Microlights v Spamcans

[bar shaker]

Another thread was at risk of diversifying so I thought I'd get this one going here.

I've flown a few types over the years but now pretty much stick to the "lawnmower" these days. I suppose its because I enjoy the simplicity of it all and the flying for the sake of it. An occasional jaunt in a mate's Mooney is always good fun and another friend has a Gazelle (I can't fly rotaries but like going up in it). I'm averaging 15 hours a month this year in the ML and doubt I will 5 in GA all year.

The point to discuss is that microlights have changed dramatically over recent years, with 100mph flexwings and 130mph fixed wings. These machines are cheaper than to buy than a 152 and are serious cross country tools. They are also cheap to run as you are only hauling 400 odd Kg.

Whilst certain fields still turn their noses up at G M*** registered kit, is the tide changing?

At my club, there are 3 GA pilots who are training on ML's as GA is either too expensive or simply lacks the buzz for them now.

Personally I enjoy being in the air full stop and I REALLY want to fly some warbirds but I'm interested in what others think about the latest microlights.

[FlyingForFun]

I've never flown a microlight. Would love to have a go, one day. (As well as a million other things I'd love to have a go at!)

So here's my un-informed opinion:

Modern 3-axis microlights are now so similar to modern aeroplanes that I can't see there's much point in continuing to distinguish between them, although I'm sure others will point out some differences. The speeds and performance are similar, the controls are similar. The costs, when compared to modern PFA aircraft, are similar (the cheaper costs which many cite as a reason for microlighting simply don't exist when comparing to the PFA world, except maybe for training where a PFA aeroplane isn't an option).

Flexwing, on the other hand, is a different type of machine. Just the same as helicoptors are different to gliders which are different to aeroplanes which are different to baloons which are different to airships.... you get the idea. We all try to welcome every type of aircraft into aviation, but there are differences that we need to be aware of. I believe that flexwings like to make very steep approaches (by aeroplane standards), for example. This isn't a problem in itself, but might be a problem if flexwings are flying in a busy circuit where other pilots aren't aware of their requirements. Basically, it comes down to education - no reason why we shouldn't all be able to fly together, but we must all know what each other is likely to do so that we can all stay safe.

As an analagy, I remember the first time I shared an airfield with an airship. It was very scary, simply because I didn't have a clue what the airship was doing. Fortunately, the airship crew was very experienced, and stayed out of my way (even though they had right of way), and everyone remained safe. Now I've got a good idea of the requirements of an airship in a circuit, I'm much safer around them.

Now let's hear from someone who actually flies these things and understands them!

FFF
---------------

[bar shaker]

FFF

The steep approach is a good point. Its done, primarily, to get enough speed to overcome crosswind but is also used so that you've got plenty in reserve if some unexpected rotor starts chucking you about, close to the deck.

At ML fields, the normal way to come in is with height and glide in on idle, making every landing a PFL. It would be bad show to do this at a nice long mixed type field and it would be asking for trouble if other types were in circuit.

If the wind is good and straight down the strip, there's no reason not to use a normal powered approach as in GA.

[Fly Stimulator]

Notwithstanding my tongue-in-cheek comments on the other thread, I must say I haven't run into any real anti-microlight prejudice. Certainly nothing more than the normal ribbing which goes on between supporters of Cessnas versus Pipers, high-wing versus low-wing, or any of the other tribal allegiences which we like to cling to.

Ever since my microlight was destroyed by the Redhill vandals in April I've been turning up to microlight events in a variety of A Group machines and have had a uniformly friendly welcome.

Equally, my first introduction to the GA club where I subsequently did my JAR PPL was to go along on a fly-out to Mulhouse in my CT. The universal reaction of the other club members was one of genuine interest, especially when they noticed that I was overtaking all of them while using half the fuel.

That same club is now intending to add a microlight to its fleet because so many of the members have expressed an interest in such a relatively cheap and accessible form of flying.


The occasional airfield doesn't allow microlights, though in reality that objection tends to disappear if you're flying a 3-axis machine. In other cases (La Rochelle being one I've tried) a quick fax secures permission.

If there ever were real barriers, I think they're breaking down. Good thing too, since all flyers in the UK face the threat of their airfields being closed, their airspace being further restricted and their wallets being raided by every agency going.

United we stand etc.

I leave you with an image of unity.... my transport to last weekend's mass microlight trip to France...

http://www.theflyingschool.co.uk/wingspan/DSCF0161.JPG

[bluskis]

Wern't the first airplanes microlites?

The problem as I perceive it is a mass production flying machine has had a lot of previous. Accidents, design faults ironed out, engines recognised as c-ap, etc.

A microlite today is not mass produced and can have untold nasties hidden in its structure.

Or do statistics carry a more reassuring message?

Then there is range and payload, but that is another form of flying.

[DFC]

If one wants to fly abroad on a NPPL, one needs a microlight rating and microlight aircraft.......seems like a good reason for getting into microlights :D

Regards,

DFC

[Fly Stimulator]

bluskis,

Not quite sure what your definition of mass produced is; a lot of well-known GA machines are built in disappointingly small numbers these days.

Several microlight types available in the UK are factory built. Probably the majority are kits. All of them are subject to certification and annual inspection under the auspices of the BMAA, and ultimately the CAA. It's very similar to the way in which the PFA deals with airworthiness for their aircraft.

Any aircraft can of course suffer from "nasties hidden in its structure" but that's what initial certification, pilot checks and annual inspections are there to spot. I'm happy to say that it has been many years since the early days when some (then unregulated) microlights did suffer in-flight structural failures.

Range and payload is as ever a matter of horses for courses. One-up, my old CT could legally carry enough fuel to take me about 800nm which was more than enough for the human bladder to endure. If I want to take a couple of friends plus a bit of luggage then obviously a microlight is not the right tool for the job and I hire something bigger, but many people do carry out some fairly epic touring flights even in flexwings.

[Onan the Clumsy]

Never done anything in a microlight, but would love to. I would have thought the addition of a ballistic parachute (like is slowly starting to appear in powered airplanes) should counter any structural misgivings one might have.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Last I looked the UK fatal accident rate was published at about 1 per 70,000 hrs for certified FW, and a pretty uniform 1 per 50,000 hours for light helicopters, gliders and microlights.

The only real anomalies were airliners (where fatals are so rare they can be regarded as not happening on G-reg aircraft) and gyroplanes at about 1 per 6,000 hrs.

I think that's correct up to about 1999 - but I don't think there's been all that much movement since in any direction except possibly an improvement in Gyro safety.

Personally I think the ballistic parachute thing is a red-herring unless you routinely fly over utterly unlandable terrain. Microlights land on a sixpence (and most light aircraft are reasonable) - the only time you're likely to really feel the need for a get-out-of-jail-card is a stall-spin on finals or a completely messed up landing - the two most common fatality causes on either light aircraft or microlights. And lets face it, no parachute is going to help much in either case.

G

Microlights, gliders, light aircraft, a couple of helicopters, occasional twin, and several fast jets in my logbook - will fly or FTE anything so long as I'm qualified or being instructed, it's cheap, free or better still I'm being paid. Except possibly gyroplanes, and one particular microlight type which frightens me whenever I look at it - the Kolb Twinstar, for various reasons from build quality and historically uncrashworthy structure to the mandatory need for ballast when flying solo. Last week flew 12 hours in several types including a PA28 and a taildragging microlight

[BEagle]

I don't like the 'versus' in the title of this thread - 'Microlight or Spamcan?' would have been better as the original title seems to imply a contest between the two categories of aircraft.


Re. the NPPL, there is a proposal afoot to re-align and simplify re-validation requirements for those holding Microlight and/or SEP and/or SLMG aircraft ratings - or all 3 - so that all 3 ratings could be re-validated by a total number of hours flown, so long as a minimum were flown under each rating privilege. This proposal is:


"Re-validation by Experience

Aircraft ratings included in a NPPL may be re-validated provided that the holder has within the 24 months preceding the expiry of the rating flown not less than 12 hours total flight time, 8 hours of which shall have been as pilot in command and has within the 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating also carried out NPPL periodic training requirements. The 12 hours total flight time shall also include a minimum flight time, in each class of aircraft for which an aircraft rating is included in a NPPL, of either 1 hour as pilot in command or 1 hour under the supervision of an instructor. Instructors conducting training or supervised flights shall countersign the pilot’s personal log book to indicate that such flights were flown to P1 standard.

NPPL Periodic training requirements.

SEP or SLMG:

NPPL holders with valid SEP or SLMG aircraft ratings shall, within the 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating, complete a training flight of at least 1 hour duration with an instructor.

Microlight:

NPPL holders with valid Microlight aircraft ratings are not required to complete any mandatory continuation training for the Microlight aircraft rating."



But this would require that the current 5 hours in 13 months to re-validate a microlight rating is amended to the same 12 hours in 24 months as other ratings. It would be interesting to hear people's views on this - if the rating validity periods can be harmonised, then a multiple rating re-validation policy can be agreed very simply. If not, then people may have to re-validate all ratings independently..... If there's sufficient level of debate on this, then I may start a PPRuNe poll on the subject.

[bar shaker]

BEagle

Quite right on the V then again, judging by the posts on here, it should actually be AND :)

Interesting point on re-val. I have no trouble with 12 hours, but some will.

[Pilotage]

If memory serves correctly from when I had to pass Microlight Air Law as it was then around 1992, there used - pre JAR-FCL - to be cross-currency rules. I think that of the 5hrs in 13 months needed on Gp.A, you could do 3 hours in 3-axis microlights.

Extending from that - doing the total hours for currency (whichever route - the 5/13 or 12/24) to include a minimum of say 2/12 in any particular class you want to retain minimum currency on would make sense.

I suppose the other way one might do it would be to require a total of UK 5/13 or JAR 12/24 in any class to keep your license legal, then expand slightly the 90 day rule; i.e. to fly with passengers in any particular class you'd have have to have flown 3 take-offs and landings in the last 90 days in that class - and that could include microlights, SEP or presumably SLMG if you've that rating also.

A third option might be 12/24 total and an hour with an instructor in each class that you want to remain current in - albeit that gives you a problem with the BMAA's desire to not adopt that particular piece of JAR.

P

[tonyhalsall]

I have already taken the step of switching from Group A to micros and I don't look back at all.

In 1987 I obtained my CAA grp. A licence and occasionally rented PA28's from Blackpool but only sufficient to stay current. Long hauls were out of the question because of rental costs and my flying interest began to wane with the lack of advancement in experience.

Eventually my license lapsed and I didn't renew until three years ago when I had a trial flight in a Thruster microlight - a real grass roots level, raw flying experience, if ever there was such a thing in the 21st Century!!

I revalidated my license and now own a third share in a CFM Shadow. The aircraft lives in a trailer and the main fixed expense is insurance (£1,000 ish pa). Fuel costs run to about £10 per hour and the permit costs are negligable if you are a careful pilot. It is an easy aircraft to fly, but not as easy to fly well. Landings require much more attention than Group A aircraft due to the lighter weight and lack of inertia and is the reason that most micro airfields have such tight circuits (a very good thing in my mind!)

The camaredrie at a typical micro club (field) is worlds apart from from what you sometimes come across at traditional flying clubs and schools as the clubs consist of working guys (and girls) that just want to fly. Our Shadow gives us fun flying in the local area and a reasonable cross country duration (three hours at 70knots). The newer high performance microlights are a different breed altogether and factory built aircraft can now be bought for arounf £45K (CT & Eurostar) - but in all honesty these are light aircraft in all but name - yes you have weight & balance considerations and have to trade fuel for passengers - but both aircraft mentioned are designed for heavier loads, its only current legislation (paperwork) that limits its legal capability.

So to the paradox of the title of this thread 'v' as in versus.

I learned to fly in a 1960 slab wing Cherokee that was older than me, Todays factory built microlights out-perform this aircraft in almost every way and are a modern alternative to the ageing Spam Can fleet. It seems inevitable to me that modern microlights will soon become primary training platforms for ab initio pilots - its just a matter of time.

Not for me though a modern, high performance microlight - I turned to microlighting for affordable, fun flying - I don't want to pay £30K+ for my aircraft, I don't want extortianate hangarage and I don't want inflated insurance - for me the exhiliration of flying for ten pounds an hour and throwing my aircraft around the sky in absolute safety is what it is all about. Tomorrow I'm going to 'Sleap' via Welshpool - maybe four hours which will bring this years flying hours to about 60 - and I don't need an overdraft., I don't need Mode S, I don't need a runway and I only use my radio if I have to.

MIcrolights are good for me.

Tony
G-MYIP

PS - The PFA route is just as cheap as microlight flying if you must stay Group A - it's all about changing your 'attitude'