Will it ever happen? Microlights

[alphamatt]

Hi,

I know you can get 1,2 and 4 seat microlights but do you ever think there will be a 5/6 seat microlight allowed?

Also do you think they will ever lift the "no night flying, no imc and no abroad" ban?

Matt

[flybymike]

Four seat microlights?

[Whopity]

A microlight is an aeroplane below 450 Kgs, with a maximum of 2 seats!
What do you think?

[larzabell]

You can fly abroad. And they only hve 2 seats.:confused:

[Genghis the Engineer]

A microlight is an artificial definition, two seats, lightweight - light regulation.

You can build bigger heavier aeroplanes, but they're not microlights, simple as that.



Re: night and IMC. There are legal mechanisms that would allow you to negotiate this now through "special conditions"; the reality is that it's a lot cheaper and easier just to buy an aeroplane with a CofA.

There's never been a "no abroad" ban, it's just that the aircraft aren't ICAO compliant, therefore you need approvals from the countries you're flying to. Again, you could circumvent this by following ICAO procedures - but why on earth would you bother when most countries will let you in on the basis of a few faxed documents.

G

[Rod1]

There is a new category of European Light Aircraft – 1 (ELA-1) for short. This is to be based on CS-VLA / US LSA rules and will allow many of the advantages of the micro with 4 seats and low running costs.

As has been said the touring side is not a problem, and the IMC/Night is not too much of an issue unless you have an IR which less than 1% of European pilots have.

I fly a home built VLA (based in Staffordshire) and enjoy most of the advantages of a micro but with more useful load, speed and equipment (CS prop etc).

Rod1

[BEagle]

Currently the Uk microlight fraternity has escaped the attention of the leaden hand of EASA and its €urocratic rule making.

Long may that continue.

But if you pushed for the weight limit to be raised to the VLA/LSA limit, that could well mean that €urocratic bull$hit would be inflicted on all UK microlights. Something which no-one wants to see!

[alphamatt]

ROD1,

Would i need an NPPL for vla or PPL?

Also where do you fly from?

Matt

P.S I said 4 seat as part of the NPPL restriction on google says you can carry 3 passengers. I cant see 3 passengers all squeazing on 1 seat?!?!

[LH2]

Beagle,

care to enlighten us what you're on about?

[alphamatt]

I think beagle is saying that microlights are less restricted than vla and by pushing up the weight to match the vla it would inherit the same more restricted rules.

Matt

[BEagle]

alphamatt, yes, that's indeed what I was 'on about'. Quite how he failed to understand is hard to see....

To fly an aeroplane heavier than a Microlight on an NPPL, you would need to add an SSEA Class Rating to your NPPL. Or, if it's an SLMG, an SLMG Class Rating.

The SSEA limit is 2 tonnes and 4 PoB (including the pilot). Anything more and you would need a PPL(A) with SEP Class Rating.

[Crash one]

P.S I said 4 seat as part of the NPPL restriction on google says you can carry 3 passengers. I cant see 3 passengers all squeazing on 1 seat?!?!

Seems like you are reading NPPL as a Microlight only thing. It is'nt, NPPL (SSEA) allows you to fly a 4 seat, wobbly prop, retractable or seaplane at over 140knots. With all the appropriate differences training, but only in UK airspace during the daytime in VFR. So I believe.

[LH2]

I think beagle is saying that microlights are less restricted than vla and by pushing up the weight to match the vla it would inherit the same more restricted rules.

Let me see, if it's (registered as) a microlight, it's a microlight.

If either it can't (e.g., because of MTOM) or is not registered as a microlight, then it's a VLA or a light aircraft. It might be the exact same aircraft, but subject to different rules.

In any event:

I think beagle is saying that microlights are less restricted than vla

I think this might be subject to discussion--in some aspects they are (minimum certification requirements), in others they're not (lower MTOM, minimum certification requirements, ability to log hours towards currency requirements / issue of a higher licence). Which is why it's good to have a choice.

by pushing up the weight to match the vla it would inherit the same more restricted rules.

Says who? As far as I can tell, not the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1904/20090428LOI.pdf). A heavier microlight still is a microlight if the legislation in force says it is.

I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but now that you have explained, it just seems like a pointless rant and a non-sequitur to me. Thanks for the attempt at clarifying though. :confused:

[alphamatt]

LH2,

Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed today? , No need to argue surely.

Matt :ok:

[LH2]

No need to argue surely.

And why not?

No, seriously, it's just that the comment I replied to does not make any sense at face value, so I was wondering if there was something I missed, that's all.

[BEagle]

A European VLA has a MTOW of 750 kg.

A US LSA has a MTOW of 600 kg (for landplanes).

The UK microlight MTOW is 450 kg (except for aircraft with ballistic recovery systems).

Regulation of UK microlights is looked after by the BMAA and CAA. It will not be affected by the nonsense of EASA.

Certain EC countries wanted to raise the Annex II limit so that VLAs wouldn't be over regulated by EASA. The BMAA emphatically do not want this, as the fear is that, if the 'microlight' MTOW was raised to the VLA limit, then this would mean that EASA would inflict its heavy-handed €urocracy on all UK microlights - and the current 'light touch' regulation would be lost.

VLAs which weigh more than 450 kg can only be flown on a UK-issued licence on a SSEA or SEP Class Rating and the aircraft themselves have to meet LAA standards.

[Rod1]

“Regulation of UK microlights is looked after by the BMAA and CAA.”

20% of the LAA fleet is Micros, so I think you would have to include them in your list! My understanding is that ELA-1 will be up to at least 750kg, possibly 1200kg and that the word microlight vanishes completely?

Rod1

[BEagle]

Whilst there may be microlights in Laa-laa land, their regulation is surely a BMAA / CAA issue?

The whole Microlight / Very Light / Ultralight / Light Sport / Quite Light / Really Rather Light / Not All That Heavy definition is indeed a pile of poo. A single definition would be ideal - provided that it did NOT come with €urocratic heavy-handed over-regulation!

[Rod1]

“Whilst there may be microlights in Laa-laa land, their regulation is surely a BMAA / CAA issue?”

No, the LAA aircraft are regulated by the LAA with CAA oversight, in the same way that BMAA aircraft are regulated by the BMAA with CAA oversight. The BMAA have no technical info on the LAA fleet, as the two organizations compete. Interestingly, as far as a home built aircraft on the LAA system is concerned, there is no difference in the weight of regulation between an aerobatic RV with 200hp, my VLA and a Micro. The only “step up” is for 4 seat aircraft.

Rod1

[IO540]

the IMC/Night is not too much of an issue unless you have an IR which less than 1% of European pilots have.

There is a lot of truth in that but while one can obviously fly anything unofficially in IMC when enroute, there is an issue with the build quality of these very lightweight planes: they tend to be rather flimsy and one would be pretty brave to be chucked around in IMC, perhaps collecting ice.

IFR certification is going to be really tough for most of them - even when it becomes legally possible.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is a lot of truth in that but while one can obviously fly anything unofficially in IMC when enroute, there is an issue with the build quality of these very lightweight planes: they tend to be rather flimsy and one would be pretty brave to be chucked around in IMC, perhaps collecting ice.

IFR certification is going to be really tough for most of them - even when it becomes legally possible.

There are issues, but it's not build quality, in fact microlights are generally built to slightly higher structural requirements than most light aircraft. (They also are aircraft, not woodworking tools.)

The main ones are:

- Lack of a certified engine (and thus subject to a maintenance regime assumed to substantially reduce risk of engine failures)
- Handling qualities not shown to comply with the requirements for flight in IMC
- Lack of duplication of primary flight instruments.
- Lack of a (certified) Attitude Indicator
- Lack of de-icing of the pitot
- Lack of a secondary static source
- Lack of certified navigation instruments allowing positional awareness out of sight of the surface. (In a microlight, even the compass normally hasn't been swung.)

You can make a case about anti/de-icing but in reality that could be made about most Cessnas and Pipers that can quite legitimately be flown in IMC.

G

[alphamatt]

So,

If i flew an Ikarus C42 that cant weight more than 450kg, there is 188kg useful load.

How much does fuel weigh for say 2 hours flight?

I am 17 stone, leaving 79kg for the passenger and fuel. My passenger would need to be a right skinny thing to make it flyable?

Matt

[Rod1]

On a 100hp Rotax 74lb = 3hours (about 70% power)

You are quite right about the useful load of a micro. I would only go for a 3 axis micro if I had a licence restriction or a planning restriction on my home base. In all other cases you go VLA, which has the same running costs but much more useful load (in some cases it would be an identical aircraft but different paperwork)

If you take a SportCruiser VLA for example;

You could get yourself, your identical twin, 4 hours of fuel and some bags! And travel at 100kn

A VLA homebuilt can also have

a (certified) Attitude Indicator
de-icing of the pitot
a secondary static source
certified navigation instruments allowing positional awareness out of sight of the surface.

I have to say that my MCR has non of the above, but the uncertified kit I have fitted is vastly superior to any certified kit unless you are talking £30k plus just for the EFIS. It is however capable of short bursts of IMC in the unfortunate event that I get caught out by the weather.

Rod1

[alphamatt]

Rod1,

So what are the extra regulations by going VLA instead of Microlight?

Matt

[Genghis the Engineer]

VLA (more properly CS.VLA - or Certification Specification for Very Light Aeroplanes) is a set of rules for certifying light aircraft up to 750kg. (There are other rules that you'd have to comply with as well, to do with manufacture, maintenance and so-on, but VLA is the biggie.)

It allows aircraft to be certified for issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness, although with light touch, the PFA/LAA also use it for permit aircraft.


It has however certain limitations. The biggie is that a VLA aircraft is limited to day-VFR only, non-icing conditions (paragraph VLA.1559(b) if anybody wants to look it up).


So, I'm afraid that this gets you not very far. The FAA do have a set of published requirements to allow night and IMC use, but that's only valid for an N reg aircraft.

Ultimately, for night and IMC use, a new aircraft needs to be substantially certified to CS.23, which is a whole new ballgame of certification cost and complexity.

Could it be done for a microlight? Yes, there are a few individuals or organisations with the skillset and qualification to do this - I'm probably one of them. It'll take a couple of years, and a lot of money: so ultimately nobody will try, and it's much cheaper and easier to just buy a CofA aircraft and have the required licence.

G

[IO540]

I don't think "certified" kit has any useful meaning if the airframe itself is not legal to fly in IMC.

Avionics certification means so little. I have a KFC225 certified autopilot (cost probably £40,000 although it was never successful in the retrofit market) which has several major design defects, causing regular failures right across its user base of several aircraft types. It seems that, in GA, there is little or no design quality review and any old junk can be TSOd.

If I was flying a "homebuilt/sports" type I would equip it for flight in IMC and not worry about the avionics being certified. Anyway, one can pick up a used Garmin 430/530 or something similar fairly cheaply, and you get the OBS mode for flying DIY approaches :)

It's the airframe I would worry about. I'd want excellent electrical protection and bonding together of all the bits - not just for lightning protection but for protection from a static buildup in normal flight in rain etc. A deiced pitot tube is absolutely essential because pitot icing is perfectly possible in VMC, below 0C. Even a decent quality radio is so important - every time I fly I hear some ATCO tearing his hair out because some plane has a crap radio, the pilot knows it perfectly well, but evidently nobody is going to do anything about it.

[Rod1]

“So what are the extra regulations by going VLA instead of Microlight?”

Genghis the Engineer answered for one point of view. From the position of the owner of a home built VLA there is no difference and there is no extra cost (in my case) over a micro. My VLA has the same maintenance as its Micro equivalent; it has the same engine, the same fuselage, but smaller wings and a less complicated flap system. It also costs £5k less to buy the kit, can lift 50kg more and is 18kn faster.

Just one other point, when IO540 says they cannot fly (legally) in IMC, he means under European regulations. Under US regulations, identical machines to mine fly IFR/IMC all the time and the safety record is good. (You cannot operate a US registered home built in the UK for more than 30 days a year). It is probable that we will be able to fly home built aircraft in the same way in Europe eventually. Changes are being slowly brought in, but I am unsure how many IR pilots there will be who are qualified to fly them. The IMCR is set to die and the much-heralded new Euro qualification appears stalled. With less than 1% of European pilots with an IR (IO540 is one), the IFR capability of the airframe is academic especially for the “fly for fun” pilots like me.

Rod1

[IO540]

The IMCR is set to die and the much-heralded new Euro qualification appears stalled.That's not actually so as simply put above, but that's another big topic.

With less than 1% of European pilots with an IR (IO540 is one), the IFR capability of the airframe is academic especially for the “fly for fun” pilots like me.Sure, but VFR in IMC is a pretty popular activity all around Europe (mainly due to the difficult to get IR) and being able to penetrate IMC, even for short periods, dramatically expands one's ability to go places.

And if I was doing it (and like most instrument-capable pilots flying a well equipped aircraft I have done plenty of it) then I would want a plane which is actually safe. Enroute this practice is undetectable, but you don't want to get killed, and you don't want equipment to stop working due to static, etc.

The point is that the OP did ask about this so presumably he is after this capability - even if the alleged 99% are not (a figure which I am sure is wide of the mark but this sector of the market is popular due to the low operating cost, and most of the participants are in it because it's all they can afford, not because they just want to fly on perfect sunny days :)

[Rod1]

“and most of the participants are in it because it's all they can afford, not because they just want to fly on perfect sunny days”

Another interesting observation! I upgraded from a 1970’s fully airways equipped Spamcan worth £42k, to a brand new MCR which cost me £50k and is now worth nearer £60k. I get much better utility for my kind of flying. Of the other “fast glass” on my strip, most have made similar decisions. IO of course uses his aircraft for business and that requires a different approach.

Rod1

[IO540]

Nowadays, Rod1, I do very little business flying and in any case it is very hard to do that, in the UK where the vast majority of runways have no instrument approach and are "closed" in anything below OVC010 or so.

The ability to go IFR has a great deal of value for long distance touring. The fact that most IFR flights are done in VMC and sunshine doesn't detract from this (it just makes the IR training look way OTT). The most valuable thing that IFR gives you is an implied whole-route clearance i.e. a guaranteed transit of all airspace (that is available for airway traffic) and an instrument approach if you want it. The general ability to fly in IMC is very handy too but, assuming you can climb above the general cloud, it is not half as handy as the whole-route IFR clearance and access to all airspace classes.

The times I spent the most time in IMC was when boring holes in UK Class G cloud at 2400ft under the LTMA, on the IMC Rating :)