Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873774
russp wrote:
Just as the LAA currently administer some current microlights (Rans S6 as an example) I'm sure they will administer some of the 600Kg microlights too .. and likely the exact same aircraft as a light aircraft too if it's homebuilt!


The LAA has been able to administer factory built microlights since 2005.

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... %20PtF.pdf
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873779
lobstaboy wrote:2. It will cause real difficulties when folk try to find instructors qualified to give the necessary difference training.


Why? The BMAA says
All new issued NPPL Microlight Class Ratings to be valid for Microlights meeting the new definition.


This meams all microlight instructors must now be qualified to provide the necessary training. No?
#1873797
lobstaboy wrote:
patowalker wrote:No variable pitch prop training for me, my 450kg microlight had that. Hand cranked too. :D

Indeed. And it's a very nice aeroplane (I have flown it).
The point is that NOW if you built G-PATO you would need differences training before you could fly it, even though it is a 450kg aeroplane.
(But you won't need to do it again, no).

(And I've just realised that because I've flown it, I don't need variable pitch prop differences training either. Result!)


Ah but, did you log it as P1 or PUT?
#1873820
patowalker wrote:That is immaterial, because the key wording is
and the holder does not have training or experience in aeroplanes with such fitted features;


Doesn't need training, only experience to claim a grandfathered difference entitlement, so, if @lobstaboy logged that flight as P1 or even PUT, he now has grandfathered variable pitch propeller.

There is no mention of amount of experience.

ANO probably should have stated "in flight variable pitch" as well. I can "vary" the pitch of my prop, just not in flight!
lobstaboy liked this
#1873882
patowalker wrote:Isn't that what I said?


looking back, YES!

sadly the document includes two lines

the holder’s previous training and experience


and

the holder does not have training or experience


The revised ANO is much easier to understand than the amendment, but I still not sure where 475kg came from, as I always thought it was 472.5kg with BRS.
#1873892
lobstaboy wrote:No, you'd need to have a licence/rating for heavier aeroplanes.
See para 4.3 of the draft BMAA Guidance that Cookie linked to right near the start of the thread.


That's what the BMAA say, but it's not what the ANO amendment says. BMAA's a load of likeable and knowledgeable people - but the law's the law. ANO talks of "training" and "experience". Is this a case of BMAA gold plating what the CAA's written?

(Oh dear, should have read further before posting, others have beaten me to it)
#1873915
HedgeSparrow wrote:That's what the BMAA say, but it's not what the ANO amendment says. BMAA's a load of likeable and knowledgeable people - but the law's the law. ANO talks of "training" and "experience". Is this a case of BMAA gold plating what the CAA's written?

)


Good point. Which just goes to show that this really is a mess.
#1873921
patowalker wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:2. It will cause real difficulties when folk try to find instructors qualified to give the necessary difference training.


Why? The BMAA says
All new issued NPPL Microlight Class Ratings to be valid for Microlights meeting the new definition.


This meams all microlight instructors must now be qualified to provide the necessary training. No?


Agreed, that is what that statement implies, but-

This must be another example of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, since a "vanilla" microlight instructor can't be P1 in an aeroplane of more than 475kgs, so how can they provide the necessary training?

As I've said before, the airworthiness side of 600kg seems well done, but the implications for pilot licencing and training haven't been sorted.
By Aerials
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873929
Sooty25 wrote:...... but I still not sure where 475kg came from, as I always thought it was 472.5kg with BRS.

Neither did I. I don't know if this is relevant so on looking it up in the Microlight Pilot's Handbook (edn 7), "Small light aeroplanes currently with a permit, not exceeding a 450kg MTOW and meeting (the wing loading and stall speed criteria for a microlight at that time), are classed as microlight aeroplanes after 1st April 2002.
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873937
lobstaboy wrote:Agreed, that is what that statement implies, but-

This must be another example of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, since a "vanilla" microlight instructor can't be P1 in an aeroplane of more than 475kgs, so how can they provide the necessary training?

As I've said before, the airworthiness side of 600kg seems well done, but the implications for pilot licencing and training haven't been sorted.


The BMAA proposals included

Instructors

All current microlight Flight Instructors continue to be entitled to instruct in microlights with a MTOM up to 472.5 Kg.

All current microlight Flight Instructors with a licence that entitles them to fly aircraft with a MTOM up to 600 Kg (SSEA or SEP) shall be entitled to give flight instruction in microlights with a MTOM of up to 600 Kg.

All current microlight Flight Instructors without a licence that entitles them to fly aircraft with up to 600 Kg MTOM to undertake differences training with an instructor so entitled so that they may give Flight Instruction on Microlights with a MTOM of up to 600 Kg.

All FIC Courses to be conducted to allow the FI(R) to give Flight Instruction in Microlight aircraft with a MTOM of up to 600 Kg.

Flight Examiners

All current microlight Flight Examiners continue to be entitled to examine in microlights with a MTOM up to 472.5 Kg.

All current microlight Flight Examiners with a licence that entitles them to fly aircraft with a MTOM up to 600 Kg (SSEA or SEP) shall be entitled to examine in microlights with a MTOM of up to 600 Kg.

All current microlight Flight Instructors without a licence that entitles them to fly aircraft with up to 600 Kg MTOM to undertake differences training with an examiner so entitled so that they may examine in Microlights with a MTOM of up to 600 Kg.


I don't see what all the fuss is about. Those selling expensive 600kg microlights will make sure their customers have access to differences training. Their business success depends on it
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1874027
and the holder does not have training or experience in aeroplanes with such fitted features.


There are many microlights equipped with EFIS and mechanical back-up instruments. Some pilots may chose to fly on the mechanical instruments until they gain experience on EFIS. :D
#1874048
patowalker wrote:I don't see what all the fuss is about. Those selling expensive 600kg microlights will make sure their customers have access to differences training. Their business success depends on it


Much of the fuss is the extra regulation that is being drawn down on pilots of second-hand sub-450etc microlights, especially the:
(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

which appears to affect even pilots of SSDR single-seaters, and even sub-70 nanotrikes which don't need a licence, but if you do have a licence you are required to get differences training by a qualified and certificated instructor.

I don't know if that was the intent, but that's what they've enacted.
lobstaboy liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8