Microlights

[blagger]

I'm aware with an SEP rating you can fly microlights following differences training, can you then exercise your FI rating as well? Or is it subject to the 15hrs on type / class requirement? I'm thinking it is still in the SEP class so no need for 15hrs? I presume it's the same for FEs?

[Roxy]

If you are transitioning from sep to weigtshift you will need the 15 hours just become competent in keeping the thing in the air safely. Forget the instruction at the moment.
Cheers

[Whopity]

You need to be aware that the microlight syllabus is substantially different to the SEP syllabus, so as well as gaining experiences on the aircraft you will also need to be aware of the different exercises and emphasis placed on them. Whilst you can legally jump into one and instruct, in practice it is not that simple.

[Genghis the Engineer]

BMAA Pilot Training (http://www.bmaashop.org/acatalog/Pilot_Training.html) might be very useful - it shows the given standards, syllabus, checks, etc. in microlight training.

I have about 600 hrs on mirolights, split roughly equally between 3-axis and flexwing if you want to pick my brains on the flying of them, rather than necessarily the instructing on them (still sitting on 0.000 on my CRI rating, unless you want somebody to do your microlight differences training for you, in which case doing that for an experienced instructor would probably be great for both of us).

You do need to standardise on microlight checks and know the syllabus, after that a "hot ship" microlight such as a C42 or Eurostar will not challenge an existing FI; the older more "pure microlight" aeroplanes like the Thrusters or an AX3 will challenge you as quite different to anything you're likely to have flown before and I'd argue that you want to spend significant quality time in them before attempting to teach.

Microlight air law contains stuff (pilot maintenance, PtF regulations...) not met in normal JAR air law, and to a lesser extent so do the technical and met subjects. You really want to know this material.

For most of the above, I'd recommend the 2nd and last books on this page (http://www.afeonline.com/shop/index.php?cPath=38_218) which should help a lot.

As a fairly experienced 3-axis pilot, when I switched to flexwings it was probably 30-50 hours before I stopped scaring myself on every flight and feeling on top of the aeroplane, which is perhaps a reasonable starting point for thinking you *might* be able to instruct on one. If sticking to 3-axis, and the more modern 912 engined 3-axis microlights you can reasonably do so fairly quickly - although 15 hours seems a sensible minimum to me, regardless of legalities.

G

[ifitaintboeing]

The microlight syllabus is here:

http://www.nationalprivatepilotslicence.co.uk/PDFs/Syllabus/NPPL%20Microlight%20Syllabus.pdf

It is virtually the same as the NPPL SSEA syllabus with a few subtle differences...a few of the exercise numbers are different, and there is no IF/ex 19. As you say Genghis, no big deal for an experienced FI.

The air law is the same as for all other pilots ;-)

Same, as you suggest blagger, for CRI, FI and FEs, although I would recommend the sensible precaution of ensuring that you are proficient as a pilot on these types before attempting to instruct on them.

ifitaint...

[hugh flung_dung]

Hi Blagger, just to add my weight to the other comments ... a few years ago I did a weightshift conversion with the idea of instructing and examining in them, but having converted I decided that it would take so long to become sufficiently proficient to deal with student errors and tricky conditions that it was not sensible to continue. FWIW I had a few thousand hours and had been an FI/FE for SEPL, MEPL and sailplanes for a loong time, plus reasonable experience on 3-axis microlights and having found R22s easy to fly.

YMMV, of course.

Edited to add: the worry wasn't the apparent control reversal in flight (a complete non-issue), it was the roll response to turbulence, the change in roll response with airspeed and directional control on the ground

HFD

[Genghis the Engineer]

The air law is the same as for all other pilots ;-)

I beg to differ - there are a lot of regs with respect to Permit to Fly aeroplanes and the NPPL which are not covered anywhere in the various JAR air law syllabi. It's not particularly difficult to grasp, but it is different material that is examined in the NPPL(M) ground exams and is important given that a very high proportion of microlight pilots buy their own aeroplanes.

G

[ifitaintboeing]

Microlight air law contains stuff (pilot maintenance, PtF regulations...) not met in normal JAR air law

"Pilot Maintenance" is contained in the ANO (AN(G)R Part 4). I am not aware that the Microlight community have an exemption to this?

Leaflets such as this:

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TechnicalLeaflets/Operating%20An%20Aircraft/TL%202.05%20Pilot%20Maintenance.pdf

have the Pilot Maintenance 'lifted' from the ANO.

PtF regulations and NPPL privileges form a part of "Aircraft Documentation" and "Licence privileges" which are a part of the NPPL microlight, SSEA and JAR-FCL syllabi. Each instructor community naturally focuses on the type on which training is conducted.

[Genghis the Engineer]

ANO rules on pilot maintenance for CofA aeroplanes, and LAA for their handful of microlights are not the same as apply the majority of the microlight fleet which are contained in TIL 020 and the BMAA guide to airworthiness procedures. The differences between the rules as apply to Type Approved, Type Accepted and Homebuilt permits are very pertinent - for example that the rules are different between these with regard to who can be trained on them.

For example a microlight with a type approved permit can be used for training of any pilot, whilst with a type accepted or homebuilt permit cannot. In some cases two apparently identical aeroplanes will have different permits.


The rules on NPPL(M) validation are not the same as for NPPL(SSEA) or JAR-PPL(SEP) are also different [5 hours in 13 months, stamp in logbook from a microlight R examiner.]

And that's just a couple of examples.

In my opinion anybody teaching on microlights needs to know this stuff, (a) because it's in the microlight air law exam that their student needs to pass, (b) to avoid inavertently breaking the law themselves whilst teaching or examining, and (c) to maintain some basic credibility with the people they're teaching. Microlight licence privileges are not in the JAR syllabi and there's no reason why they should be.

Basically all I'm saying is that a JAR instructor planning to teach on microlights, aside from getting current on type and knowing the flying syllabus, should have read through a copy of a microlight air law book. Hardly a major imposition. I'd personally recomment Cosgrove, which is really well written and covers the whole NPPL(M) groundschool so you have a good source of reference for anything else and opportunity to check that your understanding of all the other exam topics is as "received wisdom" in the microlight world and so you're teaching approaches that will not cause your students to fail their writtens.

G

[ifitaintboeing]

G,

I understand that you may have had some involvement in scribing the documents mentioned ;-) The rules are not different and the ANO still applies. However, the BMAA Guide to Airworthiness Procedures and TIL 020 further extend the privileges of, amongst others, PPL holders who are owners or part owners to certify maintenance action which under other regimes would require a LAA Inspector or LAE. It would be incorrect to describe this as Pilot Maintenance which has a particular definition under the ANO.

The rules on NPPL(M) validation are not the same as for NPPL(SSEA) or JAR-PPL(SEP) are also different [5 hours in 13 months, stamp in logbook from a microlight R examiner.]

The rules on NPPL (M) revalidation are the same as for NPPL (SSEA) as they are contained in the same section of the ANO, Schedule 7. The 5 in 13 rule to which you refer is for the old PPL (D) and PPL (M). This can be signed by any "Revalidation" examiner. Of course, a sensible recommendation to all examiners is to know what you are signing for as I have seen some remarkable stuff, including an FAA instructor's signature on a SEP Certificate of Revalidation following a FAA BFR in the USA, and even more recently a licence with no CAA stamp over 4 years old where the SEP had already been revalidated twice.

G, I agree with your statement about needing to know your stuff if you're teaching on it though.

HTH

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect we're getting close to violent agreement here IfItAint, I accept that the term "Pilot Maintenance" is legally specific - rather say "owner maintenance" which is safer.

I've had a hand in drafting all sorts of things over the years, including CAA's CAP733 (which is now horribly out of date), and various BMAA documents 'tis true (some of which are also out of date)

I'm curious about something here 'though - looking at the NPPL website it says that all NPPL holders require a biennial flight with an instructor, but my understanding from what's come out of the BMAA seems to say that this is not the case for NPPL(M) holders. Having been flying on a JAR licence since 2000 and keeping that legally current I may have lost track somewhere along the line, but there seems a bit of a contradiction somewhere.

G

[patowalker]

The 5 in 13 rule to which you refer is for the old PPL (D) and PPL (M). This can be signed by any "Revalidation" examiner.

Didn't know those who signed my PPL(M)A were "Revalidation" examiners. AFAIK, they are simply microlight FIs

[S-Works]

An FI is not able to sign a revalidation by experience. They must be at least a revalidation examiner.

An R examiner rating can be granted to an FI for the purpose of revalidation by experience. As most microlight schools are one man bands then many of them have been granted R status.

This is sperate from being a flight examiner. However, every flight examiner has R examiner embedded.

[ifitaintboeing]

I'm curious about something here 'though - looking at the NPPL website it says that all NPPL holders require a biennial flight with an instructor, but my understanding from what's come out of the BMAA seems to say that this is not the case for NPPL(M) holders

AIC W43/2010 details the revised revalidation requirements for NPPL holders, which actually were introduced in 2008 by AIC then included in the ANO update in 2009.

AIC W42/2010 details the revalidation and renewal requirements for microlight aeroplane class ratings. Para 2.2.1, for NPPL holders, then refers you to AIC W43/2010, which ultimately refers to the revalidation and renewal requirements contained in ANO Schedule 7.

patowalker, as bose-x says, you must be a revalidation examiner to sign a Certificate of Revalidation or Certificate of Experience.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks IfItAint - I followed through all your references, and eventually checked with a microlight examiner to make sure.

The old PPL(D) and PPL(M) holders have grandfather rights to use 5/13 and permission to use the new system if they wish. NPPL(M) holders are on 24/12/1 same as PPL(SSEA) with the exception of a loophole that allows them to skip the 1 hour with an instructor but at then limited to no-passengers.

And I thought that I understood the microlight world! The little aeroplane world is nothing if not changeable.

G

[ifitaintboeing]

It is not a loophole. This is intended to allow those who wish to fly single-seat aircraft to continue to do so, as they would otherwise have to obtain a two seat aircraft to carry an instructor for the 'one hour with an instructor'. However, their class rating should be annotated as "Single Seat Only" on the Certificate of Revalidation.

ANO Schedule 7, Section 3 (and LASORS F5.3)

In the case of a certificate of revalidation for a class rating which is being issued on the basis of paragraph 1(b) of Table 2, so that the holder of the licence has satisfied the experience requirements but without having had a flight with an instructor as part of that experience, the person signing the certificate must endorse the certificate “single seat only”.

Note, it is annotated "single seat only" not "solo flight only". See ANO Part B Sub-section 2, Microlight Class Rating:

If the current certificate of revalidation for the rating is endorsed “single seat only” the holder is only entitled to act as pilot in command of any single seat microlight aeroplane.

Similar wording is included for SSEA and SLMG. I had a fairly lengthy discussion about this with BEagle a while back, because there was no defined method to then remove the single seat restriction. The "single seat only" endorsed pilot must complete the following:

To remove a Single Seat Only restriction included in an NPPL, the applicant shall:

1. Undertake at least one hour of flying training with an instructor. This may be conducted on any Class/classes for which the applicant has a valid Class Rating.

2. Present his/her licence to an Examiner to have the 'Single Seat Only Restriction' amended. The Examiner shall:

2.1 Enter the same Rating revalidation details as for the existing rating(s), omitting the 'Single Seat Only' restriction(s).
2.2 Enter the validity date(s) as for the current rating(s).
2.3 Sign and complete his/her details.

See BEagle's post on the topic here:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/436261-removal-nppl-single-seat-only-restriction.html

I'm surprised that this has not been included in the NPPL AIC.

[xrayalpha]

As a microlight CFI - ie one who has a few instructors he is responsible for - and a Flight Examiner (so ground and reval examiner too), he is my tuppence worth.

First, the NPPL Micro reval is a little different from some in that it is 60 minutes total time with an instructor - so could be three 20 min flights. In JAR land, I believe it is a flight of a minimum of 60 minutes.

However, little things like this is not really the bread and butter of being a good flying instructor. Knowing today's rules doesn't mean you know tomorrow's. As Genghis has show ;-)

There has, indeed, been a great deal of convergance over the years with air law - flights over built-up areas come to mind.

I think the best thing as an instructor is to be a good instructor! And part of that is being able to assimilate and communicate information. So picking up on differences shouldn't be too much hassle.

Flying C42s - I have found - has been a doddle for Cessna instructors. A few differences - mass, power ratios and inertia being some. But the students make the same mistakes.

Weightshift to three-axis, or vice versa, is more "fun" - but many microlight instructors jump in and out of the different types all day.

Never found a problem driving my car home because it doesn't have a stick - or a control bar - or a tiller like my boat had!

[Genghis the Engineer]

However, little things like this is not really the bread and butter of being a good flying instructor. Knowing today's rules doesn't mean you know tomorrow's. As Genghis has show ;-)

Indeed, although the lack of single reference points really does not help.

The NPPL(M) air law syllabus on the NPPL website still refers to exemptions - when were they last used? - offhand I'd say about 1994; whilst BMAA's guide to airworthiness procedures hasn't been updated for 7 years now and still refers to "SLA"s. As other discussions have highlighted, there isn't a single place (ideally on the BMAA website) to show the microlight pilot recency requirements.

It's a sad state of affairs where an argument between greybeards on PPrune IS the best source of information on the regulations. That is how it is with microlight regulations at the moment.

G