Part 61 Licensing - where is Microlight Licence

[Weg]

In Part 61 draft regulations out for comment, where is the section on Microlight Licensing? I see the microlight aeroplane section refers to part 9 but part 9 is not microlight licensing?

Why is the legislation such a mess, and is any pilot in South Africa actually breaking any law when there is no law?

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Microlighting, Hang Gliding, Paragliding etc get their own section, "Part 62". This is because PPL / CPL etc fall under ICAO rulings, and microlighting does not.

Part 62 should be available for comment as soon as Aero Club can get one of their fingers out of the ASSA pie and complete the Technical Standards for Part 62 (MISASA has alreadycomplied, and gave Aero Club completed community approved TS in June 2005 - over 16 months ago!!!)

[Weg]

Fairy Flycatcher

Then the microlight aircraft regulations are referring incorrectly to part 61

"Pilot qualifications
103.01.2
No person shall act as pilot-in-command of a microlight aeroplane unless such person -
(a) is the holder of a valid microlight aeroplane pilot licence issued in terms of Part 61;
(b) is the holder of a valid class 4 medical certificate issued in terms of Part 67;
(c) complies with the privileges and limitations of a microlight aeroplane pilot licence;
(d) complies with the competency requirements prescribed for the holder of a microlight aeroplane pilot licence; and
(e) is a bona fide member of an aviation recreation organisation approved by the Commissioner in terms of Part 149."

But then Part 103
Operation of microlight aeroplanes is also not yet in operation.

There are microlight regulations in Europe, which must surely be ICAO compliant. Why can our new microlight laws not comply with these microlight regulations?

If there is a query on pilot licensing or legal issues, what are the powers that be (not) using?

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Fairy Flycatcher

Then the microlight aircraft regulations are referring incorrectly to part 61

"Pilot qualifications
103.01.2
No person shall act as pilot-in-command of a microlight aeroplane unless such person -
(a) is the holder of a valid microlight aeroplane pilot licence issued in terms of Part 61;
(b) is the holder of a valid class 4 medical certificate issued in terms of Part 67;
(c) complies with the privileges and limitations of a microlight aeroplane pilot licence;
(d) complies with the competency requirements prescribed for the holder of a microlight aeroplane pilot licence; and
(e) is a bona fide member of an aviation recreation organisation approved by the Commissioner in terms of Part 149."

But then Part 103
Operation of microlight aeroplanes is also not yet in operation.

There are microlight regulations in Europe, which must surely be ICAO compliant. Why can our new microlight laws not comply with these microlight regulations?

If there is a query on pilot licensing or legal issues, what are the powers that be (not) using?

As you say, Part 103 is not valid at the moment, and a more up to date and current copy will be published when it comes into force (if it does), for the time being, we are bound by Part 94, Operation of NTCA.

Yes, things are a mess. We don't have what it takes in the short term to sort it out, but its no sense in declaring Anarchy either.

Europe has the JAR system, and I don't know if that is compliant with ICAO or not, but there is no ICAO requirement which requires a country to regulate its Microlighting in a certain way, but our CPL and ATP has to be compliant.

I think its rather a bit of foresight for Cor Beek to have split the two. This means that we can grow our laws in Microlighting a bit quicker and easier than if it was bound firmly to PPL Part 61.