View Full Version : Microlite Examiner Conversion Requirements

19th Oct 2015, 14:12
I have both instructor and examiner ratings PPL(A) with 2000hrs. To carry my examiner privileges over to microlite do I only need to undergo differences training on microlite?

Also, where should I look for info on becoming an RT examiner?

Many thanks

21st Oct 2015, 06:08
I believe RTF examiner applications are on hold at present although I don't think there has been any info since the IN in March time.

Genghis the Engineer
21st Oct 2015, 07:31
British Microlight Aircraft Association,Contact the BMAA,Sub-Page (http://www.bmaa.org/pwpcontrol.php?pwpID=12731)

suggest that learning to spell "microlight " would be a good start.

After that, give the BMAA a ring in working hours. They administer the system and should be able to give you chapter and verse. Link above.

There is a microlight instructor /examiner guide, which they'll also be able to sell you. Presumably, whatever else you need, you'll need that on the shelf.

That said - so far as I know, to instruct, all you need is differences training - although common sense adds a few tens of hours on microlights at-least to get to know the class properly. Examining - dunno, hence suggesting that you ask the BMAA.

Worth also having this on the shelf (and better still, having read it), which is the book that 75%+ of NPPL(M) students learn their TK from. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microlight-Pilots-Handbook-Brian-Cosgrove/dp/1847975097/ref=sr_1_1/280-9372123-5101759?ie=UTF8&qid=1445414276&sr=8-1&keywords=microlight+pilot+handbook


21st Oct 2015, 08:57
Also, where should I look for info on becoming an RT examiner?
CAA Standards Doc 4 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_lts_Standard%20Document%204_v7.pdf) however; as stated above the CAA are not accepting applications for new Examiers as it seems they are in total disarray in this area.

As a PPL Examiner you are legally entitled to examine for Aeroplane (Microlight) licences but as Ghenghis has said, this is administered by the BMAA and operates to a syllabus, which if you were familiar with, you would not have asked the question. There are more "differences" associated with the training and examining than the aeroplane.

21st Oct 2015, 11:43
Well Andy, at least you've learned one thing: there is such a thing as a silly question!!! :)

Genghis the Engineer
21st Oct 2015, 13:32
Didn't seem at-all a silly question to me.

Person who doesn't know asked, people who did filled some of the gaps and pointed him at where to find the rest of the answers (and how to spell the question properly :E ).

It's what PPrune is for.


21st Oct 2015, 18:28
It wasn't a silly question - I just thought the replies made it one!? :)

21st Oct 2015, 20:34
I think it a very fair question. If one has had nothing to do with Microlights then one would not know that pretty much everything has evolved in a different way. Most of the pioneers, who had not migrated from aeroplanes, initially operated without the need for licences. The requirement for licences followed the numerous accidents and the need to control this new sport with appropriate training. All of this has largely been conducted under the auspicies of the BMAA however; there has always been a small nucleus of aeroplane Instructors and Examiners that has insisted on exercising their privileges, without any reference to the BMAA. If pilots have been trained in accordance with the BMAA syllabus then the Examiners should also become au fait with this syllabus. The syllabus of course evolved around weight-shift aircraft not 3-axis.

Genghis the Engineer
21st Oct 2015, 22:04
The syllabus of course evolved around weight-shift aircraft not 3-axis.

This is the only bit I'd disagree with.

3-axis and flexwing microlights appeared about the same time, and developed in parallel.

However, particularly in the first 20 years of microlighting in the UK, it was taken as a given that pilots might regularly go between 3-axis and flexwing, and so the syllabus reflects that. So, it doesn't matter which you are planning to fly - you learn about both in TK, and the standard checks work across the control systems. For example, the standard microlight pre-landing check (equivalent of the SEP BUMPFFITCH) is...


Fuel - sufficient for go-around, appropriate tank, booster on if required
Approach clear
Wind - suitable for landing
Nosewheel straight
Throttle (Hand throttle off)
Harnesses and Helmets locked and tight.

The Nosewheel and hand throttle are clearly flexwing specific. I've seen virtually no flexwings which ever had a booster pump. The check of sufficient fuel for a go-around reflects the very small tanks of many early microlights.

But, as a check, it works for pretty much anything from a Puma Sprint to a Eurostar.

Not unlike people reciting "Undercarriage down" in a PA38.


22nd Oct 2015, 22:10
It must be the time of night and the last glass of wine but I prefer:

Undercarriage - 'fixed' on a SEP with fixed gear.

It reminds me it doesn't move, rather than presuming it's 'down'. Small point I know, so back to the Rioja!!!.


Genghis the Engineer
23rd Oct 2015, 11:08
I use "down and welded" - main thing is that I'm thinking about it, then on the odd occasions I fly something like an Arrow, I'm still thinking about it.

Similarly the nosewheel in a 3-axis microlight, because if I ever forget to centre the nosewheel in a flexwing before landing - well much the same fun as a gear-up landing in an Arrow.


24th Oct 2015, 15:57
3-axis and flexwing microlights appeared about the same time, and developed in parallel.I agree both are in the syllabus but to someone who has taught from a traditional aeroplane syllabus, the material is presented in a very different way and the exercise numbers differ considerably.

Genghis the Engineer
24th Oct 2015, 20:08
Absolutely - microlights are not just smaller aeroplanes - there's a lot of learning for SEP or larger category pilots in the transition, particularly if they are to teach.