JAR/VLA versus Microlight

[ozplane]

I've just returned from the Aero 2003 event at Friedrichshafen and was amazed at the vibrancy of the light aircraft market in Europe. All sorts of sleek 2-seat Rotax/Jabiru powered composite aircraft with some terrific performance claims. A lot of the designs had previously been built to the 450kg limits for microlights and are now being certified to JAR/VLA standards with increased MTOW. I believe the Germans now allow 472 kgs for microlights which allows a more realistic load for pilot, pax and fuel. My query is has anybody tried to get one of these JAR/VLA aircraft approved in the UK? None of the maufacturers I spoke to was in the slightest bit interested in the UK due to the perceived roadblocks put up by both the CAA and PFA. Perhaps I'm being naive but as we are European I would have thought I could buy a
WD Fascination and fly it on the UK register on the back of the German JAR?VLA certification. Any comments or feedback would be really helpful

[Pilotage]

My understanding is that anything with an ICAO compliance CofA from most countries can be issued with a UK Permit if it meets the microlight definition, or UK CofA if it doesn't. JAR-VLA is an ICAO declared standard for CofA issue.

On the other hand, I have also heard that the CAA, PFA and BMAA have been reported somewhat unimpressed by "lip-service" treatment in Germany and other countries to local certification, where ICAO compliant certification wasn't needed.

And isn't the extra weight on the German microlight definition only to allow for a ballistic parachute?

P

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Yes, the extra weight (5%) is to allow for a ballistic parachute. Same rule applies in France.

The weights of some of the 450kg microlights make it impossible to fly them legally with 2 people. The ones which undergo VLA certification generally see a hefty increase in empty weight, which makes one wonder just how solidly built the microlight versions are.

[ozplane]

Thanks for your reply and that certainly was my understanding about the issue of permits/C of As. One manufacturer I spoke to was interpreting the new 472 kg limit running like" Well sir you're a fairly large chap (true) but if we leave out the ballistic parachute you'll still have enough payload for the memsaab and full fuel, so off you go" . Possibly that's why the CAA/PFA think lip-service is being paid to the rules.
But why the mind-set over 450kg. Would raising it to 500kgs bring the world to an end. Of course not. It's a daft rule and needs to be re-thought.

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Yes, it's a daft rule. But wherever you set the limit it's going to be a daft rule...

The top-spec 450kg microlights have constant speed props, retractable undercarriage and so on, and are in reality 500-550kg machines. If the weight limit went up to 500kg, they'd have bigger fuel tanks, full panels, autopilots and bigger fuel tanks, and there'd be no way you could get 2 people into them while respecting the 500kg limit!

Where the rules are daft (in this country at least), are that you can buy a ready built microlight as long as it is 450kg or less. But if you buy exactly the same aircraft as a kit, you can certify it as an aeroplane and have a much higher MTOW.

Personally, I think the factory would do a rather better building job than me.

[ozplane]

I couldn't agree more. The American dealer for a Czech built ultralight I was most impressed with has an arrangement with the factory for the buyer to spend 7 days in the factory helping to "build" his a/c, take in the delights of Prague, fly home to the USA and hey presto 4 weeks later his completed kit arrives in the USA. This apparently conforms to the EAA/FAA 51% rule and I should imagine everybody is happy. He's seen how his pride and joy was built, the EAA/FAA don't have to do much checking and the lucky owner has saved about 30% on a largely factory built aircraft. Don't see Gatwick or Shoreham/Turweston buying that approach!

[Volume]

ozplane, ´I could buy a WD Fascination and fly it on the UK register on the back of the German JAR?VLA certification.´

If there would be a German JAR/VLA certification, validation within the UK would be no problem. But there is no certification, and there won´t be one this year for shure. Dont trust in trade fare announcemnents or internet pages, trust in what paper they can show to you !

And if they told you, the plane is VLA certified (which is completely wrong !) think about what other bull**** they might have told you. Didn´t they tell you this plane has a 35 kt stallspeed @ 450 kg ? Didn´t they tell you the structure can stand 30 fps gusts at 110 kt ?

Do it like the CAA, just believe what can be proved !

[Pilotage]

It always fascinates me the number of continental microlights where the stall speed is always exactly 65 kph.

I have heard "reliable rumour" that there are two French microlight types approved in the UK, both of which only when properly checked are only microlights under the British 25kg/m² definition and not under the French 65kph definition - but the French do have a track record of looking the other way to benefit their domestic industry.

P

[ozplane]

Volume, thanks for your reply and are you sure you could fly the Fascination on the British Register based on LBA certification? The JAR/VLA certification is for the version with a MTOW of 650 kgs which I assume is the VLA and not the microlight. The Aerospool Dynamic WT9 was another one claiming VLA certification and the German certificate was on show on the stand. What is going on?

[Pilotage]

JAR-VLA is a set of safety rules for non-aerobatic light aircraft up to 750kg MTOW. (It's actually based upon Section S, the UK microlight requirements, but more complex.)

I'd suggest that probably they have claimed compliance with JAR-VLA, and as a result obtained local certification equivalent to that used for issue of a UK Permit to Fly. For you to get a CofA, certification has to have been done to ICAO standards, proving compliance with the safety standard to the national authority (as opposed to the national aero-club).

Same works here, PFA issue a permit on an aeroplane using JAR-VLA as a guide; CAA issue a CofA on an aeroplane using JAR-VLA as an absolute and immutable requirement. There's also the need for a national authority or JAR certified manufacture holding the type certificate, maintaining parts release, etc. etc. which is all additional to the actual safety standards applying to the aeroplane per ce.

It's only at ICAO standards level that national authorities reciprocate approval, below that every nation has it's own way of doing things.

P

[ozplane]

Thanks for the replies and it does seem to be a very complex issue. However is there any route forward based around the safety record of individual types? The reason I ask is that I flew a Tecnam Golf in New Zealand. They don't try and force it below 450kgs but openly operate at 544kgs which allows two crew, full fuel and baggage in an uncertified airframe (although it is built on the same line as the certified airframes). It is nominated as an "advanced microlight" and this pragmatic approach has led to 33 being sold in the NZ alone. To my knowledge the safety record is 100% so it can be done. There is a new version called the Tecnam 2002-JF which is certified but 50% more expensive because of certification. It seems like Catch 22 to me.

[Pilotage]

My understanding is that although you have to go through the same process regardless, the better the existing safety record, the less strenuously the BMAA and PFA will look for problems.

Mind you, you could do worse than go and ask them. After all, they know what hoops they'll want you to jump through and ultimately we don't.

P