t-bird wrote:Why not split it per weight category if you compare Jumbo’s to ZS in Cessna and Robinson category not one of the Robby’s or Cessna will be allowed over build up areas. Compare apples to apples.
They do not do it here (Split), but they do, do it in USA and experimentals (NTCA here) incidents are far higher...
t-bird wrote:
You don’t have to track the TBO. A new engine just need to last for 1000 hours. This will indicate the reliability of the engine.
PIC – You don’t have to track it. But if you fly without having 200 hours then it is an offence. Nobody has ever checked my license to see if I am rated on the types I am flying. But when the dark stuff hits the fan they will check.
I don't follow the TBO statement above?
PIC - can not limit the ATF of the plane... Maybe similar to IF rating, but then would need additional training? Not practical as the pilot flying over the CBD does not really affect the "risk". The fear is the aerie will "fail" vs the pilot. They check the types you fly every year you renew your license and new part 61/2 will make currency on those types also an issue.... Ask willie what happens when they "suspect" you flying without having a type on your license...
t-bird wrote:
This will give CAA some idea of the reliance of the plane. I know of 2 types of gyrocopters in South Africa that has been here for 3 years. Not more than 2 of them in the air and both in accidents.
Again I think not practical. If there only 1 cirrus jet in SA for eg it not allowed to fly over CBD? (Remember it is blanket legislation which I am contending is the major problem...) The eg you mention (Gyro's) will be known to CAA and they will/should regulate it. Again a problem for CAA as they have limited resources so they rather ban all gyro's (NTCA).
t-bird wrote:
Only 2 new trike registrations per the SA Flyers
That why I said in past. Look back at last 10 years. Some months there were 5-8 solo wings offerings alone. Under correction I am told that more than half the NTCA aeries on the register are trikes....
t-bird wrote:
RV Wrote : These are only DJ&A policies. Many NTCA are not insurred and many "incidents" are not reported...
Ok then how many people died in crashes during the year. I am almost certain that the R22’s will take that prize.
R22 is used in "high risk" environment - training and game capture. If they were falling into suburbs every day they would be grounded... There have been a couple Robbies down lately, but given the flight hrs per incident in the environment they operate these stats are quiet good... Heli's have in the past been allowed in areas where others are restricted due to their ability to hover and autorotate. Although Gyro's are in constant autorotation, you stated that almost all gyro incidents are take off/landing related, thus is the risk of it all going pear shaped during a problem (resulting in a forced lob) over built up area higher for a gyro than for R22? Certified helicopters are used in commercial category and are certified requiring flight to built up area's. Gyro's are not certified and thus can not be used for commercial purposes at the moment... This may change in the future with commercial ML licenses and I look forward to how CAA handle that. Hypothetically speaking if a trike can tow a banner what would the point be of being able to tow it over uninhabited (non built up) area...
t-bird wrote:
They don’t do enough. We need to lobby against CAA like the transponder issue. Send faxes etc. If we don’t we will lose our airspace.
The representative organisations (Aero club, EAA, SAPFA, MISASA I know of) did most of the work during the TX issue as well as the lowering of the TMA and "open space" issues. AWSA is also on the prowl and it a free "service". Representativebodies (Misasa in this case) can not do anything unless they represent the majority of the pilots that category (microlight) in SA. Check membership numbers vs licensed pilots. Less than 30% I think.... In USA the EAA, APOA have serious bite and FAA listens when they talk. Not so here and it simply as a result of a lack of numbers. Assume MISASA has 30% representation. Who is representing the other 70%. If CAA turned around today and said they would allow flight over built up area's but need 75% voice from NTCA to make any changes how are you going to do it.... Representative bodies are the only way. It a thankless & very hard job and they need our support, even if they do nothing, because when it hit's the fan they are in the position to QUICKLY react provided they have the support. What they have at the moment is not support....
my 2c
