LSA and Microlight time logging

[bonzaii]

Hi Guys

I cant find this anywhere, but do microlight/LSA hours count towards your total? are there restriction

i have my CPL in GA aircraft, but this could be a great way to log some time

thanks

[falconx]

Most definitely

[Lasiorhinus]

Why assume they wouldn't count?

[skkm]

They count for most things, except where specified in the regs, e.g. 150 Hour CPL

[Horatio Leafblower]

Just check the new rules for flight time in Part 61

...also, 3-axis ultralight time is different to weight shift/powered hangliders.

[bonzaii]

The only reference i can find is by using the definition of aeroplane as a heavier than air, powered aircraft that derives lift mainly from aerodynamic reaction over the wing.

Horatio Leafblower (http://www.pprune.org/members/67964-horatio-leafblower) - do you know where it states it? its probably really simple , but for some reason i cant find it.

Lasiorhinus (http://www.pprune.org/members/66041-lasiorhinus) - because if im going to log them i want them to be unquestionable, especially in a job interview

thanks guys

[Mach E Avelli]

Currently here in Aus you can log all 3 axis time in your pilot logbook. It can simply go in the 'single engine' column along with any other single engine time and I assume be totalled as such (anyway that's all I do with it). I am not sure how weight shift is logged, because in my hang gliding days we ran a separate logbook for that activity.

Only a certain amount of 3 axis time can be counted when seeking a higher qualification, but that is a regulatory matter. I suggest that you do your own research rather than rely on advice from here or from a flight school. If you are in NZ, advice here may not be relevant.

However, you state that you already have your CPL, so you should not be concerned about gaining credits. In any case a regulatory limit on credits is quite a separate issue to what you could rightfully claim as total experience in a job interview.

However, so as not to be accused of misleading an employer, on your c.v. I strongly recommend showing those hours against the type you flew rather than any attempt (no matter how subtle or innocent looking) to disguise it as something flown in heavier or more complex aircraft. Not suggesting that you would, but I have seen some applicants do this - e.g. by showing simply 'jet time' rather than 'co pilot on jet' time in the vain hope that some gullible chief pilot will assume this to be command.

If a potential employer wants to know what a Drifter (or Bantam or whatever) is, explain at the interview - at least it will make a conversation starter!

But flying time is flying time, and in my book the more exposure to different types, the better a pilot you will become. At the early job search stage of life it is absolutely essential to grab any opportunity to fly anything to keep skills going. Chief pilots like to see that.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Bonzaii

Since there is less than 30 days remaining of CAR Part 5, forgive me for only referring to Part 61.

61.010 provides definitions of various terms. On a quick reading, little has changed but as always with our friends the devil is in the detail.

"Flight time" is defined on page 21 of my copy;
"Aeroplane" refers to 61.015;

61.015 gives: "In this Part, aeroplane means an aeroplane that has flight controls providing control of the aeroplane in 3 axes"

Division 61.B.3 (Sub Part 61.145 onwards) talks about flight time and how it is credited for PIC, Dual, ICUS, flight engineer, how to log command time while asleep etc.

Sub Part 61.305 talks about log books

All 3 sections talking about experience required for PPL, CPL and ATPL only speak of "Aeroplanes" which must fall under the definition above.

The Draft MOS has been released and there might be more detail in there, but the general rule on legal interpretation is that words must be given their natural meaning. The intent of the Regs seems pretty clear to me, and it would accord with the previous policy statements from Fort Fumble and the previous rules.

I managed to use some AUF time (as it then was) -about 80 or so of "other instructional experience" - to get my instructional hours over the line for Grade 1.

All of the above with the disclaimer that free legal advice is worth what you paid for it.

Goo ruck.

[VH-XXX]

HLB, wasn't it the case that you did the rules to death a year or three back and determined that the rules said that the hours did NOT count?

But then you found that RA-Aus had a letter / instrument / advisory from the then director of CASA saying that the hours DO count (contrary to the wording of the regulations)..... do you have that letter link because that was the key to unravelling the whole saga? The letter was the lynch pin to the whole hours counting.

From memory, it was an entertaining thread.

[Horatio Leafblower]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if I was correct (...and of course I was ;) ), because CASA and RAAus disagreed with my argument.

CAR Part 5 expires in a couple of weeks' time. So who cares what the rules were a couple of years ago - or last week - or yesterday? :ugh:

I think it's Leadsled who is most vocal about the dissonance between what the (current) rules actually say and what CASA thinks they say, and about the legal protection afforded by the various letters and instruments floating about allowing this, that or the other.

The new CASRs are very clear and reasonably logically organised, and put all the rules for (eg) Licencing in one place with no need to refer to the Regs for some bits and the CAOs for others and CAAPs for logbook rules etc etc etc. It's not perfect, but then that's why there are over 300 consequent ammendments in the pipeline even before they become effective.

I have been saving up to build a new shed at home and finally I decided I could afford the shed, plus the 10% of the project cost required by the Council for the DA submission. The DA has been approved but as a condition I now have to find about $1300 to concrete my (rather nice) gravel driveway from the road to the property boundary. This is, aparrently, "Council Policy". But nowhere was it published and never was it mentioned that this would be a condition of the approval so I have been effectively ambushed for another 13% of the project cost.

THAT is unjustifiable. :=

[poteroo]

Part 61 is going to give 'recognition' of RAAus 3-axis hours and qualifications towards the new RPL. There's already recognition of 100hrs of RAAus time toward the 200 hr CPL. I interpret it as CASA recognising that time in a 3-axis aircraft = time in a 3-axis aircraft, regardless of the rego on it. And rightly so. I'd say that flying a Jab 160 well - is a whole lot harder than a C150/152.
happy days,