It ain't in the ANO.
LASORS is only advice.
Interesting. I though LASORS was a summary of the ANO with regards to FCL. But you claim that it is just friendly advise from the nice folks at Gatwick house? Is there any way to distinguish those parts of LASORS that summarize the ANO and those parts that do not?
I repeat, my three-axis instructor has no microlight rating/licence - only a JAR SEP.
Well, as far as I understand, a PPL needs differences training to fly a microlight (whatever the UK-specific legal definition of that is). But since microlights fall within the JAR-FCL SEP(A) class rating definition, you don't get a separate class rating annotation for it - just a sign-off in your logbook saying you've had appropriate differences training. It's a bit twisted but sorta logical if you think about it.
He also, of course, has a microlight instructor's rating.
It took the CAA a bit of convincing to put the microlight instructor rating on a JAR SEP - which was in another thread on Pprune - but it IS the law.
I expect an FI ticket to be specific to a class. So technically if the JAR-FCL FI has a SEP(A) class rating on his ticket, and has had the appropriate differences training to fly microlights, he would legally be the equivalent of a microlight instructor. No need from the CAA to confirm that with a separate ticket but I guess if you twist arms long enough they'll give you one just to get rid of you? But I have to admit I'm not an FI, not by a long shot, and I have never had an interest in those parts of the law.
Oh well, the microlight class is a funny thing anyway. As some have said, some microlights are *exactly* the same as VLA/Group A aircraft and differences training is at best getting used to the lower inertia of the thing. But other microlights are so wildly different from the average spam can that you've got to learn to fly all over again.
If I had my say, I would scrap the microlight term altogether and replace it with multiple class ratings both for the PPL and the NPPL as follows:
- SEP(A) with three axis controls, rigid wings etc.
- SEP(TMG/SLMG)
- Weightshift aircraft
- Powered parachutes
Oh, and now that I'm bitching about this anyway, I would also require mandatory endorsements, just like tailwheel, complex etc, for:
- FADEC controlled engines (yes they are simpler to operate than traditional two/three lever engines but the failure modes are far more complex)
- Aerobatics flight
- Glass cockpits
I don't think in actual practice making this mandatory would make one bit of difference for a responsible pilot. He or she will seek training in these areas anyway. But it would be a signal to all that these differences are to be taken seriously.