PPL/EASA/NPPL?????

[xrayalpha]

ps CAP is ADVISORY

ANO is Act of Parliament, and so THE LAW.

[pulse1]

EASA Licences Delayed

I see that EASA have deferred the full requirement to hold an EASA licence until at least April 2018. That is really good news for NPPL (A) holders like me. It probably means that I can enjoy the full privileges and fly CAA an Permit aircraft for the rest of my flying lifetime. Aren't EASA wonderful?

[Mach Jump]

CAP is ADVISORY

That may be true, but CAP 804 often quotes Part. FCL, Which is also 'THE LAW', as are a whole raft of European Directives Etc.

So it may not be as simple as the 'ANO' (CAP 393) says.


MJ

[Level Attitude]

So it may not be as simple as the 'ANO' (CAP 393) says

and, as Whopity pointed out in another Thread, CAP393 should "not to be treated as authoritative" instead us pilots need to refer to the 'Queen’s Printer’s Edition' of the ANO.

[xrayalpha]

and since we are talking microlights....

That is Annexe 2 and therefore the subject of national (ie UK CAA) regulation, rather than EU.

So back to the ANO.

[Mach Jump]

So back to the ANO.

And so we return to two different interpretations of the following:

A Part-FCL licence with single-engine piston aeroplane privileges is not deemed to be rendered valid for a microlight aeroplane unless the holder of the licence has undergone differences training in accordance with Section 2 of Part B of Schedule 7, appropriate for a microlight aeroplane class rating.

...from the ANO.


MJ

[Mach Jump]

So there are quite a few people with illegal licences flying around...

I would venture to suggest that the present Licensing regime is in such an appalling shambles, that, at any one time, more than half the pilots in the UK are flying illegally in some way.


MJ

[Aerials]

Can anyone tell me just how we got into this mess and why is licensing just so damn complicated?

[Mach Jump]

Aerials:

If I started now, I doubt I would live long enough to answer that question.

Someone once said that the Soviet Union, contrary to popular belief, collapsed, not due to western pressure, but due to the weight of it's own bureaucracy.

I think that the EU will eventually do the same.



MJ

Ps. Re-read this post this morning and thought it was a bit depressing.

Life is a bit like navigation. It's no good wishing you were somewhere else, you have to recognise where you are and do your best to deal with it.

Our Licensing system is a shambles at the moment, but we each have to do our best to be aware of our responsibilities and hope that things get better.

MJ

[xrayalpha]

MJ

No interpretation necessary:

"in accordance with Section 2 of Part B of Schedule 7"

is pretty explicit.

If you want to fly a three-axis microlight, no differences training required.

BUT as always, HIGHLY recommended for your own personal safety.

ps. And as an instructor and microlight examiner, no requirement to "sign off"or anything like that.

Now, in the case of a three-axis microlight pilot with an NPPL M who wants to fly weightshift, then the differences training IS required and consists of such training as required to meet test standard (no need for an actual test) followed by an endorsement in the logbook.

(Quite how an instructor, who is not actually an examiner, is meant to know precisely what est standard actually is - because if they did, no candidates would fail! - is another matter.)

I would always suggest, for safety that even a light aircraft pilot who aims to fly a three-axis microlight should do a few hours with an instructor until at tes standard, and if so than a quick signature is not a lot extra.

But it is not LAW.

[cockney steve]

As a 3-axis Microlight, and a Light Group "a" can be almost identical, just how much training is nrrded for conversion FROM "A" to "M" ?

Half an hour to demonstrate to the "qualified person" that you not only know about the smaller mass,wing-loading, inertia and lower stall and max.speeds, but are able to show that you can apply this knowledge to handling the machine safely.

Everyone's busy arguing semantics of CAP and ANO and EASA,,,,,but less than £100 will probably see you with a (totally unnecessary) logbook endorsement and watertight qualification to fly Grp. M 3-axis.

I think it's pretty self-evident why the shift inthe other direction (from "M" to "A") has a greater training requirement.


All this bollocks is the reason I have not pursued the idea of flying.

A few hundred for a dinghy,life-jacket and insurance and membershipof the local sailing-club....bags of fun,racing if you want it very few restrictions.
True freedom!
Bang-for -buck is incomparable. (yes, you can buy a cruiser and gain the qualifications needed to "go foreign", for under £5k)

EASA and CAA can continue to build their empires till they implode, but I won't supply any bricks!

[Mach Jump]

Xrayalpha:

I'm on your side here! I agree with your interpretation!

But I can undersatnd why Ifitaint, and others may think differently.

...is not deemed to be rendered valid for a microlight aeroplane unless the holder of the licence has undergone differences training...

can easily be read to mean that you MUST do the 'Differences Training' in Section 2 of Part B of Schedule 7, appropriate to the type of control, regardless of the type of aircraft you have been flying.


MJ

[xrayalpha]

Differences training, as specified in ANO Schedule 7 Part B Section 2 must be completed.

I agree. That is the law.

So what is that differences training? Well, it depends on what you have flown.

Here is ANOs7B2, my comments in between *s

If the aeroplane *that you - as a light aircraft pilot - want to fly* has:

(aa) three axis controls and the holder's previous training and experience has only been in an aeroplane with flexwing/weightshift controls *ie NOT a light aircraft since I don't know of any flexwing/weighshift light aircraft, but let's make a rule in case there are future development!*;
(bb) flexwing/weightshift controls *ie a "traditional"microlight* and the holder's previous training and experience has only been in an aeroplane with three axis controls *ie all light aircraft and, maybe, a Fairey Rotordyne or some such obscure thingy*; or
(cc) more than one engine, *but the only microlight with more than one engine is the Lazair, which is a single seater, so what is the training?!*

before exercising the privileges of the rating the holder must complete appropriate differences training.


So, we know that aa and cc don't apply, since there are no weightshift light aircraft and no two-seat twins you can go dual on. (Or if it is a twin, you need an hour in the classroom and then off you go in your Lazair, or possibly Eagle.)

That leaves bb.

This only applies if you want to fly "flexwing/weighshift"

So, if you want to fly three-axis microlights, it doesn't apply. And neither does aa or cc.

Therefore, no differences required by law for light aircraft to 3-axis microlight under the ANO.

Pretty cut-and-dried.

The big issue is with aircraft like the Eagle, which is neither (or both) weighshift and traditional! I suppose since it has partial weightshift controls it is covered by bb? But then there are no two-seat Eagles!

[Mach Jump]

Ok. You are preaching to the converted here.

That was the original intention of the ANO, but you are re-writing the wording to suit our interpretation.

The problem is, it doesn't say '...appropriate Differences training...' It just says '...Differences Training...'

If you can't see that that leaves enough 'wriggle room' in the original wording to allow a different interpretation, then we will have to agree to differ on that.


MJ

[Flyer1987]

Well this is what I take it to mean too .....

As you say it would be silly not to undergo such training...which I fully intend on doing with someone with lots of experience, even an ex instructor but who is not valid at the moment.

Its all well and good continuing but of course any accidents would result in a null and void pay out I imagine if not legal. Therefore, I guess it's a waiting game now with the CAA. I shall post reply on here when they FINALLY respond.

I'm glad to see its not just me who finds all this rather hazy and ill thought out.

[ifitaintboeing]

For example, EASA FCL does not itself provide for a pilot with a LAPL(A) with SEP privileges (or a PPL(A) with SEP rating) to fly a microlight aircraft, but neither does it object to national authorities extending the use of that licence on a national basis to non-EASA aircraft (such as a microlight) through national legislation. The UK has legislated to allow pilots qualified for SEP(land) aircraft to fly G registered microlight aircraft in the UK, providing the pilot undergoes differences training for microlight aircraft, and has this training signed-off in their personal log book by a suitably qualified instructor. In this context, Differences Training is used to permit flight of a category of aircraft rather than simply a feature within an aircraft.

Differences training | Private Pilots | Personal Licences and Training

This issue is actually clarified on the CAA website.

ifitaint...

[Flyer1987]

Ok Guys I've now received an official response from the CAA:


There is legally no formal requirement for the differences training to convert on to the Kolb Twinstar Mk III to be conducted by a qualified instructor because you have already flown aeroplanes with three axis controls.

However, looking at our records I do note that your experience of aeroplanes with three axis controls appears to be in types like the Cessna 152. While the Kolb Twinstar is also a three axis control machine, its configuration is rather different to types like the C152, not least that it has a pusher engine and tailwheel. You might wish to reflect on whether being checked out in the type by a qualified instructor with experience of the type would actually be worthwhile.


Of course I can't say whether this would stand if going straight from GA to 3 axis as to fly a microlight on a SEP rating still requires 'Microlight' differences traing under the regulations. BUT having done this training on a flex and having previous experience on 3 axis it would seem legal to continue my training on the Kolb without the need for an official instructor.

Hope this helps those in a similar position in the future

[Level Attitude]

Differences Training is used to permit flight of a category of aircraft rather than simply a feature within an aircraft

ifitaint,
Nice Post. Fully answers the question I believe.

[Capt Kremmen]

Cockney Steve

Well said ! My feelings entirely. Two years ago was my fiftieth year in aviation. Do I understand how the mysterious art of licensing works ? No, I do not.

The incursions of EASA have made a 'black art' blacker. Why the hell the business of recreational flying licences couldn't have been left to the tender caress of National Governments with commercial licensing being administered by the EASA Empire Builders is incompatible with any understanding of the meaning of commonsense.

My sailboat beckons !

[Mach Jump]

Flyer1987:

Thanks for posting that.


MJ