Microlight Down near Kincardine, Clackmannanshire
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you do in a countries airspace in its registred aircraft has nothing to do with any other country. Your license is only there to prove to the authority you know what your doing. If they decide your good to go under certain conditions outside your license rights thats up to them on home turf.
Its quite normal for commercial pilots to fly on validations and for us to be given rights which we don't have on our home licenses. TRE rights and TRI are the usual favorites.
Its quite normal for commercial pilots to fly on validations and for us to be given rights which we don't have on our home licenses. TRE rights and TRI are the usual favorites.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of curiosity (and I'm sure its been well covered else where) - how does that work for things like VFR on top. Not allowed as far as a vanilla UK PPL licence goes (no matter whether its EASA/JAR/old school), but in most other countries, VFR on top is allowed on that other countries own version of the PPL licence.
Do other countries then say that a UK PPL holder can fly VFR on top in that other country's airspace, when flying that other countries registered planes? I had understood not...
However a non-aviation example: for the year after you've passed your driving test in Northern Ireland, you are restricted to driving below 45mph and must display "R" plates (rather than "L" plates). However, since that restriction isn't in the rules for anywhere else, if you travel across the water to Scotland, you can take down the R plates and drive at the same speed as everyone else, even though your paper licence says on it you are restricted till X date. So you follow the rules for the location you are in, not your home rules.
Do other countries then say that a UK PPL holder can fly VFR on top in that other country's airspace, when flying that other countries registered planes? I had understood not...
However a non-aviation example: for the year after you've passed your driving test in Northern Ireland, you are restricted to driving below 45mph and must display "R" plates (rather than "L" plates). However, since that restriction isn't in the rules for anywhere else, if you travel across the water to Scotland, you can take down the R plates and drive at the same speed as everyone else, even though your paper licence says on it you are restricted till X date. So you follow the rules for the location you are in, not your home rules.
Straightforward enough I think.
You are required to work to the most restrictive of your licence / CofA privileges and local regulations. If you are requested by ATC to do something you can't do, you decline (giving reasons why if this is practical) and either ask for, or offer, and alternative.
If flying as PiC in another country you have a legal duty to know what rules apply to you. On long GA trips, this can be a major faff, but you still have to do it.
G
You are required to work to the most restrictive of your licence / CofA privileges and local regulations. If you are requested by ATC to do something you can't do, you decline (giving reasons why if this is practical) and either ask for, or offer, and alternative.
If flying as PiC in another country you have a legal duty to know what rules apply to you. On long GA trips, this can be a major faff, but you still have to do it.
G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its quite normal for commercial pilots to fly on validations and for us to be given rights which we don't have on our home licenses. TRE rights and TRI are the usual favorites.
You are required to work to the most restrictive of your licence / CofA privileges and local regulations.
50A (1) ... a person must not act as a member of a flight crew of a non-EASA aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without holding a licence granted or rendered valid under this Order.
50B An appropriate licence for the purposes of this part means a licence which entitles the holder to perform the functions being undertaken in relation to the aircraft concerned on the particular flight
50B An appropriate licence for the purposes of this part means a licence which entitles the holder to perform the functions being undertaken in relation to the aircraft concerned on the particular flight
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am talking about rendered valid, then they add approvals that you can do under there oversight which is there aircraft and thier airspace and there licenese holders.
If the UK ANO had restricted the license to its original state legislation which most of the validations do. But in this case the UK stated it would validate any SEP class rating so it doesn't matter what the french say. If anything went wrong or you busted any airspace etc in a G reg they wouldn't even get informed.
If the UK ANO had restricted the license to its original state legislation which most of the validations do. But in this case the UK stated it would validate any SEP class rating so it doesn't matter what the french say. If anything went wrong or you busted any airspace etc in a G reg they wouldn't even get informed.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks MJ, that's good to know. I fly a G-reg on an FAA PPL and rely on the ANO to render it valid to fly abroad. It will be interesting to see what happens when I am subjected to a ramp check and pull out my copy of the relevant article in CAP 393.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Brits have been sneaky because even though they validate your licence they then proceed to limit you to the very minimum of only day VFR private flights so there is no wiggle room how ever much your ticket would nomally allow you to do unless its a JAR license. But they will let you to fly a microlight.
Using Validations in a third country airspace gets alot more envolved.
As soon as your in someone elses airspace you have UK ANO and the airspaces "owners" ANO to comply with. It not an automatic right that you can fly G reg anywhere you like with a FAA ticket just because the UK ANO says its OK. yes your 100% bullet proof in the UK FIR outside that you better do your home work.
I will leave it to Peter etc to give you a more infomed answer to that though.
Using Validations in a third country airspace gets alot more envolved.
As soon as your in someone elses airspace you have UK ANO and the airspaces "owners" ANO to comply with. It not an automatic right that you can fly G reg anywhere you like with a FAA ticket just because the UK ANO says its OK. yes your 100% bullet proof in the UK FIR outside that you better do your home work.
I will leave it to Peter etc to give you a more infomed answer to that though.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could always call Tom Hughston for advice about the legalities of an FAA licence in the UK and on G reg aircraft in general.
Tom is "always" approachable
Return Home
Tom is "always" approachable
Return Home
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As soon as your in someone elses airspace you have UK ANO and the airspaces "owners" ANO to comply with. It not an automatic right that you can fly G reg anywhere you like with a FAA ticket just because the UK ANO says its OK. yes your 100% bullet proof in the UK FIR outside that you better do your home work.
You could always call Tom Hughston for advice about the legalities of an FAA licence in the UK and on G reg aircraft in general.
I am waiting until June (?) to exchange my NPPL SSEA for an LAPL.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Prestwick, Scotland.
Age: 34
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB report concludes that the pilot had no flight training
Late last night, BBC News announced the findings of the AAIB accident investigation.
Turns out that the pilot had no official flight training at all, and that this flight was an ill fated solo attempt. On top of that, the aircraft was not insured and de-registered.
From what is described in the report, it would appear he stalled upon take-off.
Here is the BBC News article:
BBC News - Clackmannanshire fatal microlight crash pilot untrained
Turns out that the pilot had no official flight training at all, and that this flight was an ill fated solo attempt. On top of that, the aircraft was not insured and de-registered.
From what is described in the report, it would appear he stalled upon take-off.
Here is the BBC News article:
BBC News - Clackmannanshire fatal microlight crash pilot untrained
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Prestwick, Scotland.
Age: 34
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB Report Link
Here is the official AAIB report on the accident.
Confirms a stall upon take-off.
More worryingly, an 'experienced' microlight pilot was present on the ground and helped prepare the ill fated a/c. Knowing fine well of the owner of this a/c had no flight training.
Report can be found here;
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...SV%2011-12.pdf
Confirms a stall upon take-off.
More worryingly, an 'experienced' microlight pilot was present on the ground and helped prepare the ill fated a/c. Knowing fine well of the owner of this a/c had no flight training.
Report can be found here;
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...SV%2011-12.pdf
From the report:
"The owner mentioned to some friends that he would be flying his microlight from a field near Alloa, Scotland on 12 April 2012 and invited them to attend. Two of them arrived at the field. One of them had limited knowledge of aviation and the other was an experienced microlight pilot."
"Power was increased but not sufficiently to take off, and the aircraft accelerated to a fast taxi speed. After it stopped the experienced pilot explained to the owner that he would need full power to become airborne."
Hmmmm.
"The owner mentioned to some friends that he would be flying his microlight from a field near Alloa, Scotland on 12 April 2012 and invited them to attend. Two of them arrived at the field. One of them had limited knowledge of aviation and the other was an experienced microlight pilot."
"Power was increased but not sufficiently to take off, and the aircraft accelerated to a fast taxi speed. After it stopped the experienced pilot explained to the owner that he would need full power to become airborne."
Hmmmm.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Experienced pilot"
You may wish to read some of the other comments:
"There was no evidence that the pilot had received any formal training"
This is very different from the pilot had received "no training".
The microlighter present was an "experienced pilot", not an instructor.
The "experienced pilot" gave the dead chap some instruction: ie "use full power to take-off".
One question being asked by PC PLod and others is whether or not this was the only "informal" training the dead chap receved.
And if he had received other training, who did he get it from?
There are many "lines to be read between" here - but the lesson is the same.
Wise people learn from other people's mistakes - so use an instructor. And remember that getting a licence is only the start of your training.
You may wish to read some of the other comments:
"There was no evidence that the pilot had received any formal training"
This is very different from the pilot had received "no training".
The microlighter present was an "experienced pilot", not an instructor.
The "experienced pilot" gave the dead chap some instruction: ie "use full power to take-off".
One question being asked by PC PLod and others is whether or not this was the only "informal" training the dead chap receved.
And if he had received other training, who did he get it from?
There are many "lines to be read between" here - but the lesson is the same.
Wise people learn from other people's mistakes - so use an instructor. And remember that getting a licence is only the start of your training.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong here but is this not how you learned to fly the early microlights? Before registration and licensing became mandatory you just had to get some ground based advice and off you went.
There is traffic about this incident on most aviation related websites and predictable tut, tutting about the idiocy of the pilot but he was only doing what most microlight pilots did 30 years ago. Difference now is that you have to have a licence and the microlight has to be "registered."
As aviators we look poorly on people who don't abide by the rules and as Brits, we never question the vailidity, requirement or onerous nature of the rules - we just accept whatever they are.
If we take away the fact that microlights are now in the licenced category and so legally he was in the wrong - what we don't know is if his "experienced" friend checked over the aircraft and also gave the deceased the same sort of training that any microlight pilot might have had 30 or so years ago....
Bottom line is that the deceased stuck two fingers up at the CAA and then paid the ultimate price but I am sure that there are others doing the same.
There is traffic about this incident on most aviation related websites and predictable tut, tutting about the idiocy of the pilot but he was only doing what most microlight pilots did 30 years ago. Difference now is that you have to have a licence and the microlight has to be "registered."
As aviators we look poorly on people who don't abide by the rules and as Brits, we never question the vailidity, requirement or onerous nature of the rules - we just accept whatever they are.
If we take away the fact that microlights are now in the licenced category and so legally he was in the wrong - what we don't know is if his "experienced" friend checked over the aircraft and also gave the deceased the same sort of training that any microlight pilot might have had 30 or so years ago....
Bottom line is that the deceased stuck two fingers up at the CAA and then paid the ultimate price but I am sure that there are others doing the same.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sticking two fingers up at the CAA has never, to the best of my knowledge, carried a death sentence.
However, sticking two fingers up at the common sense of learning properly how to do something dangerous before trying on your own, often has carried a death sentence. As it apparently did in this case.
P
However, sticking two fingers up at the common sense of learning properly how to do something dangerous before trying on your own, often has carried a death sentence. As it apparently did in this case.
P
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difference now is that you have to have a licence and the microlight has to be "registered."
As aviators we look poorly on people who don't abide by the rules and as Brits, we never question the vailidity, requirement or onerous nature of the rules - we just accept whatever they are.
If we take away the fact that microlights are now in the licenced category and so legally he was in the wrong - what we don't know is if his "experienced" friend checked over the aircraft and also gave the deceased the same sort of training that any microlight pilot might have had 30 or so years ago....
As aviators we look poorly on people who don't abide by the rules and as Brits, we never question the vailidity, requirement or onerous nature of the rules - we just accept whatever they are.
If we take away the fact that microlights are now in the licenced category and so legally he was in the wrong - what we don't know is if his "experienced" friend checked over the aircraft and also gave the deceased the same sort of training that any microlight pilot might have had 30 or so years ago....
People say that the aircraft didn't crash because it wasn't registered. Indirectly of course the answer is 'no', the CAA producing a piece of paperwork and recording the ownership of the aircraft doesn't make the aircraft immune from crashing. But I guess as with all these things it's part of a string of requirements which one way or another goes some way to proving that everything is being carried out legitimately.
Just like police pulling over drivers for their tax being out of date...the tax disc doesn't stop the car from crashing, but when the police pull them over they quite often discover that said driver doesn't have adequate insurance, or the MOT's expired, or they're banned from driving as well. I think that if someone isn't following one rule, then there is a suggestion that there might be a deeper down reason in the sense that they are trying to escape following other rules too (unless of course it was purely an accident that they forgot to send off a particular application form).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@tonyhalsall....right on the money 
Nobody taught the Wright Brothers, Nobody taught the Rogallo pioneers how to pilot their creations......leaning the hard way is a highly risky business....sensible pioneers swap experiencesand build up an
EMPIRICAL knowledge -base.....then the regulating authorities decide to take over and that empirical base becomes the starting-point of FORMAL training and safety regimes.
Officialdom has to keep itself in work...you can still teach yourself to sail an inherently unstable high-performance racing dinghy.-not necessarily the BEST way (it can get wet and cold!) but any reasonably intelligent and physically capable person can do it.....unfortunately, the air is not so forgiving and reactions have to be really sharp (or the aircraft inherently "self-righting") in ordre to survive the steep early-learning curve.
The sensible route to self-instruction , is to tap into the world's accumulated wisdom pertaining to the interest in question. Books, when I was younger,-more comprehensive and wider-ranging , we now have the Web.
It would seem the deceased had delusions about his abilities. he was bought down to earth very quickly.
He chose the DIY route and didn't do adequate preparatory learning.
I have NO problem with formal instruction, I do have a problem with some jobsworth organisation decreeing that it is the ONLY fount of knowledge and you WILL follow it's mandated training-regime etc.
License, proving your competence to practice your subject in proximity to other people....no problem with that.
sorry, can't feel sympathy for someone taking a very dodgy gamble.
But I do feel sympathy for those he left behind that miss him.
Nobody taught the Wright Brothers, Nobody taught the Rogallo pioneers how to pilot their creations......leaning the hard way is a highly risky business....sensible pioneers swap experiencesand build up an
EMPIRICAL knowledge -base.....then the regulating authorities decide to take over and that empirical base becomes the starting-point of FORMAL training and safety regimes.
Officialdom has to keep itself in work...you can still teach yourself to sail an inherently unstable high-performance racing dinghy.-not necessarily the BEST way (it can get wet and cold!) but any reasonably intelligent and physically capable person can do it.....unfortunately, the air is not so forgiving and reactions have to be really sharp (or the aircraft inherently "self-righting") in ordre to survive the steep early-learning curve.
The sensible route to self-instruction , is to tap into the world's accumulated wisdom pertaining to the interest in question. Books, when I was younger,-more comprehensive and wider-ranging , we now have the Web.
It would seem the deceased had delusions about his abilities. he was bought down to earth very quickly.
He chose the DIY route and didn't do adequate preparatory learning.
I have NO problem with formal instruction, I do have a problem with some jobsworth organisation decreeing that it is the ONLY fount of knowledge and you WILL follow it's mandated training-regime etc.
License, proving your competence to practice your subject in proximity to other people....no problem with that.
sorry, can't feel sympathy for someone taking a very dodgy gamble.
But I do feel sympathy for those he left behind that miss him.