Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

600kg rule for microlight?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

600kg rule for microlight?

Old 24th Dec 2017, 10:05
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 75
Posts: 1,037
Jan,
The French have stated that they will seek to increase the microlight MTOW to 500kg, as that will allow them to preserve their 'declarative system'.
I suspect they would not go for the increase if they did not have some sort of assurance from the DGAC that it would be accepted without affecting the current regulations.

Not all foreign microlights require overflight permits in Belgium, homebuilts are exempt.

I don't think this opt-out is a problem for those who want to preserve the 450kg limit, as Annex I (ex-Annex II) remains unchanged.
patowalker is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2019, 07:13
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sabotage Central Office
Posts: 0
Consultation is published (apparently I can not post URLs till I have 10 posts but a search for 'CAA 600kg Consultation' will bring up the Link)

Link added by mods:

https://www.caa.co.uk/News/CAA-launc...l-regulations/
Slaine is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 04:21
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 1,948
Over the years I have flown a number of small light aircraft that weigh around 300kg or less. Types such as Turbulent, Nipper and Minor. All of these being classed as "group A" in the past. It sort of amused me when I had to be checked out in a 450kg Eurostar as it was a Microlight and needed differences training. Turned out it was no more than a nice 3 axis machine with good handling and visibility but with a certification more suited to flexwings.

The Eurofox situation sums up the current nonsense - two identical versions with differing weight limits and licences - reckon the microlight version gets flown overweight sometimes

I'm in favour of rationalising this sector....
ETOPS is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 08:15
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,669
'600 kg' aircraft to which the consultation refers should simply be considered to be 'Non-EASA LSA' aeroplanes. To fly EASA CS-LSA aeroplanes, the pilot must hold a Part-FCL pilot licence or, until Apr 2020, a national pilot licence with 'LAPL-level' restrictions for EASA aircraft. Hence a national 'Microlight-only' pilot licence such as an NPPL(M) may not be used to fly CS-LSA aeroplanes.

It should be noted that there is no definition of 'Microlights' in the Basic Regulation, the term is generally used for aircraft falling under the definition of Annex 1(e) of the Basic Regulation.

Aircraft certificated as CS-LSA may already be used for Part-FCL SEP (or TMG) training purposes, whereas although EASA intends to recognise flight time in certain Annex 1 aircraft for SEP/TMG revalidation purposes, this does not include the use of Annex 1(e) aircraft for Part-FCL SEP (or TMG) training purposes, such as revalidation refresher training.

Nationally regulated non-EASA LSA aircraft could open the door to the extension of 'microlight-only' pilot licences to include both CS-LSA and non-EASA LSA aircraft privileges under yet-to-be-determined Modular LAPL rules - the scope and privileges of which are already devolved to national competent authorities.

Because a Modular LAPL can subsequently be upgraded to a LAPL or PPL, this could solve the present NPPL(SSEA)-to-LAPL(A) problem.
BEagle is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 13:48
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: West Sussex, England
Posts: 442
Problem I fear is that ''microlight' Licencees - who have not started off via PPL but - ab anitio will stll suffer (us) from lack of circuit adherence in height and pattern and RT too, as well as ignorance of the necessity for wt but particularly ''balance''.
NB. they never have had to consider that latter discipline, as for simplest use that was covered by the constuctor's remit, provided - of course - one's loaded ''microlight'' remains under the MTOW permitted !

mikehallam is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 16:12
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 880
Mike,

Most three-axis microlights are "light aircraft" that have been squeezed into the microlight category.

The Eurostar, with at one time no paint and the electric fuel pump removed, the Eurofox you mention, the C42 Ikarus, with lighter fuselage shells on the microlight... others with wheel spats and cabin heaters removed, etc etc.

For those pilots, the 450kg limit is just a legal technicality - if raised to 600kg it will not affect the handling characteristics of their aircraft one bit (other than if they are loaded up beyond 450kg, of course)

As for weight and balance - I think you'll find microlight pilots well aware of weight issues! As for balance, the design specs are that the aircraft must always be in balance if within the permitted weights. Nice and simple - maybe all aircraft should be that way?

Of course, balance calcs used to be a hassle - but smartphoines, spreadsheets and the like make them easy peasy. Just like computers simplify lots of things.

(oh yes, and the microlight exams are being modernised and now don't bother with balls hanging from masts etc. Maybe EASA light aircraft exams need a bit of improving too?)

Finally, RT. Well, you can only use the radio if you have an FRTOL - so if people are using the radio poorly, then they either don't have a licence (so poor enforcement by the authorities) or there has been poor instruction followed by a deviation from test standards. So nothing to do with the type of aircraft flown or licence held!



xrayalpha is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2019, 20:22
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NW England
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by mikehallam View Post
Problem I fear is that ''microlight' Licencees - who have not started off via PPL but - ab anitio will stll suffer (us) from lack of circuit adherence in height and pattern and RT too, as well as ignorance of the necessity for wt but particularly ''balance''.
NB. they never have had to consider that latter discipline, as for simplest use that was covered by the constuctor's remit, provided - of course - one's loaded ''microlight'' remains under the MTOW permitted !
Not sure who you have been watching but I haven't seen any lack of standards or poor RT discipline from microlight pilots. They manage in and out of Barton for instance with no difficulty or complaints.

Wt and balance calculations (if necessary) will be a trivial additional skill and covered by any additional training that's deemed necessary. We'll manage.
Hadley Rille is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2019, 07:46
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 75
Posts: 1,037
The hundreds of airfields and airports across Europe that welcome UK microlights shows their operators do not share Mike's concern about microlight pilots suffering from 'lack of circuit adherence in height and pattern and RT too.'
patowalker is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2019, 11:22
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: EBZH
Posts: 2,565
... and on the other hand, it wouldn't be the first UK PPL'er that blundered into our little field with little if any respect for published procedures, and without ever calling for PPR either... Not that such discourtesy (to remain polite) is limited to UK PPL'ers, more's the pity.
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2019, 15:32
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,890
Originally Posted by ETOPS View Post
Over the years I have flown a number of small light aircraft that weigh around 300kg or less. Types such as Turbulent, Nipper and Minor. All of these being classed as "group A" in the past. It sort of amused me when I had to be checked out in a 450kg Eurostar as it was a Microlight and needed differences training. Turned out it was no more than a nice 3 axis machine with good handling and visibility but with a certification more suited to flexwings.

The Eurofox situation sums up the current nonsense - two identical versions with differing weight limits and licences - reckon the microlight version gets flown overweight sometimes

I'm in favour of rationalising this sector....
Regarding the bold bit... have single seat simple aeroplanes been deregulated, and if not, has deregulation moved on from the 115kg weight group? Sorry for the drift.

CG
charliegolf is online now  
Old 24th Oct 2019, 16:15
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 75
Posts: 1,037
Yes.SSDR applies to
Any microlight aeroplane that:
  • is designed to carry one person;
  • has a maximum take-off mass of no more than:
    • 300 kg for a single seat landplane (or 390 kg for a single seat landplane of which 51% was built by an amateur, or non-profit making association of amateurs, for their own purposes and without any commercial objective, in respect of which a Permit to Fly issued by the CAA was in force prior to 1 January 2003); or
    • 315 kg for a single seat landplane equipped with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system; or
    • 330 kg for a single seat amphibian or floatplane; and
  • has a stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration not exceeding 35 knots calibrated airspeed.
patowalker is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 14:53
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 299
The CAA response has now been published. CAP 1920, 18 June.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...g_Response.pdf

It suggests that only new types will be covered by the 600kg extension.
There are lots of aircraft flying as microlights which have been internationally certified at higher weights.
Can we assume that we could simply re-certify these types, and thus create a "new type"?
It would seem bizarre to have two identical aircraft flown by the same pilot on the same licence, and one of them allowed to carry 150kg more.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
CAP1920_450-600kg_Response.pdf (666.3 KB, 3 views)
16024 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2020, 12:05
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 1,948
It would seem bizarre to have two identical aircraft flown by the same pilot on the same licence, and one of them allowed to carry 150kg more.
This is the CAA we are talking about
ETOPS is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.