences training requirement to pilots of all microlights (not just the new heavies) is not a surprise and is what they expected from the start...

...
I feel the mainstream of microlight pilots have been let down by the BMAA and have lost a significant privilege in the process.

I know I'm in a minority of old fogeys living in the past, but it doesn't help. :(


Thanks for this @Mz Hedy
It may well be what they expected from the start (although to be honest it feels otherwise to me), but if that is the case it was not made clear to the members until the deal was done.
I'd hazard that had it been known widely there would have been even more negative views expressed than was the case.
I'll join you in the old fogeys club.


I still don't see what the problem is - or are you really suggesting that it's OK for a pilot with only nose wheel training/experience to simply jump into (for example) a tail dragger* with no oversight or additional training? (* insert other differences training as appropriate)
#1876648
russp wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:
Mz Hedy wrote:...the application of the new differences training requirement to pilots of all microlights (not just the new heavies) is not a surprise and is what they expected from the start...

...
I feel the mainstream of microlight pilots have been let down by the BMAA and have lost a significant privilege in the process.

I know I'm in a minority of old fogeys living in the past, but it doesn't help. :(


Thanks for this @Mz Hedy
It may well be what they expected from the start (although to be honest it feels otherwise to me), but if that is the case it was not made clear to the members until the deal was done.
I'd hazard that had it been known widely there would have been even more negative views expressed than was the case.
I'll join you in the old fogeys club.


I still don't see what the problem is - or are you really suggesting that it's OK for a pilot with only nose wheel training/experience to simply jump into (for example) a tail dragger* with no oversight or additional training? (* insert other differences training as appropriate)


It has been okay for the last 40ish years for it to be at the pilot's discretion. Now it is mandatory.
Where's the safety case?
The beef in particular is with the lack of transparency from the BMAA.
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876650
lobstaboy wrote:
russp wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:
Thanks for this @Mz Hedy
It may well be what they expected from the start (although to be honest it feels otherwise to me), but if that is the case it was not made clear to the members until the deal was done.
I'd hazard that had it been known widely there would have been even more negative views expressed than was the case.
I'll join you in the old fogeys club.


I still don't see what the problem is - or are you really suggesting that it's OK for a pilot with only nose wheel training/experience to simply jump into (for example) a tail dragger* with no oversight or additional training? (* insert other differences training as appropriate)


It has been okay for the last 40ish years for it to be at the pilot's discretion. Now it is mandatory.
Where's the safety case?
The beef in particular is with the lack of transparency from the BMAA.


Not too many microlights even 10 years ago were 140knt plus / Retractable / Wobbly prop/EFIS with autopilot.... the changes to 600Kg are a huge step forward in allowing UK pilots access to factory built 600Kg machines and will eventually stop the current situation where almost anyone in a modern 3 axis with two people flying illegally unless they are real lightweights. It's a very very small price to pay mandating what any responsible pilot would have done anyway.
patowalker, B1engineer liked this
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876663
lobstaboy wrote:@russp Then we disagree. Instead of simply restating your position, have a go at answering the points I just made?


I thought I had .. but for the avoidance of doubt..
"It has been okay for the last 40ish years" .. no it hasn't because most of the things requiring differences simply weren't available on a microlight (and generally won't be until 600Kg is introduced) and as was stated above the requirement for differences for flex<->3axis, multi-engine, and floatplane conversions was introduced 12 yrs ago.

"Where's the safety case?" .. all these differences training are currently required on current 450Kg to 600Kg aircraft when flown with the appropriate licence .. it would appear the safety case is established.

"The beef in particular is with the lack of transparency from the BMAA." it seems the beef is simply because a rule has been changed even though you seem unable to describe how this will negatively impact any responsible pilot or be a problem to anyone behaving responsibly in the real world.

And while we're on the subject of answering the points made ...or are you really suggesting that it's OK for a pilot with only nose wheel training/experience to simply jump into (for example) a tail dragger* with no oversight or additional training? (* insert other differences training as appropriate)
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876664
VP props, tailwheels, EFIS have been on microlights for some years.

I think that the problem here is the requirement for very specific tick-box training from a particular qualification of instructor. It's indisputable that pilots should familiarise themselves with particular characteristics before flying them, but there are other ways to do this. Frankly most microlight EFIS systems are self-teachable from the manual, in an obscure type the best pilot to familiarise you with its handling is a pilot with a lot of hours on the type, and they may not necessarily be an instructor. This has moved it all from allowing qualified pilots to use their own best judgement as to their own needs, to a single legally defined approach. That may sometimes lower standards, not raise them.

Many other variations of a theme can be thought up.

Plus, indeed, the lack of transparency.

G
lobstaboy, Sooty25, Mz Hedy and 1 others liked this
#1876666
russp wrote:
"Where's the safety case?" .. all these differences training are currently required on current 450Kg to 600Kg aircraft when flown with the appropriate licence .. it would appear the safety case is established...

...
And while we're on the subject of answering the points made ...or are you really suggesting that it's OK for a pilot with only nose wheel training/experience to simply jump into (for example) a tail dragger* with no oversight or additional training? (* insert other differences training as appropriate)


Safety case - we are discussing under 450kgs. Where is the safety case for the change to under 450kgs?
Genghis is right - the formal requirement will make it harder to get the appropriate guidance, not easier.
Yes I do think it's ok to jump into a taildragger without oversight from an instructor - the level of guidance and support can easily be decided by the pilot.
And ftaod I've flown EFIS, VP prop, tail/nose wheel micros without instructor sign off or oversight, but always with training/guidance from someone I judge to be capable of giving that.
Sooty25, Red liked this
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876702
Coming very much from the PPL(A) end of the spectrum, I wonder if the debate is more about who delivers and records the instruction rather than the validity of the need to receiving instruction? A Competent Pilot with appropriate experience *may* be capable of delivering adequate instruction, but there is no formal oversight of the quality of that instruction, and no record of the instruction. By insisting on formal training with a Qualified Instructor, the CAA hope to add Traceability and Quality. However, earning and maintaining a Qualification as an Instructor is expensive, therefore Instructors have to be able to charge for providing instruction, with the result that there are fewer Qualified Instructors than Competent Pilots, thus actually Quality may not rise even though Traceability does. Disregard of the regulations by otherwise Competent Pilots also probably increases.

Rather than bemoaning "it was better before", can we come up with a better alternative which *does* increase Quality and improves Traceability (the CAA's desire) without the downsides?
#1876707
Perhaps time for the BMAA to introduce a coaching scheme then and get people qualified as CRIs?

People and the industry have been (robustly) telling the CAA for years now that they want simplification and standardisation of licensing - it’s no surprise we are now seeing alignment coming in; I’m not surprised the BMAA took a pragmatic view that trying to protect a legacy approach wasn’t go to fit with the whole 600kg opportunity.
Nick liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876713
T67M wrote:Rather than bemoaning "it was better before", can we come up with a better alternative which *does* increase Quality and improves Traceability (the CAA's desire) without the downsides?


Could it not just be a matter of recording the flight in your logbook with what you did and with who??

ISTR that there did not used to be an official requirement for aerobatics instruction or an aerobatics rating before EASA on UK PPLs. Back then in France they did have official instruction for Aerobatics with "1st/2nd/3rd cycle" ratings, but that I didnt (couldnt?) do this. So therefore I flew a visiting aeroclub's CAP10 as PIC with a very experienced ex-mil pilot teaching me aerobatics, having only flown once in the aeroplane with the visiting aircrafts instructor - he signed me off (tailwheel endorsement) to fly it having only done circuits with him. I noted every subsequent flight as "Aerobatics with xxx, X,Y,Z manoeuvres practiced" in my logbook.

This was accepted as training by the CAA when EASA took over from JAR and an Aeros rating was added to my license at that time.

Regards, SD..
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876714
MattL wrote:Perhaps time for the BMAA to introduce a coaching scheme then and get people qualified as CRIs?


Certainly a CRI could carry out the role of a Qualified Instructor for this differences training, however the CRI rating is not free. The training and flight test 12 years ago cost me £2500, and the annualised cost of maintaining it (including Class 2 medical and flight test) is around £300/year. Extending the privileges (eg adding aerobatics, adding FCL.945 etc) would be a further cost. I do about 30 hours per year of instructing, which is quite a lot compared to many CRIs, but that's still a noticeable cost per hour of instruction.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8