3 Axis Microlights hours towards PPL(A) revalidation?

[noblues]

I heard rumours a few years ago that the rules might change to allow 3 Axis Microlights hours to count towards PPL(A) revalidation hours.

Has anyone heard if moves are underway to allow this?

I understand its a technicality in the ANO the way the word 'aeroplane' is defined?

Thanks

[Fake Sealion]

It has always struck me as something of an oddity that certain three-axis micro type hours are not permitted.
Take the example of the EV97 Eurostar. This is available in both groupA and micro versions but is exactly the same machine except the group A has an electric fuel pump. So if a pilot flies a microlight version with an electric pump fitted why cannot those hours be counted towards PPL/NPPL(SSEA) re-val by experience

[peter272]

Just think what it'll be like under the new EASA LAPL where flight in Annexe II aircraft doesn't count towards your currency (at least that's what it appears to say)

[Fake Sealion]

What are Annex II aircraft?

[BillieBob]

(a) historic aircraft meeting the criteria below:
(i) non-complex aircraft whose:
— initial design was established before 1 January 1955, and
— production has been stopped before 1 January 1975;
or
(ii) aircraft having a clear historical relevance, related to:
— a participation in a noteworthy historical event, or
— a major step in the development of aviation, or
— a major role played into the armed forces of a Member State;

(b) aircraft specifically designed or modified for research, experimental or scientific purposes, and likely to be produced in very limited numbers;

(c) aircraft of which at least 51 % is built by an amateur, or a non-profit making association of amateurs, for their own purposes and without any commercial objective;

(d) aircraft that have been in the service of military forces, unless the aircraft is of a type for which a design standard has been adopted by the Agency;

(e) aeroplanes, helicopters and powered parachutes having no more than two seats, a maximum take-off mass (MTOM), as recorded by the Member States, of no more than:
(i) 300 kg for a land plane/helicopter, single-seater; or
(ii) 450 kg for a land plane/helicopter, two-seater; or
(iii) 330 kg for an amphibian or floatplane/helicopter single-seater; or
(iv) 495 kg for an amphibian or floatplane/helicopter two-seater, provided that, where operating both as a floatplane/helicopter and as a land plane/helicopter, it falls below both MTOM limits, as appropriate;
(v) 472,5 kg for a land plane, two-seater equipped with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system;
(vi) 315 kg for a land plane single-seater equipped with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system; and, for aeroplanes, having the stall speed or the minimum steady flight speed in landing configuration not exceeding 35 knots calibrated air speed (CAS);

(f) single and two-seater gyroplanes with a maximum take off mass not exceeding 560 kg;

(g) gliders with a maximum empty mass, of no more than 80 kg when single-seater or 100 kg when two-seater, including those which are foot launched;

(h) replicas of aircraft meeting the criteria of (a) or (d) above, for which the structural design is similar to the original aircraft;

(i) unmanned aircraft with an operating mass of no more than 150 kg;

(j) any other aircraft which has a maximum empty mass, including fuel, of no more than 70 kg.

[XXPLOD]

It makes no sense at all. I can understand why the old scaffold pole and spare tent material 3 axis micros don't count as they really were a world away from a 'proper' plane. However, the only difference between say a Evektor Eurostar and a C150 is that the Eurostar will climb faster, fly faster etc...

I fly both modern micros and group A planes on a JAR PPL and having some hours 'count' and some not is daft. Currency is all about practicing take-offs, landings, joining procedures, RT, emergency drills etc...

IMHO of course...

[Whopity]

Just think what it'll be like under the new EASA LAPL where flight in Annexe II aircraft doesn't count towards your currency

EASA FCL makes no distinction:

FCL.140.A LAPL(A) — Recency requirements
(a) Holders of an LAPL(A) shall only exercise the privileges of their licence when they have completed, in the last 24 months, as pilots of aeroplanes or TMG at least:
(1) 12 hours of flight time as pilot-in-command, including 12 take-offs and landings; and
(2) 6 hours of flight time as pilot-in-command, including 6 takes offs and landings, and 1 training flight of at least one 1 hour of total flight time with an instructor.
(2) passed a proficiency check on an aeroplane or a touring motor glider with an examiner, at least once in every 6 years.

[robin]

...don't look for logic in the rules of aviation.

The bureaucratic nature of the regulators means that they introduce new rules whilst keeping the old ones and fail to see the illogicality of what they are doing.

In my case, for no good reason, my aircraft (45 years old and simple construction) needs a higher level of maintenance than a modern Permit type with autopilot, glass cockpit, wobbly prop and retractable gear.

When you ask the CAA or EASA to justify that, they just quote the rules back at you.

In their world, making a decision carries risk, and no-one gets sacked for erring on the side of safety.

[BillieBob]

From the CRD on the EASA Implementing Rules (Subpart B, FCL.110 LPL-Crediting for the same aircraft category), in the response to comment 8184 the following is stated:

As long as microlights are categorised as Annex II aircraft the future licensing requirements will not apply. This means also that flying time on microlights cannot be credited for the necessary flight training or for fulfilling the recency requirements for the LPL.

They go on to state:

A different issue will be the crediting for flight time on microlights for starting the training for the LPL. The Agency has decided to accept a certain amount of previous flying experience on the basis of a pre-entry test within an ATO before starting the training. You will find the changes in the resulting text for the different paragraphs (for example FCL.110.A)

But there is no change in the case of recency requirements - Annex II aircraft don't count.

[EddieHeli]

BilliBob, If what you are saying about annexe 2 is true, then according to your list hours flown in a home built permit aircraft don't count either as they have to have been more than 51% completed by the builder.

(c) aircraft of which at least 51 % is built by an amateur, or a non-profit making association of amateurs, for their own purposes and without any commercial objective;

I'd like to see someone try and get that one get through - all those vans pilots having to rent a Cessna for 12 hours a year.

[BillieBob]

I'd like to see someone try and get that one get through

You only have to wait until April 2012 when it becomes EU law. You have until 19 June to make representations through the CRT process on the EASA website but, to be honest, I wouldn't bother - it's a done deal. Welcome to the brave new world of EASA.

Mind you, why would a Vans pilot want to maintain the currency of an EASA LAPL, which isn't valid on Annex II aircraft?

[robin]

Part of the problem though is that the LAPL will replace our current licences. There will be a direct transfer of the JAA licence to the EASA one, but there is nothing said about the lifetime UK CAA licence.

From the discussions I have heard, this will not equate to the EASA LAPL without additional elements. It may be that some of us will then have to 'upgrade' to the JAA licence before the transfer takes effect, and then we will have the joy of the 5-year renewal cost. Otherwise we may end up flying on a UK NPPL for our Annexe II flying.

What a mess.