Do Ultralight Aircraft count?

[JetJockeyJim]

Hi.

I have a fATPL with 220 hours i.e. looking for that first elusive job! In the meantime, I want to fly, not only to hour build, but because I want to fly!

I'm still confused whether I can fly Ultralights and use the hours towards my ATPL. The aircraft in question are an Aeroprakt 22L or a FK-9. I've spent ages going through LASORS and am still confused. There's also a couple of threads on here which are equally inconculsive. I thought maybe it would be based on MTOW, but it's unclear.

Even if the hours don't count towards 'unfreezing' my ATPL, I'm still logging them, right? And, when applying for jobs, I can still include these hours (logged as PIC/P1), even if they don't count towards the ATPL?

[patowalker]

Interestingly, all thee-axis UK microlight hours count towards an FAA PPL.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You show your location as the UK, there are no such thing as ultralights in the UK.

The Aeroprakt A22 is sold in the UK as the "Foxbat" which is a microlight. Significant microlight hours don't count, in the eyes of UK CAA, towards an ATPL. LASORS will tell you what tiny fraction of those hours you can count.

The B&F FK9 is not approved in the UK;if it was it would be in the light aeroplane / VLA category so the hours would count. If you can get to fly a D registered example, then the hours *should* count, but I'd check with UK CAA before spending money.

There are however lots of very inexpensive LAA homebuilts or vintage aeroplanes which you could buy a share in, and where the hours will count. To name a few: VP1, KR-2, Avid, Kitfox, Rans S7, Jodel D9....

Worth making an opening investment by joining the LAA for a year, if you're not already a member.


Patowalker Regarding the FAA ATP, presumably UK microlight hours above 115kg ZFW (which is all but the SSDRs) count in FAAland, because not being ultralights under FAR-103 they're just aeroplanes there. This actually opens up the interesting idea of US pilots coming to the UK for cheap hourbuilding :8

G

[JetJockeyJim]

Thanks for the replies.

My location is out of date, sorry. I'm based in the UAE. It's almost impossible to hire aircraft here, and when you can find somewhere, prices are high. For example, a C172 is around £170/hr.

So, Genghis, Aeroprakt A22 wouldn't really count for much, but you think the FK9 might. As you say, I'll check with the CAA.

Cheers.

[Whopity]

I thought maybe it would be based on MTOWGenerally speaking it is, a Microlight is below 450 Kgs‘Microlight aeroplane’ means an aeroplane designed to carry not more than two
persons which has:
(a) a maximum total weight authorised not exceeding:
(i) 300 kg for a single seat landplane, (or 390 kg for a single seat landplane in
respect of which a permit to fly or certificate of airworthiness issued by the
CAA was in force prior to 1st January 2003);
(ii) 450 kg for a two seat landplane;
(iii) 330 kg for a single seat amphibian or floatplane; or
(iv) 495 kg for a two seat amphibian or floatplane; and
(b) a stalling speed at the maximum total weight authorised not exceeding 35 knots
calibrated airspeed;The FK9 is 580 Kgs so counts as a SEP.

[JetJockeyJim]

Brilliant thanks Whopity.

[McGoonagall]

Just thinking on that, could a Ninja fitted with a BRS and weighing in at a max of 472.5kg be registered as a SEP?

[Genghis the Engineer]

The full answer is.a lot longer, but the short answer is no.

G

[McGoonagall]

Confuses me Genghis as it has been designed for 500kg with a modified undercarriage or 522.5kg with a BRS fitted and expecting approval soon. Is it merely a matter of the self-build being inspected by a LAA chap rather than a BMMA bod?

[patowalker]

The FK9 is 580 Kgs so counts as a SEP.

Not necessarily. Although 580kg is the demonstrated MTOW, the aircraft does meet the European definition of a microlight.

Performance figures on the FK website are quoted at 472.5kg, which is the BRS equipped microlight MTOW.

FK-Lightplanes (http://www.fk-lightplanes.com/aircraft.php?af=1&ln=2&pg=17)

[Jan Olieslagers]

Concur with Patowalker. I actually passed the Belgian ULM test in an FK9 - mixed memories there, but mostly sweet.

Like many planes of its class - i.e. 2 seater 80 hp-Rotax powered - the FK9 has a demonstrated max gross of 540-560 klg, but its makers and/or importers preferred to certify it as microlight/ULM with a max up of 450 kg, later increased to 472,5 kg to allow for a BRS, as is mandatory in Germany.

We ought really to get out of this confusion with a workable Euro-wide LSA definition.

[caber0]

@JetJockeyJim, I presume you will be flying from Jazirah Aviation Club. I was there last week and got ride in the Aeroprakt 22LS which is I believe LSA rather than microlight. Flying does seem a bit restricted around the club but they are a nice bunch of people and the 22LS does seem a rather nice aircraft albeit a bit short on instruments at the moment.

I am not sure what the local rules are about definitions however and LSA is not usually regarded as a microlight for hour building.

Happy landings:)

Caber0

[Genghis the Engineer]

Okay, a longer answer now I have a proper keyboard in front of me rather than just my phone.

In the UK, a microlight aeroplane must meet a set of standards called BCAR Section S,which is quite a lengthy document with a lot of requirements. A couple of those requirements are for MTOW and stall speed.

A light aeroplane in the UK has an alternative set of standards, which because of a capacity to kill more people at once, not just through the number of seats, but the total inertia, are higher standards. The specific rules for any individual aeroplane will vary a bit, but in all likelihood will be substantially a document called CS.VLA.

To register, or more to the point to obtain either a PtF or a CofA in the higher category,requires somebody to prove to an appropriate authority that the aeroplane in it's entirety, meets the applicable regulations - at the new higher MTOW.

For a lot of foreign aeroplanes this is hard verging on the impossible, because their designers may not have used the safety factors required, or just won't provide the evidence that you need. I used to do this for a living, and I'd say that 60+% of projects that we worked on failed because we couldn't get the information we needed from their oversees (or occasionally even British) designers. It was bloody frustrating sometimes.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

P.1 u/s hours ( i.e. as co-pilot doing the landing) and so he didn't have the required P.1.

In a single pilot aeroplane, which I think we're definitely talking about, you're either P1, P/UT, or a passenger. Landing the aeroplane, he's a passenger handling the controls, or if the captain was an instructor, a student.

The airline was quite right in my opinion, and he was lucky not to be reported to some authority or other for attempted fraud.

G

[ExSp33db1rd]

You'll have to check your local regs. and I know this doesn't really help, but in NZ microlight ( up to 544 kg incidentally,and this can include variable pitch, retractable gear, 140 kt machines - I have one flying as a microlight, beats the pants of a 172 ! ) hours can be used to a maximum of 10 P.1 hrs towards the ISSUE of a PPL, but after that, i.e. having got the licence, then we just count everything in the logbook towards our total, but whether a prospective employer will accept them tho, is another issue, I had a friend try to join a major flag carrier who refused to accept his P.1 u/s hours ( i.e. as co-pilot doing the landing) and so he didn't have the required P.1.

[JetJockeyJim]

So....there's no real definitive answer then. You log the hours and take your chances. As Jan Olieslagers said the whole area seems very confusing and open to interpretation.

@caber0, yes Jazirah Aviation Club. I will drive up from Dubai sometime next week and sort out a check ride.

[ExSp33db1rd]

For my money it's all flying, be it a 747 or a microlight ( and you have to 'fly' the microlight, which can be more unforgiving at times) but then I'm not going to be employing you.

Best of luck.

[Genghis the Engineer]

So....there's no real definitive answer then. You log the hours and take your chances. As Jan Olieslagers said the whole area seems very confusing and open to interpretation.

@caber0, yes Jazirah Aviation Club. I will drive up from Dubai sometime next week and sort out a check ride.

It all, I think, rather depends upon jurisdiction.

It all makes sense to use the columns in your logbook to the full, so that you can drop out the answer required of any given authority. Personally I've made my life far easier by using an Excel based logbook (currently up to 17 columns, and various other artificial totals summed on another page), so that I can answer whatever question comes up, from whatever authority.

But do make sure you answer the right question! If you are a UK microlight pilot who also flies 3-axis microlights and also has an FAA licence, then clearly your total hours SEP for JAA authorities are different to your total hours SEL for the FAA. If you are a UK civil pilot who does/has flown military then again your military and civil hours are different because the civil world measures brakes-off to brakes-on, whilst the military measure take-off to landing.

It's just how it it, but thank (insert deity of your choice) for the ability nowadays to do this on a computer.

G

[Jan Olieslagers]

the civil world measures brakes-off to brakes-on
If this be universally sooth, I've been doing it wrong all the while. Up till now,
-) I was taught above all, there should be PERFECT alignment between the entries in pilot's log, plane's log, and a/d log
-) at all the places where I've flown, the plane's log had to mention Hobb's time
As a result, my pilot's log mentions nothing but Hobb's time. I suppose it's a minor issue but can't help wondering about the legal background, and about the possible consequences.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If this be universally sooth, I've been doing it wrong all the while. Up till now,
-) I was taught above all, there should be PERFECT alignment between the entries in pilot's log, plane's log, and a/d log
-) at all the places where I've flown, the plane's log had to mention Hobb's time
As a result, my pilot's log mentions nothing but Hobb's time. I suppose it's a minor issue but can't help wondering about the legal background, and about the possible consequences.

I don't know about Belgium, but in UK terms, you've certainly been doing it wrong.

Hobbs time is engine start to engine stop.

So, arguably, you could start the engine, sit there chatting for 50 minutes, then take the brakes off, taxi for 5 minutes, do a 5 minute circuit and land and shut down.

It's certainly true that the engine has logged an hour, but certainly in the UK, you'd have logged 10 minutes as a pilot.

If you were in the military however, logging take-off to landing, you'd log 5 minutes for that hour strapped in. And similarly, the wing has seen no significant loads except for those five minutes - so it is not unusual, or unreasonable, that the aeroplane maintenance is based upon take-off to landing.

In effect you have three different times:

(1) Engine running time
(2) Length of sortie (brakes off to brakes on)
(3) Length of flight (take-off to landing)

Each meaning different things, depending upon what is important.


Also many aeroplanes don't use a Hobbs, they use a tacho, which increments proportional to RPM - and again is an acceptable means of scheduling aircraft maintenance.

For that matter, it's not unusual to do an engine high power ground run to test something or other, but without any intention of leaving the ground. This would increment the Hobbs - and needs entering in the engine logbook, but most certainly is not flying time and shouldn't be recorded as such in any personal logbook, or in the aircraft logbook.

To allow for this, my personal PLOG sheets (like, I'm sure, many people, I simply created my own using Word and occasionally tweak it to suit my personal flying habits), record tacho/Hobbs before flight, engine start, brakes off, take-off, land, brakes on, shutdown, end tacho/Hobbs. Sooner or later, I seem to need all of those numbers.

G

[EDMJ]

Re FK-9 and German registration:

At least in Germany you would need a German microlight licence (Luftsportgeräteführer or Sport Pilot Licence (SPL)) for flying any aircraft in the D-M*** range. These flying hours do not count for (e.g.) renewing a PPL, so I presume that they wouldn't count towards an ATPL either. In Germany, microlights are legally speaking not aircraft (Luftfahrzeuge), but belong to the same category as e.g. paragliders (Luftsportgeräte).

I believe, however, that the FK-9 (which is a really nice aircraft; I've flown a Mk III quite a bit) is nowadays also available with an EASA PtF and/or in the ELA-1 category (or whatever they call it this week; the precursor or temporary measure before the introduction of the EASA LSA), just like e.g. the Remos GX or Flight Design CTLS is. A PPL is required for flying such an aircraft, and the hours accrued should this count 100%.

[Pull what]

In a single pilot aeroplane, which I think we're definitely talking about, you're either P1, P/UT, or a passenger. Landing the aeroplane, he's a passenger handling the controls, or if the captain was an instructor, a student.Unless you are doing an observed test-if you passed it you would be P1 u/s but the examiner would be on the ground!!

[rans6andrew]

some A22L's in the UK are not microlights.

[Genghis the Engineer]

some A22L's in the UK are not microlights.

I stand corrected (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/pdf/Engineering/Website%20Accepted%20Aircraft%20List.pdf).

Looks like the A-22 is the microlight, and the A-22L is the light aeroplane, from the LAA's list.

However, going onto G-INFO, most of the A-22Ls are still microlights, although I found several which are light aeroplanes, despite still having a 450kg MTOW: G-CGZT is one such. What the difference between a 450kg microlight A-22L and a 450kg light aeroplane A22L is not immediately obvious to me. The LAA TADS (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/317%20AEROPRAKT%20A22%20FOXBAT.pdf) shows 475kg MTOW for the SEP version of the A22, but that doesn't match what's on G-INFO.

G

[Brachetta]

Hi JJJ,I also fly in Jazirah the A-22
We could meet up in the club and do some flying together.
I will send you a PM.