PDA

View Full Version : Motorgliding - BGA or CAA directly controlled maintenance and instructors?


soaringsilently
3rd Oct 2012, 14:23
Sorry to post the list of questions here, but I am guessing someone will know the answers.

I want to get my PPL ( a proper PPL not a NPPL) using a TMG, that I then convert to a JAR PPL ( or EASA PPL as it will be) I have been around several (three to date) motorglider clubs and have been told at one club I approcahed that both the instructors and the maintenance is controlled by the BGA. They use Slingsby T61 Ventures) I have read on here that the instructors have to hold a CPL, yet these guys don't .(they are paid by the club - but they say its for "clerical duties"), they tell me they have PPL's and fly on a concession to allow them to instruct with a BGA, rather than a CAA instructors rating. Will this change with the new EASA regulations? I also saw these instructors teaching a doing trial lessons in a Warrior- does their BGA instructors rating allow them to do this?? Nice big airfield though which is always a bonus I think.

Will the standard of instructing be the same as going to a flying club that uses commercially licensed pilots with CAA instructors ratings?

Another point which was raised by a friend of mine (who is a pilot employed commercially) was that the engines are maintained on an "on condition" basis rather than to a set life - is this correct? Why can the motor glider club do this when the flying school I had approached told me that part of their seemingly higher cost is due to them having a set number of hours/years life for the engine? Just waiting around and chatting at this club I was told of several engine failures and plugs blowing out etc etc which all seem alittle worrying!.

I did go to another club that advertises "Trial Lessons" and frankly was worried when I listened to the controls creaking and groaning as the instructor moved them before the engine was started. All that club seems to do is trial lessons and they are listed as a BGA club on the BGA website, Is this normal?

The third club ( a CAA approved school and not a BGA club) I went to is some way further south east in the midlands, but has recently gone all CAA. They say their aircraft are maintained by a CAA organisation rather than the BGA and all their instructors are CAA commercial guys. They also had a range of Pipers and Cessnas and seemed more set up for doing PPLs. ( dodging the parachutes worried me a bit!) They were more expensive but explained the cost was down to them using all CAA set up. Im also told that at the same airfield there is an old guy flying a Slingsby Venture on his own doing tuition but this third club said that they no longer use this aircraft as it doesnt have a type certficate for the engine and so cant be used for training for the initial issue or variation of a licence?

I have been reading up at length various EASA documents and have ended up even more confused!

Can a motorglider on condition be used for PPL flight training?
Can a non type certified motorglider be used for PPL flight training?
Can a BGA instructor teach on a PA28 for trial lessons?
What changes will EASA have on all the above?
If I did hours at a BGA club would it count towards an EASA PPL which Im told can only be done at an Approved Training Organisation.

Slopey
3rd Oct 2012, 14:59
Why preoccupy yourself with the minutiae of regulation?

Go and try it, and see if you like it!

Prop swinger
3rd Oct 2012, 15:40
Can a motorglider on condition be used for PPL flight training?For non-commercial, non-AOC flying, yes.
Can a non type certified motorglider be used for PPL flight training?Not sure what you mean by this. The aircraft is almost certainly an EASA aircraft & subject to the same maintenance requirements as any other privately owned, non-commercial aircraft.
Can a BGA instructor teach on a PA28 for trial lessons? If he is also a JAA/EASA rated instructor, yes.
What changes will EASA have on all the above?Very little.
they tell me they have PPL's and fly on a concession to allow them to instruct with a BGA, rather than a CAA instructors ratingIt's not a 'concession'; the BGA administer NPPL SLMG instructor ratings with the approval of the CAA. You can get an NPPL SLMG from them which will be convertable to an EASA LAPL(A) for TMGs.
their aircraft are maintained by a CAA organisation rather than the BGAThe BGA is a CAMO & as such is subject to the same regulatory oversight from the CAA as any other maintenance organisation. They are required to ensure that every aircraft that they are responsible for is maintained according to the standards laid down by EASA in Part M.

You seem to have spent a lot of time listening to people slagging off BGA affiliated organisations so here's another point of view: commercial flying schools are run for the benefit of their owners, flying clubs are run for the benefit of their members.

Slopey is right. Go find somewhere that seems right for you & enjoy the experience.

aircraft
3rd Oct 2012, 17:51
I am a bit lost with this one, so to throw some questions into the pot.

1: How can a limited company, paying staff who just happen during their working day to leave their "administrative" duties and give a flying lesson (without direct pay) be classed as non commercial operation?

2: How can "privately operated" aircraft have all of the bills paid by the limited company and give instruction thinly guised as a club?

3: How can instruction for the initial issue of a licence be given on an aircraft that is maintained by a network of non licenced inspectors on an "on condition basis" and operated in a "club" enviroment with paid employees- its not allowed for the issue of an initial licence in aircraft regulated by the LAA.

Forgive me for being so blunt, if this is a real loophole in the EASA / CAA legislation then its a fanastic chance for many to get on with flying and making a living rather than suffering the red tape and the cost of intructors getting a CPL / FI rating and the club an RTF (or ATO under EASA) registration, it also also seems to offer the chance of significantly reduced operating costs compared to aircraft maintained by a CAA approved maintenance organisation. It seems akin to LAA owner / operator status

Whereisgep
4th Oct 2012, 08:50
Something about the OP....seems fishy to me. We have nit heard from GEP for a while....?
It reads to me that the OP is talking abut the same place, and I think we are all reading between the line and work out where that is.....
I'm guessing a :mad:

goldeneaglepilot
4th Oct 2012, 10:06
Still around, just busy doing what I enjoy most - messing around with aircraft!!

Some very interesting questions raised in the thread, shall be interested to see if anyone posts any real answers.

At face value it looks political...

cockney steve
4th Oct 2012, 10:20
AFAIK, if you own all, or a share in, a "microlight" 3-axis, or a LAA aeroplane, you may be instructed on that aircraft, by a properly qualified instructor.

I see no reason why the same would not apply to a SLMG.

Having said all that, I'm not a pilot!

Prop swinger
4th Oct 2012, 14:26
Forgive me for being so blunt, if this is a real loophole in the EASA / CAA legislation then its a fanastic chance for many to get on with flying and making a living rather than suffering the red tape and the cost of intructors getting a CPL / FI rating and the club an RTF (or ATO under EASA) registration, it also also seems to offer the chance of significantly reduced operating costs compared to aircraft maintained by a CAA approved maintenance organisation. It seems akin to LAA owner / operator status It's not a loophole, it's the way French GA has always operated, as well as most European gliding. That's why EASA have not demanded that all training takes place in a commercial organisation covered by an AOC; the regulations are written to allow recreational flying training at non-profit recreational clubs.

Motorglider maintenance will either be carried out by qualified engineers or in accordance with Part M, Section A, Subpart H, M.A.803,(a)2(ii).

znww5
4th Oct 2012, 15:01
I'm afraid the third (CAA) club the OP visited has been somewhat economical with the truth. Being new to aviation you may not have come across it before, but you can inspect the official CAA aircraft register by searching for G-INFO and it will show you the ownership and airworthiness status of any UK registered aircraft. Obviously details do change, so it can occasionally be a week or so out of date.

According to that database, the only Cessna the above-mentioned club currently owns has had a lapsed CoA since June this year and one of their two motorgliders - a Grob 109 - has had its CoA suspended.

I am also reliably informed that the BGA has declined to provide airworthiness support to any aircraft falling under their remit which is owned or operated by that particular club or the club's owner.

It is important to emphasise that the 'old guy flying a Slingsby Venture on his own doing tuition' is in fact a highly regarded commercially qualified instructor and examiner for a variety of aircraft types, whose reputation is above reproach. He has been in business for decades and his company should not be confused with the 'other' club, which only started operating in mid 2011.

Flying_Anorak
4th Oct 2012, 18:41
I'm not sure if this helps or indeed even if I've got this absolutely right, but having come from a background where I too used to soar silently (before now also drilling expensive holes in the sky with a whirly thing), I think there is a pitfall to be wary of here.

I took advantage of the cross credits which allowed me to get from a BGA Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) to an NPPL (SSEA) in a minimum of hours (approx 12) with the intention of then further upgrading this to a JAR / EASA PPL. Provided that the NPPL training you have had was with a JAR (not BGA) rated instructor then I understand that I can count these 12 hours towards the 35 you need to get from a GPL to JAR/EASA PPL. If on the other hand I'd done an NPPL (TMG) with a BGA rated or non JAR rated instructor then none of these would count and if I subsequently wanted to go from NPPL to JAR/EASA PPL the hours spent getting the NPPL cant be counted.

I learnt years ago that 'instructors speak with forked tongue' when trying to catch you out and the same is true of some posters on here it seems, particularly those who may have only recently joined and may have a hidden agenda.

Suffice it to say that I walked away from a certain club / organisation earlier this year who had some of the aircraft mentioned above for reasons I wont go into on here, in favour of a far more professional outfit with a not dissimilar name (at an airfield not far away) and I've not looked back since!

aircraft
4th Oct 2012, 20:46
Been doing a lot of reading on this.

It would seem that you can learn to fly on a LAA certificated aircraft subject to strict conditions:

Learning to fly in a LAA aircraft is quite legal, but the following conditions apply.
1. An owner may receive remunerated (or un-remunerated) flight training in his own LAA aircraft provided he is a ‘sole’ owner and not part of a group ownership. (Direct family members of the owner’s immediate family are also acceptable).
2. The solo part of the PPL syllabus can be carried out in a single seat LAA aircraft as long as the aircraft is similar to that being used for dual instruction, is suitably equipped, and the instructor is satisfied that it is compatible with accepted flight training practices.
3. ‘Simulated’instrument training as required by the PPL syllabus,and training towards the IMC rating is acceptable in a LAA aircraft provided it is suitably equipped.
4. Examination,asrequiredbythePPLsyllabus,maybecarriedoutinaLAA aircraft,butonly if un-remunerated. The aircraft must also be suitably equipped.
5. All abinitio flight training must be conducted from a licensed airfield.Please note that this is due to change in April 2010.
6. All flight training is at the discretion of,and under the control of,the Flight Instructor whois legally responsible for the student pilot when that student is flying. There is a mandatory requirement for certain types of remunerated flight training to be given and received by members of the same flying club, depending largely on the qualifications held by the instructor. Broadly this only applies to instructors who are PPL and restricted BCPL holders, but not to non-restricted BCPLs, CPLs, and ATPLs, who hold an instructor rating.

Now it would appear that many of the BGA registered motor gliders are maintained to a similar standard yet training is allowed by significantly less qualified flying instructors for a national licence, as long as that is in a non commercial enviroment.

Yet many of these non commercial enviroments seem to provide a living for the people involved.

I could quote easy examples - but....

It would seem to be an unfair playing field with many blind eyes.

Tupperware Pilot
5th Oct 2012, 05:32
Still around, just busy doing what I enjoy most - messing around with aircraft!!
But not to busy to reply in this thread??? :8

It is important to emphasise that the 'old guy flying a Slingsby Venture on his own doing tuition' is in fact a highly regarded commercially qualified instructor and examiner for a variety of aircraft types, whose reputation is above reproach. He has been in business for decades and his company should not be confused with the 'other' club, which only started operating in mid 2011.
Well said.....he is a top man.

Now it would appear that many of the BGA registered motor gliders are maintained to a similar standard yet training is allowed by significantly less qualified flying instructors for a national licence, as long as that is in a non commercial enviroment.

Yet many of these non commercial enviroments seem to provide a living for the people involved.

I could quote easy examples - but....

It would seem to be an unfair playing field with many blind eyes.

And you have based the above on what???

( a proper PPL not a NPPL) The NPPL is a proper PPL...you still have to give the CAA a large amount of money to get it....:ugh: I'm guessing you are not really looking to learn to fly and just cause trouble....

longer ron
5th Oct 2012, 07:02
Absolutely TP...as a first post it is extremely odd !!

Prop swinger
5th Oct 2012, 08:00
Now it would appear that many of the BGA registered motor gliders are maintained to a similar standard...Wrong again. Look at G_INFO & you will see that they are EASA aircraft & are maintained in accordance with Part-M. They are not permit aircraft.
... yet training is allowed by significantly less qualified flying instructors for a national licence...They are appropriately qualified. The CAA have been happy to issue licences to their students for years, EASA will be converting those licences into LAPL(A)s. ...as long as that is in a non commercial enviroment.Yes. And EASA have no problem with these instructors being paid to fly, so long as they have a PPL & instructor's rating.

squawking 7700
5th Oct 2012, 08:08
Motorglider instruction for a NPPL (SLMG) can only be carried out by a CAA apponted FI (SLMG) or FI.
The other instructor rating qualified to teach for a NPPL (SLMG) is a suitably qualified CRI doing a SSEA or microlight to SLMG conversion.

Anyone with a MGIR (Motor Glider Instructor Rating) cannot teach for the NPPL (SLMG).
The MGIR is a BGA rating for the purpose of teaching glider pilots or aspiring glider pilots, gliding exercises e.g. circuits or field landings.


7700

aircraft
5th Oct 2012, 08:36
Prop Swinger - If I read your post correctly, you are saying that paying the instructors for training in a BGA enviroment is not a commercial transaction??? The BGA is clear when it states non commercial enviroment.

If thats the case then they have no need to declare the income and pay any tax....

The real question is simple - if someone pays a club to gain a NPPL on a motorglider and it uses BGA instructors who do not hold CAA / JAR FI ratings (just BGA ratings) then that is acceptable and legal - if so why do the CAA not recognise the hours towards the issue of an EASA or JAR licence in such circumstances?

With respect to the work on the aircraft under the BGA CAMO are ALL BGA inspectors licenced by the CAA as aircraft engineers?

Tupperware Pilot
5th Oct 2012, 08:54
BGA instructors who do not hold CAA / JAR FI ratings (just BGA ratings) so who is doing this?
Name and shame if you have proof?
Almost as naughty as a person doing aerial work on an NPPL.

again name and shame if you have proof..?

Prop swinger
5th Oct 2012, 09:48
...paying the instructors for training in a BGA enviroment is not a commercial transaction??? The BGA is clear when it states non commercial enviroment.Just because they are non-commercial doesn't mean they are not allowed to employ people. There is far more to instructing than just flying; I have on several occasions been paid to instruct & my feet haven't left the ground. Under EASA, any PPL or SPL holder with an instructor's rating can be paid to instruct, ie per hour of flight instruction, so you might as well get used to it.
...pays a club to gain a NPPL on a motorglider and it uses BGA instructors who do not hold CAA / JAR FI ratings (just BGA ratings)as squawking 7700 pointed out, an NPPL SLMG instructor's rating is a CAA rating, not a BGA rating....why do the CAA not recognise the hours towards the issue of an EASA [licence]They do....or JAR licenceBecause JAR licences required JAR instructors.
With respect to the work on the aircraft under the BGA CAMO are ALL BGA inspectors licenced by the CAA as aircraft engineers? BGA inspectors can only sign off maintenance on gliders & what EASA call self launch sailplanes. The guys responsible for the maintenance of TMGs & tug aircraft are CAA licenced engineers. Don't forget M.A.803 mentioned above.

shortstripper
5th Oct 2012, 11:24
The OP seems a little too clued up for a complete novice IMHO.

I wonder if he/she is just a disgruntled instructor who sees anyone without an "espensive" rating as unworthy, having spent thousand to get theirs?

I wish my Falke was on a permit! It's taking ages and a small fortune to get it transitioned to an EASA CofA! I'm not sure that any motorgliders (other than homebuilds) are on permits rather than CofA's now? I don't think the Slingsby T61's have been granted an excemption as yet? I suppose there may be a few older designs that are, but I don't know of any used for instruction.

I think some people are so up their own @rses when it comes to seeing others having fun at what they consider their expense!

SS

aircraft
5th Oct 2012, 18:27
Shortstripper - was the Falke on a CofA controlled by the BGA prior to transferring it to an EASA CofA?

Do you use the BGA Scheme?

shortstripper
5th Oct 2012, 19:04
Yes, but it hadn't flown for 10 years. Have a BGA ARC in the bank, but it's taking a while for the work to be done. When finished it will have a EASA CofA

SS

aircraft
5th Oct 2012, 19:17
If the aircraft is on a BGA ARC does the work have to be done by CAA licensed engineers or just signed off by a BGA inspector?

Rod1
5th Oct 2012, 20:41
Prop swinger

“you will see that they are EASA aircraft & are maintained in accordance with Part-M. They are not permit aircraft.”

Are you saying that all motor gliders are EASA aircraft? What about the LAA fleet?

Rod1

David Roberts
5th Oct 2012, 22:29
There are few if any non-EASA motor gliders (i.e. TMGs) because they do not fit the Annex II historic aircraft criteria (pre 1955 / 1975) or amateur-built criteria. Therefore they require an EASA C of A.
What LAA flight are you referring to as regards motor gliders? If you are thinking of microlight aeroplanes (2 seat < 450kg MTOM or single-seat < 300kg MTOM) that look and operate very much like conventional self-launching gliders ("SMLGs" not TMGs) then they are Annex II microlight aeroplanes.

aircraft
6th Oct 2012, 07:23
If we look at the Falke as an example, a quick search on G-Info shows a mixture of EASA CofA and Permit aircraft.

The vast majority of the non permit Falkes seem to be controlled on the BGA CAMO with ARC's issued by the BGA. Its a simple observation that some of these are used to provide ab-initio instruction in a seemingly commercial enviroment. Back to my previous question, is work on these completed by CAA licensed engineers? Or controlled and authorised by BGA Inspectors?

I had a PM last night which discusses the work on engine's in several of these by a non licence motor engineer, using parts for the car industry which were then released to service by a BGA Inspector. If this is true, then surely its not a level playing field.

Rod1
6th Oct 2012, 07:30
LAA TMG off the top of my head without looking it up;

RF3
RF4
RF5
???7 (not sure)

Motor Tutor

Europa with the glider wings

Probably many more I have not thought of...

Rod1

shortstripper
6th Oct 2012, 09:14
If we look at the Falke as an example, a quick search on G-Info shows a mixture of EASA CofA and Permit aircraft.

Hmmm? I've just trawled through them and found just one (G-AZYY) with a permit. All the other Falkes have EASA CofA's. I'm guessing G-AZYY is either one of the last currently airworthy to be transitioned or it has been modified or restored under the LAA system.

As pretty mush all motorglider TMG training over here is done in Falkes or Grobs ... then I'm not sure that the idea that training is done on Permit TMG's stands?

SS

David Roberts
6th Oct 2012, 10:22
The EU engineer licensing regulations for aircraft being talked about are still in transition. See the NPA published by EASA 4 October on B2L and L licences:

EASA - Notices of Proposed Amendment (NPAs) (http://easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/notices-of-proposed-amendment-NPA.php)

The previous EASA Opinion on this proposal (Opinion 2009-04) was rejected by the EASA Committee (comitology process) in 2010 as 'requiring simplification' (that makes a change!). This new NPA is EASA's response.

Until these new proposals become law, extant national arrangements on engineers remain in place, including those in the 'BGA fleet' including TMGs.

At least that's my understanding.

As regards TMG training, prior to the new EU ATO regulation coming into practical effect, again national extant arrangements remain in place including those within the orbit of the BGA, approved by the CAA. These are not 'commercial', being conducted through specified (non profit making) clubs.

E&OE

Prop swinger
6th Oct 2012, 12:06
Sorry about that Rod1, a bit of a sweeping generalisation but I was intending to refer to the 2 seaters used for training.

I do find it hard to think of the T31M as a motorglider.

DeltaV
6th Oct 2012, 12:21
@aircraft
If the aircraft is on a BGA ARC does the work have to be done by CAA licensed engineers or just signed off by a BGA inspector?
I believe the latter "signed off by a BGA inspector".

Rod1
6th Oct 2012, 15:20
Prop swinger some of the aircraft in my list are 2 seats and could be used for training re the quote above on LAA aircraft and training.

Rod1

shortstripper
6th Oct 2012, 18:27
I do find it hard to think of the T31M as a motorglider

I tried to make that point to francis Donaldson when I registered G-BZLK as group A only to have him ring to say it was a TMG!

SS

soaringsilently
8th Oct 2012, 07:47
This is a message I have received;

Had a reply from the CAA- the person I have been speaking to is the surveyor who looks after the BGA. It would appear to be much confusion over the subject and there was a meeting with the BGA last week on this amongst other subjects. I have also spoken at length to Flight Crew Licencing.

The magic phrase would appear to be " for the initial issue, renewal or revalidation of a Flight Crew Licence". If the flying is for this purpose then

a) A Venture motorglider CANNOT be used. Whilst it does have an EASA C of A- the engine is a Rollason engine and is NOT type certified. A SF25 Falke however has a Limbach engine which is Type certified and CAN be used for training for the initial issue, renewal or revalidation of a licence. ( this is provided the engine is within hours)

b) Any motorglider which has an engine which is ON CONDITION ( ie subject to GR24) CANNOT be used for the initial issue, renewal or revalidation of an EASA or JAR FCL OR AN NPPL licence. Aircraft with engines on condition can however be used for PRIVATE use only.

c) The BGA acts as a CAMO in the same way as any maintenance organisation does. The BGA inspector acts as a stamp/ inspector for the BGA.

d) A motorglider OWNED as a syndicate could however be used for training, even if it is on extension. The CAA however state there must be no more than 20 members/ part owners. This therefore would exclude any BGA club from owning and operating a motorglider as a club for the purposes of initial issue etc of a a FCL. The student must own an equity share and CAA registration must be informed of the owners.

e) The exception to all the above is the NPPL which can be done by a BGA instructor at a BGA club. However it should be noted that any hours done at a BGA club with a BGA instructor towards a NPPL will NOT count towards a EASA or JAR FCL., unless the club is either a Registered Training Facility or an Approved Training Organisation and the aircraft is a type certified aircraft and the training is carried out with an instructor holding either a CAA, JAA or EASA Commercial pilots licence with the appropriate instructors rating. Your solo hours will however count.

f) All training for an EASA licence will need to be carried out at an Approved Training Organisation (ATO) if it is for the initial issue etc of a Flight Crew Licence.

g) Any person that is carrying out flight crew training and receiving remuneration for it, whether directly or indirectly must hold a commercial pilots licence with the appropriate instructors rating.

shortstripper
8th Oct 2012, 09:54
What about an SF25B with a Stamo engine?

SS

soaringsilently
8th Oct 2012, 10:38
Does the Stamo have a type certificate for the engine. It would follow that if it does then it could be used?

Im sorry if I am no help here but I really dont know.

Tupperware Pilot
8th Oct 2012, 12:03
Not sure where you are getting your information from or where your CAA-person is getting it from....:confused:
e) The exception to all the above is the NPPL which can be done by a BGA instructor at a BGA club. However it should be noted that any hours done at a BGA club with a BGA instructor towards a NPPL will NOT count towards a EASA or JAR FCL., unless the club is either a Registered Training Facility or an Approved Training Organisation and the aircraft is a type certified aircraft and the training is carried out with an instructor holding either a CAA, JAA or EASA Commercial pilots licence with the appropriate instructors rating. Your solo hours will however count.
But I don't think the above is correct....IMHO you can't teach NPPL (SLMG) if you are only a BGA instructor. (if you could then, alot of BGA clubs would be doing it)...
it has already been stated in this thread!
Prehaps you could show us where "online" that is stated?

soaringsilently
8th Oct 2012, 12:58
I agree with you. I think it needs to be a BGA instructor with a motorgliding rating. I understand there are two types- restricted and unrestricted motorglider instructors. Restricted can teach for GLIDING exercises only- ie field landing checks and nav excercises for gliding purposes and NOT for an NPPL etc. And that from what I read is what the above says. You CAN teach NPPL as a BGA instructor, BUT those hours wouldnt count towards an EASA or JAR PPL. The problem I have is that I go abroad often and want a licence that will be recognised in other countries, and then want to get a "proper" aeroplane like a Cub or Auster. Im told that some countries dont recognise the NPPL?

From what I read for the JAR or EASA TMG PPL this instruction would however have to be carried out in an aircraft that is type certified-( whether it has a EASA C of A or not seems to a red herring- ie I am told you used to be able to train for a PPL on a Condor which had a full C of A, but you cant anymore because they are not supported, so the motorgliders Im looking to train in must be type certfied ie a falke, Dimona, Super Dimona, Grob, etc etc which to be fair is the aircraft the vast majority of gliding clubs have and the engine would have to be within hours.

Tupperware Pilot
8th Oct 2012, 13:19
And that from what I read is what the above says. You CAN teach NPPL as a BGA instructor
that may be what you read...but its wrong. Unless an instructor can prove me wrong. A BGA instructor (only) can NOT teach NPPL.

squawking 7700
8th Oct 2012, 14:03
soaringsilently, I think you need to read BGA Laws & Rules (Ed. 17) from page 39 onwards, that details the privileges of the BGA MGIR and CAA FI(SLMG).

If what has been said about Ventures, and a number of clubs have these, then they will not be able to teach for the LAPL (TMG) due to the engine although it's an EASA aircraft.
The Falke, actually, is neither use nor ornament as whilst in theory they can be used for training under EASA, try finding one with a sufficiently useful load to take two people and a little fuel (ask me how I know).
Dimona/Super Dimona - there just aren't enough of 'em around.

Effectively there will be no training for the LAPL (TMG) as there are minimal aircraft available.
NPPL (SLMG) training will be equally affected - because you can't use an EASA aircraft! (The Falke and the Venture are EASA aircraft).
After April 2015 you'll only be able to fly permit aircraft on a NPPL.

This EASA sh!t will kill GA in the UK.


7700

jgs43
8th Oct 2012, 14:10
The MGIR has changed over the years.
Currently the BGA MGIR is an add on to a BGA Glider Intructor Rating and the holder may only instruct in gliding exercises.
The Instructor Rating for the NPPL Conversion from a Glider Pilot Licence to an NPPL SLMG is a CAA Rating although the course to obtain same is run by the Senior Motor Glider Examiner for the BGA.
The CAA rating permits the holder to instruct for the purpose of obtaining the NPPL SLMG rating but is not valid for instruction towards the TMG rating which is/was a JAR Rating.
The two ratings are mutually exclusive and have different revalidation regimes.
The holder of the CAA Rating may not teach gliding exercises as he/she is not qualified to do so any more than the holder of a BGA MGIR rating is qualified to teach towards an SLMG NPPL.

To teach both therefore requires holding both ratings

As an EX BGA Senior Regional Examiner I do have some knowledge of the system.

Unfortunately the title "Falke" covers a considerable range of Motor Gliders. While the early models are somewhat limited in useful load etc the later models manufactured by Scheibe as reconstituted are eminently suitable for both Instruction as well as being able to aerotow at least solo gliders. The latest Falke SF25C has a Rotax Engine while earlier versions of the Super Falke as it is known were fitted with 1700 or 2000cc Limbach engines.

The earlier models were monowheel undercarriage while the latest models are either conventional tail dragger or may be obtained with tricycle undercarriage

Prop swinger
8th Oct 2012, 14:31
Squawking 7700 summed up the differences between MGIR & FI(SLMG) nicely here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/497078-motorgliding-bga-caa-directly-controlled-maintenance-instructors.html#post7450474). See also this BGA web page (http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/instructors/motorgliding.htm). People get confused because the BGA run the courses but the rating is issued by the CAA.

Forget about JAR licences, they are no longer issued. You could fly with every instructor known to the CAA & none of those hours would count towards the issue of a JAR licence because no-one is going to issue one. Counting hours towards an EASA licence is also irrelevant, as the CAA are not yet issuing LAPL(A)s for TMGs (AFAIK.) They are still issuing NPPL SLMGs; the holder of an NPPL SLMG has until April 2015 to convert this into an EASA LAPL(A) for TMGs.

If you want to fly a Cub you will need an NPPL SSEA or EASA PPL or LAPL. The NPPL can be used in France if backed up by an EASA class 2 medical. You can add an SSEA rating to an NPPL SLMG & (eventually) add SEP rights to an LAPL(A) for TMGs. Or you could go for the appropriate licence straight away.

AIUI the requirement for a type certified engine stems from the conditions of an AOC. You don't need to have an AOC to be an ATO.

David Roberts
8th Oct 2012, 19:47
One aspect of the "motor-gliding" thread has got me racking my memory for something that I clarified with EASA sometime ago (2 years or so). The question of what aeroplane one can be trained on to get an EU licence. Before I provide the rationale, it is clear that, for maintaining validity of an EU PPL(A) or LAPL(A) licence for an aeroplane (obviously), hours clocked on an Annex II aeroplane count. This was confirmed a long time ago by EASA and has also been confirmed by the UK CAA. In FCL.140.A the recency requirements refer only to 'aeroplanes', not 'aeroplanes within the scope of EASA regulation.' See the definition of aeroplane, which interestingly does not specify it has to be type certified!

So, now what about hours on an Annex II aeroplane to get an EU licence? I quote from the EU Air Crew Regulation (EC 1178/2011) as regards the LAPL(A):
FCL.035 crediting of flight time
Unless otherwise specified in this Part, flight time to be credited for a licence, rating or certificate shall have been flown in the same category of aircraft for which the licence or rating is sought.
[Note 'categories of aircraft' = aeroplane, sailplane, balloon, helicopter.]
FCL.105
(b) Conditions. Applicants for the LAPL shall have fulfilled the requirements for the relevant aircraft category and, when applicable, for the class or type of aircraft used in the skill test.
[Note that category = aeroplane in this example. Then it is 'class' or 'type'.]
FCL.110.A
(a) Applicants for an LAPL(A) shall have completed at least 30 hours of flight instruction on aeroplanes or TMGs, including at least: (1) 15 hours of dual flight instruction in the class in which the skill test will be taken (2) 6 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 3 hours of solo cross-country flight time... etc
FCL.135.A Extension of privileges to another class or variant of aeroplane
(a) The privileges of an LAPL(A) shall be limited to the class and variant of aeroplanes or TMG in which the skill test was taken. This limitation may be removed when the pilot has completed in another class the requirements below:
(1) 3 hours of flight instruction, including:
(i) 10 dual take-offs and landings; and
(ii) 10 supervised solo take-offs and landings.
(2) Skill test.....
(b) Before the holder of an LAPL can exercise the privileges of the licence on another variant of aeroplane than the one used for the skill test, the pilot shall undertake differences or familiarisation training.....

Again, the references to 'aeroplane' are generic, not specific to 'EASA aeroplanes'.

The text also covers the TMG extension to the LAPL(S).

Unless I have missed another relevant clause, it seems to me that one could train in an ATO on your own Tiger Moth (Annex II) and get your EU licence providing you take the skill test on the Tiger Moth or the same CLASS of aeroplane. Thereafter, if you want to fly something different you need to comply with FCL.135.A

No doubt someone will prove me wrong. Or maybe this has been clarified already by someone else.

bookworm
9th Oct 2012, 08:25
Unless I have missed another relevant clause, it seems to me that one could train in an ATO on your own Tiger Moth (Annex II) and get your EU licence providing you take the skill test on the Tiger Moth or the same CLASS of aeroplane. Thereafter, if you want to fly something different you need to comply with FCL.135.A

ORA.ATO.135 Training aircraft and FSTDs
(a) The ATO shall use an adequate fleet of training aircraft or FSTDs appropriate to the courses of training provided.

AMC1 ORA.ATO.135 Training aircraft and FSTDs
ALL ATOs, EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDING FLIGHT TEST TRAINING
(a) The number of training aircraft may be affected by the availability of FSTDs.
(b) Each training aircraft should be:
(1) equipped as required in the training specifications concerning the course in which
it is used;
(2) except in the case of balloons or single-seat aircraft, fitted with primary flight
controls that are instantly accessible by both the student and the instructor (for
example dual flight controls or a centre control stick). Swing-over flight controls
should not be used.

(c) The fleet should include, as appropriate to the courses of training:
(1) aircraft suitably equipped to simulate instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)
and for the instrument flight training required. For flight training and testing for
the instrument rating, an adequate number of IFR-certificated aircraft should be
available;
(2) in the case of aeroplanes and sailplanes, aircraft suitable for demonstrating
stalling and spin avoidance;
(3) for the flight instructor (FI) training courses on aeroplanes and sailplanes,
aircraft suitable for spin recovery at the developed stage;
(4) in the case of helicopters, helicopters suitable for autorotation demonstration;
(5) in the case of a non-complex ATO, one aircraft fulfilling all the required
characteristics for a training aircraft might be sufficient;
(6) each FSTD should be equipped as required in the training specifications
concerning the course in which it is used.

FCL.013 includes a "review of AMC1 ORA.ATO.135 and possibly develop an additional GM to clarify what is meant by ‘adequate fleet of training aircraft’; to include training aircraft requirements for additional ratings under development;"

Subject to that AMC/GM, it will be up to individual NAAs to decide what aircraft can be approved for training under ORA.ATO.135. There is no prohibition on Annex II aircraft, nor is there an EASA requirement to permit their use.

BillieBob
9th Oct 2012, 16:44
There were a lot of comments from industry at the time of the original NPA for Part-FCL, which did not allow time gained on other than an EASA aircraft to count towards the issue of a licence or the issue or revalidation of a class rating. This resulted in a change to allow prior experience as PIC to be counted towards the experience requirements for issue of the LAPL(A). In the explanatory note that accompanied this change it was stated:
Another issue that deserved a lot of comments was the issue of crediting, specifically the crediting of previous experience acquired in aircraft included in Annex II to the Basic Regulation, and therefore outside of the EASA system. Since these aircraft were excluded from the scope of EU competence and remain therefore fully within the competence of Member States, it is not possible to establish in EU law a system where credit would be given for something that is not known or controlled on the EU level. Therefore, a system that would credit a certain number of hours based on experience acquired flying those aircraft could not be included in Part-FCL.This is the basic premise, based on Article 4 of the Basic Regulation, that the EASA implementing rules relate only to EASA aircraft and so, unless it is specifically stated otherwise, when the term 'aeroplane' (as opposed to 'Annex II aeroplane', for example) is used it means an EASA aeroplane.

bookworm
9th Oct 2012, 19:26
Fortunately BillieBob, an explanatory note to a CRD is not law.

In Article 4:

1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(a) designed or manufactured by an organisation for which the Agency or a Member State ensures safety oversight; or
(b) registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are not used by a Community operator; or
(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community; or
(d) registered in a third country, or registered in a Member State which has delegated their regulatory safety oversight to a third country, and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community

shall comply with this Regulation.

2. Personnel involved in the operations of aircraft referred to in paragraph 1(b), (c) or (d) shall comply with this Regulation.

3. Operations of aircraft referred to in paragraph 1(b), (c) or (d) shall comply with this Regulation.

4. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to aircraft referred to in Annex II.

So the word 'aircraft' clearly encompasses both aircraft that are required to comply with the regulation and aircraft that are not.

And there is nothing in COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1178/2011 (the Aircrew Regulation) that restricts the definition of 'aircraft' or 'aeroplane'. Indeed:

FCL.010
‘Aeroplane’ means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air which is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings

‘Aircraft’ means any machine which can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface.

The scope of the Aircrew Regulation is defined by its Article 3:

Pilot licensing and medical certification
Without prejudice to Article 7, pilots of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) and Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 shall comply with the technical requirements and administrative procedures laid down in [Part-FCL] and [Part-MED].

This limits the applicability of the regulation to pilots of EU-registered and -resident aircraft. It does not constrain the scope of the word 'aircraft' in Part-FCL.

Lima Juliet
10th Oct 2012, 13:58
It is important to emphasise that the 'old guy flying a Slingsby Venture on his own doing tuition' is in fact a highly regarded commercially qualified instructor and examiner for a variety of aircraft types, whose reputation is above reproach. He has been in business for decades and his company should not be confused with the 'other' club, which only started operating in mid 2011.

Well said. Any implication that this individual is anything but "highly regarded" should be followed by an immediate apology.

As for the original poster...I too suspect he is something to do with another Club at the same airfield that cannot match the pricing of doing a NPPL on a Motorglider :hmm:

There are many Grob 109s in military service and also HM Armed Forces Gliding Clubs - they are incredibly cheap to operate (~£40-50 per hour solo) because they don't burn as much AVGAS as normal Group As.


LJ